Ghola vs. BG Memories
Von Bailey
>"recovering" memories of their "original lives" it becomes another
>matter. My issues with Face Dancers are discussed elsewhere.
>
How is a ghola 'recovering memories' any harder to accept than the BG
having the memories of all their female ancestors? The premise of the
BG power is that the memories are part of the celluar structure of the
being in question and there is simply a matter of finding a method of
unlocking them. The BG did it with spice. If it can be done with
spice that means that a method is possible and if a method is possible
others to the same goal may also be possible.
Hell, the ghola getting it's memories back makes more sense than the
BG as the ghola only has to remember that which the cells actually
experienced. The cells of a RM in DUNE would have a very different
experience than the cells of a RM during the BJ.
von
http://home.comcast.net/~redbai/
Trying to define history through the eyes of
individuals such as kings and warriors is
like attempting to define the surf that hits
the beach by describing a single bubble in
a single wave.
Pip
"Von Bailey" <red...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:u3823013efviutdq0...@4ax.com...
I havbe often entertained the idea that Frank intended to have all of
humanity integrate other memory in some fashion or another in his future
Dune books. He hints at it in several places in GEoD as I recall.
Von Bailey
I agree, which is exactly why the DD shouldn't write any sequel to the
book. Neither or them show any talent in writing past a space western
with fancy explosions and fancy irrelevant techno-shit that makes no
real sense. Neither of them have explored that aspect of the
Duniverse and it seemed a major theme in the DC from Herbert's
writing.
bobbyhaqq
> I agree, which is exactly why the DD shouldn't write any sequel to the
> book. Neither or them show any talent in writing past a space western
> with fancy explosions and fancy irrelevant techno-shit that makes no
> real sense. Neither of them have explored that aspect of the
> Duniverse and it seemed a major theme in the DC from Herbert's
> writing.
>
Does not trashing the DD all the time get alittle exhausting.
Look, Dune is about a 40 year old Science Fiction novel which is not
only being printed in new editions each and every year, is available
in just about any book store in the English speaking world, as well as
all over Europe, and has just has two feature lenght made for TV
movies produced on it staring a small handfull of big name stars and a
sizable budget.
The benefits of the work of the DD to promoting and distributing Dune
and to the survival of the Duniverse has been MASSIVE. And the books,
from what I have been able to stand to read of them, are not that bad
as Sci Fi goes.
The children of famous people always plunder the estates. No one
would or should expect good Dune books since the entire concept is so
old and so worked to death. Sci Fi has moved on two generations since
Dune was first published. Between us today and Dune was first the
cyberpunk revolution of realistic pieces and anti-heros, followed by
the present day British Space Opera Renissance essentially produced by
Iain M. Banks but also Hamiliton and Morgan.
I actually think it is good that they have not tried to convert Dune
in to some kind of cyberpunk trash, or entirely rewrite the story like
BG 2003 or something. They have resisted all the major temptations of
including aliens, cyber criminals, police detectives, and all the
other cliches only at the cost of producing generally boring books.
Von Bailey
>Von Bailey <red...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<09q930l831u0sgsi0...@4ax.com>...
>
>> I agree, which is exactly why the DD shouldn't write any sequel to the
>> book. Neither or them show any talent in writing past a space western
>> with fancy explosions and fancy irrelevant techno-shit that makes no
>> real sense. Neither of them have explored that aspect of the
>> Duniverse and it seemed a major theme in the DC from Herbert's
>> writing.
>>
>
>Does not trashing the DD all the time get alittle exhausting.
>
Not really.
>Look, Dune is about a 40 year old Science Fiction novel which is not
>only being printed in new editions each and every year, is available
>in just about any book store in the English speaking world, as well as
>all over Europe, and has just has two feature lenght made for TV
>movies produced on it staring a small handfull of big name stars and a
>sizable budget.
>
>The benefits of the work of the DD to promoting and distributing Dune
>and to the survival of the Duniverse has been MASSIVE. And the books,
>from what I have been able to stand to read of them, are not that bad
>as Sci Fi goes.
>
I think you overestimate the DD's part in the promotion of DUNE.
While it is true that allowing reprints of a sci-fi classic wasn't a
dumb idea, the writing of the prequels did nothing to add to the
attraction of DUNE. In fact IMO it would be more reasonable to
believe that the creation of the movies made the DD's books viable as
opposed to the opposite.
I'd be curious to know how many people read one of the prequels (as
opposed to one of the originals by FH) and decided that they were
going to watch the TV movies compared to how many saw the movies and
decided to give the books a chance. I'd bet on the latter.
>The children of famous people always plunder the estates. No one
>would or should expect good Dune books since the entire concept is so
>old and so worked to death.
IYO. However, given that the DD don't seem to be able to pursue the
'other memory and how it affects the evolution of humanity' aspect of
the books (the clear direction FH was taking it) IMHO it is only true
that the few concepts that the DD were able to pursue are the only
ones actually 'worked to death'.
The concepts that FH brought to the scifi world are not exhausted in
the least. They are simply in the hands of people who are used to
shooting a laser and throwing a bomb instead of thinking about the how
to manipulate power in subtle meaningful ways. They prefer writing
about the guy weilding the light saber instead of the manipulations of
power to get him there.
>Sci Fi has moved on two generations since
>Dune was first published. Between us today and Dune was first the
>cyberpunk revolution of realistic pieces and anti-heros, followed by
>the present day British Space Opera Renissance essentially produced by
>Iain M. Banks but also Hamiliton and Morgan.
>
>I actually think it is good that they have not tried to convert Dune
>in to some kind of cyberpunk trash, or entirely rewrite the story like
>BG 2003 or something. They have resisted all the major temptations of
>including aliens, cyber criminals, police detectives, and all the
>other cliches only at the cost of producing generally boring books.
You obviously forgot about the giant electrical sea monster and the
production of cybernetics in HA and the psuedo-Terminator 3 world of
bobbyhaqq
> I think you overestimate the DD's part in the promotion of DUNE.
> While it is true that allowing reprints of a sci-fi classic wasn't a
> dumb idea, the writing of the prequels did nothing to add to the
> attraction of DUNE. In fact IMO it would be more reasonable to
> believe that the creation of the movies made the DD's books viable as
> opposed to the opposite.
>
Look, many of the DD books have been great sellers, making a good deal
of money for the publishers. This money makes the publishers, who are
business men, more interested in promoting anythign in the realm of
Dune and further any work by Herbert.
It comes to money, if the DD can produce a bestseller the publishers
will see all the other Dune books are a good business option, publish
and promote them more meaning more young people will read Dune and not
say Riverworld or Ringworld or other books from that time.
> I'd be curious to know how many people read one of the prequels (as
> opposed to one of the originals by FH) and decided that they were
> going to watch the TV movies compared to how many saw the movies and
> decided to give the books a chance. I'd bet on the latter.
Well trying to sell the TV I would point to the success of the DD
books to indicate that Dune can sell. Its the kind of thing business
people alway do, they have the attention span of little children,
trust me. They want to see what has happened lately and a big time
run on a DD book will make the entire brand more attractive, to reduce
it to the terms of Capitalism which run everything in our society.
DD books make publishers see Dune as a market and therefore more Dune
books find there way in to more book stores, from there they find
their way in to more second hand shops, more libraries, and more
minds.
>
> >The children of famous people always plunder the estates. No one
> >would or should expect good Dune books since the entire concept is so
> >old and so worked to death.
>
> IYO. However, given that the DD don't seem to be able to pursue the
> 'other memory and how it affects the evolution of humanity' aspect of
> the books (the clear direction FH was taking it) IMHO it is only true
> that the few concepts that the DD were able to pursue are the only
> ones actually 'worked to death'.
>
> The concepts that FH brought to the scifi world are not exhausted in
> the least. They are simply in the hands of people who are used to
> shooting a laser and throwing a bomb instead of thinking about the how
> to manipulate power in subtle meaningful ways. They prefer writing
> about the guy weilding the light saber instead of the manipulations of
> power to get him there.
>
One of the things I always liked about Dune was that it clearly had
such a small impact on other SF authors and reamins something very
singular to Herbert. The Duniverse, along with the Culture of Banks,
is a one time invention, first of Herbert and than pulled along by the
DD.
If I look at Foundation, I can see hundreds of spin off novels by
other authors, including much of Dune I might say. If I love at
Cyberpunk I see the same formulas again and again in the hands of many
writers, but Herbert produced something pretty unique and few people
have been able to work with it, including the DD or, for that matter,
Herbert at times. Sometimes the original Dune books are really aweful
and confused as well.
> >Sci Fi has moved on two generations since
> >Dune was first published. Between us today and Dune was first the
> >cyberpunk revolution of realistic pieces and anti-heros, followed by
> >the present day British Space Opera Renissance essentially produced by
> >Iain M. Banks but also Hamiliton and Morgan.
> >
> >I actually think it is good that they have not tried to convert Dune
> >in to some kind of cyberpunk trash, or entirely rewrite the story like
> >BG 2003 or something. They have resisted all the major temptations of
> >including aliens, cyber criminals, police detectives, and all the
> >other cliches only at the cost of producing generally boring books.
>
> You obviously forgot about the giant electrical sea monster and the
> production of cybernetics in HA and the psuedo-Terminator 3 world of
> BJ.
>
Well I have not read the DD as closely as you clearly, and that
probably accounts for my lack of anger at them.
In HA certainly there were some elements of post dune fads, but the
overall story line is clearly still there. They have not utterly
changed the entire thing, thats my point.
rici...@hotmail.com
> >Gholas as simple clones is no problem, of course. Once they start
> >"recovering" memories of their "original lives" it becomes another
> >matter. My issues with Face Dancers are discussed elsewhere.
> >
> How is a ghola 'recovering memories' any harder to accept than the BG
> having the memories of all their female ancestors? The premise of the
> BG power is that the memories are part of the celluar structure of the
> being in question and there is simply a matter of finding a method of
> unlocking them. The BG did it with spice. If it can be done with
> spice that means that a method is possible and if a method is possible
> others to the same goal may also be possible.
>
> Hell, the ghola getting it's memories back makes more sense than the
> BG as the ghola only has to remember that which the cells actually
> experienced. The cells of a RM in DUNE would have a very different
> experience than the cells of a RM during the BJ.
>
I've read some articles about the regression hypnosis and a possible
link to genetic memories. Some people believe that under hypnotic
influence, they would see their own past lifes, when indeed, they are
looking to the memories of forefathers. But, all in all, it is not
official in the scientific community. Genes are not affected by the
external environment, so, the Herbert view is pseudoscience.
JWMeritt
>I've read some articles about the regression hypnosis and a possible
>link to genetic memories. Some people believe that under hypnotic
>influence, they would see their own past lifes, when indeed, they are
>looking to the memories of forefathers. But, all in all, it is not
>official in the scientific community.
Or even if there ARE past lives, or if these are just false memories.
>Genes are not affected by the
>external environment, so, the Herbert view is pseudoscience.
See also: fiction.
..........................................................................
..........................................
http://profiles.yahoo.com/jwmeritt and http://hometown.aol.com/jwmeritt/
James W. Meritt, CISSP, CISA
Von Bailey
Which explains why I said "makes more sense" instead of something that
reflects a definate reality. I happen to believe (when not submerged
into good scifi or fiction) that environment is more relevant to human
memory than genes but the reverse concept makes a great book like DUNE
so I am willing to suspend reality while reading.
Von Bailey
>Von Bailey <red...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<10ln30tbtd9eqntad...@4ax.com>...
>
>> I think you overestimate the DD's part in the promotion of DUNE.
>> While it is true that allowing reprints of a sci-fi classic wasn't a
>> dumb idea, the writing of the prequels did nothing to add to the
>> attraction of DUNE. In fact IMO it would be more reasonable to
>> believe that the creation of the movies made the DD's books viable as
>> opposed to the opposite.
>>
>
>Look, many of the DD books have been great sellers, making a good deal
>of money for the publishers. This money makes the publishers, who are
>business men, more interested in promoting anythign in the realm of
>Dune and further any work by Herbert.
>
>It comes to money, if the DD can produce a bestseller the publishers
>will see all the other Dune books are a good business option, publish
>and promote them more meaning more young people will read Dune and not
>say Riverworld or Ringworld or other books from that time.
>
I never said that they couldn't produce books that make a lot of
money. But I also don't think that this is a measure of good writing.
>
>> I'd be curious to know how many people read one of the prequels (as
>> opposed to one of the originals by FH) and decided that they were
>> going to watch the TV movies compared to how many saw the movies and
>> decided to give the books a chance. I'd bet on the latter.
>
>
>Well trying to sell the TV I would point to the success of the DD
>books to indicate that Dune can sell. Its the kind of thing business
>people alway do, they have the attention span of little children,
>trust me. They want to see what has happened lately and a big time
>run on a DD book will make the entire brand more attractive, to reduce
>it to the terms of Capitalism which run everything in our society.
>
>DD books make publishers see Dune as a market and therefore more Dune
>books find there way in to more book stores, from there they find
>their way in to more second hand shops, more libraries, and more
>minds.
>
Which IMO is unfortunate. I have no problem with them writing
non-DUNE books but to bastardize great writing simply for the sake of
money is not a measure of good writing but marketable writing. They
are two different things.
I have never found the DUNE books to be either awful or confused. But
then I have read them many times.
>
>> >Sci Fi has moved on two generations since
>> >Dune was first published. Between us today and Dune was first the
>> >cyberpunk revolution of realistic pieces and anti-heros, followed by
>> >the present day British Space Opera Renissance essentially produced by
>> >Iain M. Banks but also Hamiliton and Morgan.
>> >
>> >I actually think it is good that they have not tried to convert Dune
>> >in to some kind of cyberpunk trash, or entirely rewrite the story like
>> >BG 2003 or something. They have resisted all the major temptations of
>> >including aliens, cyber criminals, police detectives, and all the
>> >other cliches only at the cost of producing generally boring books.
>>
>> You obviously forgot about the giant electrical sea monster and the
>> production of cybernetics in HA and the psuedo-Terminator 3 world of
>> BJ.
>
>Well I have not read the DD as closely as you clearly, and that
>probably accounts for my lack of anger at them.
>
You confuse irratation for anger. I am not in the least 'angry' at
the DD.
>In HA certainly there were some elements of post dune fads, but the
>overall story line is clearly still there. They have not utterly
>changed the entire thing, thats my point.
And the fact that it doesn't appear they made much of an attempt to
keep in continuity with the original is mine.
bobbyhaqq
> I never said that they couldn't produce books that make a lot of
> money. But I also don't think that this is a measure of good writing.
>
Well the way our world works is that unless publishers can see that a
brand or product will sell they won't put many resources behind it,
and unless something is new the public won't pay much attention. The
bestsellers from the DD have promoted the access and public for
Herbert's books. That is pretty good.
> >DD books make publishers see Dune as a market and therefore more Dune
> >books find there way in to more book stores, from there they find
> >their way in to more second hand shops, more libraries, and more
> >minds.
> >
> Which IMO is unfortunate. I have no problem with them writing
> non-DUNE books but to bastardize great writing simply for the sake of
> money is not a measure of good writing but marketable writing. They
> are two different things.
>
Well that the way it works. Money talks you know. Herbert himself
would not have written 6 Dune books if they were not funding his house
in Hawii. At that time long series, unlike today, were frowned upon.
Perhaps you younger people can't remember how much slack Herbert got
from other Sci Fi writers for making more and more Dune books. In the
1980s that was just starting. Notice how long Asimov waited to make
his fourth Foundation book.
Well today the series is respected and cashing in on a brand is
considered normal. No one complains about more Dune books, they don't
like the ones they are getting. Well in 1983 people complained about
more Dune books, pretty vocally. A clash between authors was pretty
open with purists wanting to see writing producing more new concepts
vs the market which in time pushed everyone in to long series. Today
this all seems kind of silly to us by Asimov's magazine was full of
articles about the threat that the series possed to creative SF.
So at the time, when Herbert made Dune book 6, after destroying the
planet in book 5, there was radical outcries that he was a sell out.
As I recall he got a great deal of heat for it from other SF writers,
and even from a large fan base which believed he was milking the
brand.
Who knows, given enough year maybe the DD with hire a third and become
the DT and produce a really good Dune book, though I still hold that
the themes of Dume are both to singular to Herbert and too dated for
this too happen. It would be like trying to write a new Verne book,
SF moves pretty fast.
> >One of the things I always liked about Dune was that it clearly had
> >such a small impact on other SF authors and reamins something very
> >singular to Herbert. The Duniverse, along with the Culture of Banks,
> >is a one time invention, first of Herbert and than pulled along by the
> >DD.
> >
> >If I look at Foundation, I can see hundreds of spin off novels by
> >other authors, including much of Dune I might say. If I love at
This should have said look, a Freudian slip I imagine I don't want to
look at to long.
> >Cyberpunk I see the same formulas again and again in the hands of many
> >writers, but Herbert produced something pretty unique and few people
> >have been able to work with it, including the DD or, for that matter,
> >Herbert at times. Sometimes the original Dune books are really aweful
> >and confused as well.
> >
> I have never found the DUNE books to be either awful or confused. But
> then I have read them many times.
Well so have I. Parts of DM, HD, and CH:D are pretty weak compared to
Dune and GEofD, which I feel to be the best.
Sometimes the intellectual abstraction stuff becomes almost
meaningless. I was reading HD last year and I read a section to my
wife a couple times and she assured me the text had no clear meaning,
I could not find one either. They tended to ramble.
The works are far from perfect. Don't get me wrong, I find Herberts
oddness, his willingness to go out there are ramble wonderful, perhaps
his best feature. I love the way Dune(s) fails when it fails.
> >Well I have not read the DD as closely as you clearly, and that
> >probably accounts for my lack of anger at them.
> >
> You confuse irratation for anger. I am not in the least 'angry' at
> the DD.
>
Well irritation and anger are close emotions and this is text and all.
> >In HA certainly there were some elements of post dune fads, but the
> >overall story line is clearly still there. They have not utterly
> >changed the entire thing, thats my point.
>
> And the fact that it doesn't appear they made much of an attempt to
> keep in continuity with the original is mine.
>
There I would say no you are wrong. They did keep to the Dune book,
with a few clear inconsistances, but they stayed to the time line and
character flow.
They could have entirely changed it, introduced aliens, turned the
Guild in high flying adventures. They could have turned the BT from a
religious group to a munch of cyberpunks.
Herbert gives us a universe of cast memebers we don't see anything
like. I have to be honest and say I don't find Herbert to be the best
SF writer and I laugh sometimes at some of the books in the series,
and yet I still love them. Its not Iain M Banks or Verne but I love
these 6 books as true classic of American Sci Fi because they invent a
world in which technology, politics, and life are treated in an
entirely different way than in any other Sci Fi book.
In the end the DD have been true to the vision is not the creativity.
What I have read of the recent BJ books leaves me with little interest
to buy them, but I am happy that Dune is so common I was able to find
the entire series within a week for under 10 dollars for all. I would
love to see more people read Dune simply because its a strange shock
therapy, it makes you see things a bit differently.
Von Bailey
>Von Bailey <red...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<10ln30tbtd9eqntad...@4ax.com>...
>
>> I think you overestimate the DD's part in the promotion of DUNE.
>> While it is true that allowing reprints of a sci-fi classic wasn't a
>> dumb idea, the writing of the prequels did nothing to add to the
>> attraction of DUNE. In fact IMO it would be more reasonable to
>> believe that the creation of the movies made the DD's books viable as
>> opposed to the opposite.
>>
>
>Look, many of the DD books have been great sellers, making a good deal
>of money for the publishers. This money makes the publishers, who are
>business men, more interested in promoting anythign in the realm of
>Dune and further any work by Herbert.
>
Which is not a comment on how well the books are written in the least.
>It comes to money, if the DD can produce a bestseller the publishers
>will see all the other Dune books are a good business option, publish
>and promote them more meaning more young people will read Dune and not
>say Riverworld or Ringworld or other books from that time.
>
Or they might first pick up HA and read it, notice that it's not any
better than a run of the mill Star Wars novel and not read any of the
original series because the first book they read with DUNE on it was
nothing special.
>
>
>> I'd be curious to know how many people read one of the prequels (as
>> opposed to one of the originals by FH) and decided that they were
>> going to watch the TV movies compared to how many saw the movies and
>> decided to give the books a chance. I'd bet on the latter.
>
>Well trying to sell the TV I would point to the success of the DD
>books to indicate that Dune can sell. Its the kind of thing business
>people alway do, they have the attention span of little children,
>trust me. They want to see what has happened lately and a big time
>run on a DD book will make the entire brand more attractive, to reduce
>it to the terms of Capitalism which run everything in our society.
>
Well I see where our difference of opinion lies. I don't agree that
capitalism runs everything in our society. It certainly isn't a
metric for the esoteric value of writing a good novel as opposed to a
poor one.
>DD books make publishers see Dune as a market and therefore more Dune
>books find there way in to more book stores, from there they find
>their way in to more second hand shops, more libraries, and more
>minds.
>
DUNE was doing that anyway. I first read it almost twenty years after
it had been written and I was reading a new edition in paperback.
Publishers saw the value in reprinting DUNE regardless of whether or
not new books were written long before the DD decided to do anything
about it.
bobbyhaqq
> >Look, many of the DD books have been great sellers, making a good deal
> >of money for the publishers. This money makes the publishers, who are
> >business men, more interested in promoting anythign in the realm of
> >Dune and further any work by Herbert.
> >
> Which is not a comment on how well the books are written in the least.
Which sadly on this planet has very little to do with the survival of
a book over time.
How long have you been reading Sci Fi? I started around 1982, which
is only 22 years ago. So many of the books which were considered Earth
Shattering 20 years ago can not been found anymore. Sci Fi generally
eats its young and anything that keeps a couple of books in
publication despite the marketplaces natural desire for the new all
the time is great.
> >It comes to money, if the DD can produce a bestseller the publishers
> >will see all the other Dune books are a good business option, publish
> >and promote them more meaning more young people will read Dune and not
> >say Riverworld or Ringworld or other books from that time.
> >
> Or they might first pick up HA and read it, notice that it's not any
> better than a run of the mill Star Wars novel and not read any of the
> original series because the first book they read with DUNE on it was
> nothing special.
>
Well that has not seemed to have happened.
I have actually read HA and it is better than the run of the mill Star
Wars novel only because of the Duniverse inside it is better than
they. HA is not a great piece of Sci Fi and its a joke compared to
the new Space Opera Renissance coming out of the UK, but it is far
from the worst Sci Fi book ever written.
> Well I see where our difference of opinion lies. I don't agree that
> capitalism runs everything in our society. It certainly isn't a
> metric for the esoteric value of writing a good novel as opposed to a
> poor one.
>
Not it is not, it is the life blood that makes books survive or die.
> >DD books make publishers see Dune as a market and therefore more Dune
> DUNE was doing that anyway. I first read it almost twenty years after
> it had been written and I was reading a new edition in paperback.
> Publishers saw the value in reprinting DUNE regardless of whether or
> not new books were written long before the DD decided to do anything
> about it.
>
Well at the very least you can accept that the DD have not hurt says
of Herbert's original books?
Von Bailey
>Von Bailey <red...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<ji0q30lfp3vjktbj0...@4ax.com>...
>
>
>> I never said that they couldn't produce books that make a lot of
>> money. But I also don't think that this is a measure of good writing.
>>
>
>Well the way our world works is that unless publishers can see that a
>brand or product will sell they won't put many resources behind it,
>and unless something is new the public won't pay much attention.
How does that explain the continued reprinting of books like Dune and
the Foundation Trilogy. Both more than 40 years old and still being
reprinted even before the DD wrote any version. To assume that the
interest in the original series is dependent on the new books by the
DD is to ignore the success of Dune prior to the introduction of the
prequels.
>The
>bestsellers from the DD have promoted the access and public for
>Herbert's books. That is pretty good.
>
That assumes it was needed. There was nothing to imply that given
that there were reprints of the books prior to the DD writing any
version.
>
>> >DD books make publishers see Dune as a market and therefore more Dune
>> >books find there way in to more book stores, from there they find
>> >their way in to more second hand shops, more libraries, and more
>> >minds.
>> >
>> Which IMO is unfortunate. I have no problem with them writing
>> non-DUNE books but to bastardize great writing simply for the sake of
>> money is not a measure of good writing but marketable writing. They
>> are two different things.
>>
>
>Well that the way it works. Money talks you know. Herbert himself
>would not have written 6 Dune books if they were not funding his house
>in Hawii. At that time long series, unlike today, were frowned upon.
Frowned upon by who? I had and still have no problem with series and
given that by your own words it was a best an irrelevant point given
the success of series since then.
>Perhaps you younger people can't remember how much slack Herbert got
>from other Sci Fi writers for making more and more Dune books. In the
>1980s that was just starting. Notice how long Asimov waited to make
>his fourth Foundation book.
>
I don't know what you mean by 'younger people' but I have been around
for some time and I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't
remember anyone of import criticizing the production of more Dune
books.
>Well today the series is respected and cashing in on a brand is
>considered normal. No one complains about more Dune books, they don't
>like the ones they are getting.
...because it is bad writing.
>Well in 1983 people complained about
>more Dune books, pretty vocally.
Something that you claim but I don't remember and I was in adulthood
(late 20's) at that time reading lots of scifi as it is my preferred
reading material. I don't remember reading anything about people
complaining about more Dune books. In fact given that they were
published, that seems to contradict your position.
> A clash between authors was pretty
>open with purists wanting to see writing producing more new concepts
>vs the market which in time pushed everyone in to long series. Today
>this all seems kind of silly to us by Asimov's magazine was full of
>articles about the threat that the series possed to creative SF.
>
A clash between authors? So they wanted their 'new ideas' published
instead of Herberts? Sounds like jealousy more than any philosophical
debate on the value of the writers skills to the field.
>So at the time, when Herbert made Dune book 6, after destroying the
>planet in book 5, there was radical outcries that he was a sell out.
By who for what?
>As I recall he got a great deal of heat for it from other SF writers,
>and even from a large fan base which believed he was milking the
>brand.
>
...and yet still continued to purchase the books because even though
some disguntled people may have been complaining it was still great
writing, contrary to the prequels.
>Who knows, given enough year maybe the DD with hire a third and become
>the DT and produce a really good Dune book, though I still hold that
>the themes of Dume are both to singular to Herbert and too dated for
>this too happen. It would be like trying to write a new Verne book,
>SF moves pretty fast.
>
But good writing is universal and last for years after the death of
the authors as is the case with both Verne and Herbert.
>
>> >In HA certainly there were some elements of post dune fads, but the
>> >overall story line is clearly still there. They have not utterly
>> >changed the entire thing, thats my point.
>>
>> And the fact that it doesn't appear they made much of an attempt to
>> keep in continuity with the original is mine.
>>
>
>There I would say no you are wrong. They did keep to the Dune book,
>with a few clear inconsistances, but they stayed to the time line and
>character flow.
>
"[A] few clear inconsistances" infers that changes were dramatic
otherwise the 'inconsistances' wouldn't be clear.
>They could have entirely changed it, introduced aliens, turned the
>Guild in high flying adventures. They could have turned the BT from a
>religious group to a munch of cyberpunks.
>
As you said, you have not read the prequels so you don't know. The
ones that I have read are not "Duneish" in the least. The use the
same characters, sure, but what they do is nothing like the actions of
the same characters in the original books.
Von Bailey
>Von Bailey <red...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<kmhv30hf7il2jah10...@4ax.com>...
>
>> >Look, many of the DD books have been great sellers, making a good deal
>> >of money for the publishers. This money makes the publishers, who are
>> >business men, more interested in promoting anythign in the realm of
>> >Dune and further any work by Herbert.
>> >
>> Which is not a comment on how well the books are written in the least.
>
>Which sadly on this planet has very little to do with the survival of
>a book over time.
>
Not true. Why do they keep printing Foundation, Dune, 1984 and Animal
Farm. Because they are good books that are written well. Because the
information in them is insightful wrt issues that relate to people.
>How long have you been reading Sci Fi? I started around 1982, which
>is only 22 years ago. So many of the books which were considered Earth
>Shattering 20 years ago can not been found anymore.
...and yet DUNE, which was first published almost 40 years ago is
still something that stirs the imagination and feeds the mind. That's
great writing. All those books you refer to that cannot be found
anymore are the ones of the same ilk as the DD work.
>Sci Fi generally
>eats its young and anything that keeps a couple of books in
>publication despite the marketplaces natural desire for the new all
>the time is great.
>
Well, your interpretation of the marketplace is very different than
mine. I don't think people want 'new' it think they want 'good'.
Unfortunately there is so little 'good' created now that 'new' is what
is settled for.
>
>> >It comes to money, if the DD can produce a bestseller the publishers
>> >will see all the other Dune books are a good business option, publish
>> >and promote them more meaning more young people will read Dune and not
>> >say Riverworld or Ringworld or other books from that time.
>> >
>> Or they might first pick up HA and read it, notice that it's not any
>> better than a run of the mill Star Wars novel and not read any of the
>> original series because the first book they read with DUNE on it was
>> nothing special.
>>
>Well that has not seemed to have happened.
>
How do you know how many people have read HA and decided not to
continue reading the rest of the series.
>I have actually read HA and it is better than the run of the mill Star
>Wars novel only because of the Duniverse inside it is better than
>they. HA is not a great piece of Sci Fi and its a joke compared to
>the new Space Opera Renissance coming out of the UK, but it is far
>from the worst Sci Fi book ever written.
>
Nobody said it was the worst SciFi book ever written. There is
definately worse SciFi than the prequels of Dune. But that isn't the
point.
>> Well I see where our difference of opinion lies. I don't agree that
>> capitalism runs everything in our society. It certainly isn't a
>> metric for the esoteric value of writing a good novel as opposed to a
>> poor one.
>
>Not it is not, it is the life blood that makes books survive or die.
>
In case you aren't aware of it books were around long before
capitalism. Given that it seems very improbably that if capitalism
didn't exist books would go away.
>> >DD books make publishers see Dune as a market and therefore more Dune
>
>> DUNE was doing that anyway. I first read it almost twenty years after
>> it had been written and I was reading a new edition in paperback.
>> Publishers saw the value in reprinting DUNE regardless of whether or
>> not new books were written long before the DD decided to do anything
>> about it.
>
>Well at the very least you can accept that the DD have not hurt says
>of Herbert's original books?
Only if you don't read them. Otherwise they cheapen the
experience....IMO.
bobbyhaqq
> >
> Not true. Why do they keep printing Foundation, Dune, 1984 and Animal
> Farm. Because they are good books that are written well. Because the
> information in them is insightful wrt issues that relate to people.
>
Well firstly to seperate Orwell 1984 and Animal Farm, these books are
universal classics of a first order mind and will be published for
generations to come. For example 1984 established the very way we
talk and think about a total state, it created concepts for which we
now think about Hitler and Stalin through. 1984 changed the way
everyone thinks, even people who did not read it. It, more than any
other book, put to rest the early 20th Centuries tend towards ever
greater one party rule. I keep finding new levels where they book had
a shattering impact and new ways to review it.
Dune is not quite that. 1984 is still read, Thomas Pynchon just wrote
the introduction, because it is such a part of our world. Dune is
more a cult classic.
Both Dune and Foundation have estates which have pumped out mass
quantities of new books. I have been unable to find copies of
Ringworld, Riverworld, Lord Valentine's Castle, Wizard, West of Eden,
The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (once very common), and
I just can not help but list:
Magican of Gor,
Vagabonds of Gor,
and -Renegades of Gor
But seriously, there are some excellent Sci Fi titlers out there that
just ain't in the airport shops today. All the current masters are
all over the place, but for the ancients it is now easier to get a
copy of a Dune book anywhere in the world than at any time in his
career. I would like to think the quality of the books has some to do
with that, but I can't dismiss the role of the estate in shameless
promoting the product, which I am happy they have done.
I can think of other great works of Sci Fi much harder to find today.
For example Harrison's "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream" is a Sci Fi
Masterpiece. A reflection of human future with computers of unequal
intensity. Man turned in to an external torture victim of a machine
mind gone utterly made. I can find one used copy on Amazon. "A Boy
and His Dog" amazon seems to only know as a 1975 movie. "Ringworld"
is a very find Sci Fi novel. They are hard to find, though they all
should be read more than they are. But I go in to any small town book
store, or train station book branch, and there are the Dune books.
There is no need to order Dune books on line because they are so easy
to get. Recently as a test I purchased the entire set, different
editions, some very 1980s, for under $10. I have not been able to
find a copy of Ringworld for Earts.
The fact that amazon is selling, right now, 5 seperate DVD products,
and a number of games, almost certainly has a great deal to do with
this. Dune is in part kept alive just like Star Trek and Star Wars,
games and DVDs.
bobbyhaqq
> rhook...@hotmail.com (bobbyhaqq) schrieb:
> How does that explain the continued reprinting of books like Dune and
> the Foundation Trilogy. Both more than 40 years old and still being
> reprinted even before the DD wrote any version.
Last time I went to a book store I saw that both brands had continued
to be printed, with new books being produced by both estates year
after year.
I find it rather hard to find copies of Ringworld, I Have No Mouth But
Must Scream, and other books.
Though with the cost of publications going down some new editions of
older books are being published, but I have noticed a trend for the
printings to become cheaper and cheaper. This even happened to Dune
after Herbert's death with some awefully cheap reprintings. West of
Eden's new cover is a joke, a piece of art unrelated to the book
itself, I wonder if the publisher even read the book. And I found one
copy in Forbidden Planet in London, one of the world's best sci fi
shops.
Dune, you can get anywhere.
Von Bailey
>Von Bailey <red...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<vdo940p314atlpbth...@4ax.com>...
>> rhook...@hotmail.com (bobbyhaqq) schrieb:
>
>> How does that explain the continued reprinting of books like Dune and
>> the Foundation Trilogy. Both more than 40 years old and still being
>> reprinted even before the DD wrote any version.
>
>
>Last time I went to a book store I saw that both brands had continued
>to be printed, with new books being produced by both estates year
>after year.
>
Well, in case you are to young to have noticed, there was a very large
gap between the original books (Second Foundation 1953, the last of
the original series) and the prequels even done by the Asimov
(Foundations Edge, 1982). In that gap there were many reprintings of
the original Foundation series that had nothing to do with someone
else using it's elements in a new story to promote it. People
continued to read it in it's subsequent printings because it was a
good story and good science fiction. IMO, the same can be said for
DUNE. That's why people continue to read it.
DUNE's popularity having anything to do with the DD's coming up with
their warped perspectives is an assumption based on ignoring DUNE's
popularity prior to the prequels.
>I find it rather hard to find copies of Ringworld, I Have No Mouth But
>Must Scream, and other books.
>
Which simply demonstrates that Dune related to more people than those
you identified.
>Though with the cost of publications going down some new editions of
>older books are being published, but I have noticed a trend for the
>printings to become cheaper and cheaper. This even happened to Dune
>after Herbert's death with some awefully cheap reprintings. West of
>Eden's new cover is a joke, a piece of art unrelated to the book
>itself, I wonder if the publisher even read the book. And I found one
>copy in Forbidden Planet in London, one of the world's best sci fi
>shops.
>
Never judge a book by it's cover. I did that in the 70's (when my
older brother discovered Dune, suggested it to me and I was put off by
a giant worm on the cover). I picked it up in the 80's out of boredom
and it became one of my favorite books.
>Dune, you can get anywhere.
Because it is great writing that just about anyone can relate to.
Von Bailey
>Von Bailey <red...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<emp940ls3r3ov4a2j...@4ax.com>...
>
>> >
>> Not true. Why do they keep printing Foundation, Dune, 1984 and Animal
>> Farm. Because they are good books that are written well. Because the
>> information in them is insightful wrt issues that relate to people.
>>
>
>Well firstly to seperate Orwell 1984 and Animal Farm, these books are
>universal classics of a first order mind and will be published for
>generations to come.
And so is the DC. Your opinion may differ but I see no reason to
assume that the draw of Dune is any less than the works of Orwell and
I have read both.
> For example 1984 established the very way we
>talk and think about a total state, it created concepts for which we
>now think about Hitler and Stalin through.
And if you were to ask most people to expand on the book that is
referenced when you talk about an 'Orwellian State" 8 out of 10 you
get the response, "I never read the book". While people may know of
the reference not as many have actually read the book. So the
'cultural aspects' of the writings of Orwell are more a manifestation
of hearing the words in a particular context in movies and
conversations than any personal knowledge of the books contents.
And while it may have focused on the concept of a totalitarian state
it only addresses a very narrow and simplistic version of one. There
are no subtle realizations or explorations into the 'cause' of the
state of being, it just is. Its a very narrow message of 'THIS IS A
TOTALITARIAN STATE' and by defining it as such it narrows the
definition instead of allowing people to understand it as a concept
instead of a definative form.
>1984 changed the way
>everyone thinks, even people who did not read it.
Well, I don't know about that. How does something you don't read
change they way you think?
> It, more than any
>other book, put to rest the early 20th Centuries tend towards ever
>greater one party rule.
It also defined one party rule as totalitarian as opposed to
demonstrating that the concept can come in many different forms.
> I keep finding new levels where they book had
>a shattering impact and new ways to review it.
>
>Dune is not quite that. 1984 is still read, Thomas Pynchon just wrote
>the introduction, because it is such a part of our world. Dune is
>more a cult classic.
>
IYO, I disagree. 1984 is 'referenced' a lot but not necessarily
*read* a lot. More people identify with the movie versions of the
book than the book itself.
>Both Dune and Foundation have estates which have pumped out mass
>quantities of new books. I have been unable to find copies of
>Ringworld, Riverworld, Lord Valentine's Castle, Wizard, West of Eden,
>The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (once very common), and
>I just can not help but list:
>
Demonstrating that they don't have the same appeal to a broad audience
that DUNE does. You seem to be assuming that just because they are
your favorites that it shoud equally appeal to others. (Although I
personally believe everyone should read the Hitchhhiker's Guide...)
>Magican of Gor,
>Vagabonds of Gor,
>and -Renegades of Gor
>
>But seriously, there are some excellent Sci Fi titlers out there that
>just ain't in the airport shops today. All the current masters are
>all over the place, but for the ancients it is now easier to get a
>copy of a Dune book anywhere in the world than at any time in his
>career.
Somehow I doubt that. I had no problem finding DUNE book *before* the
DD prequels.
> I would like to think the quality of the books has some to do
>with that, but I can't dismiss the role of the estate in shameless
>promoting the product, which I am happy they have done.
>
You could dismiss it if you were aware of the popularity of the books
before the DD's assault on the series.
>I can think of other great works of Sci Fi much harder to find today.
>For example Harrison's "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream" is a Sci Fi
>Masterpiece. A reflection of human future with computers of unequal
>intensity. Man turned in to an external torture victim of a machine
>mind gone utterly made. I can find one used copy on Amazon. "A Boy
>and His Dog" amazon seems to only know as a 1975 movie. "Ringworld"
>is a very find Sci Fi novel. They are hard to find, though they all
>should be read more than they are.
IYO, but tastes differ. Very seldom does a concept take root and grow
into a popular venue for exploitation of mass media but when they do
they tend to wear it out. Thus the complaints about the prequels.
bobbyhaqq
> rhook...@hotmail.com (bobbyhaqq) schrieb:
>
> >
> >Well firstly to seperate Orwell 1984 and Animal Farm, these books are
> >universal classics of a first order mind and will be published for
> >generations to come.
>
> And so is the DC. Your opinion may differ but I see no reason to
> assume that the draw of Dune is any less than the works of Orwell and
> I have read both.
>
Orwell's 1984 had an impact on our culture beyond anything Dune had.
Orwell created the very lexicon with which people would think about
dictatorship and total government. 1984 changed the way people who
read about it viewed the relationship between state, mind, and
language in a very subtle and deep way.
Few books reach this level, and nothing in Dune comes close. For
example with the introduction of Newspeak Orwell introduced to the
world the concept that language would be the primary tool of
oppressive government, and has taught generations to look more closely
at the abuse of power through language.
1984 is one of a small handfull of English language novels since WWII
which tower above the rest and have changed our view of the world and
how it works. Not only is it a great novel, but the vast appeal it
has had has meant the novel is one of the most read in history, and
therefore it influence is both wide and deep.
Frankly I can't think of anyway our political or artisitic culture has
been changed by Dune.
> > For example 1984 established the very way we
> >talk and think about a total state, it created concepts for which we
> >now think about Hitler and Stalin through.
>
> And if you were to ask most people to expand on the book that is
> referenced when you talk about an 'Orwellian State" 8 out of 10 you
> get the response, "I never read the book". While people may know of
> the reference not as many have actually read the book. So the
> 'cultural aspects' of the writings of Orwell are more a manifestation
> of hearing the words in a particular context in movies and
> conversations than any personal knowledge of the books contents.
The ideas inside of Orwells books have influenced millions of people
who read them, changing their ideas and influencing the way they
speak.
This is a tribute to the power of 1984 and not a criticism. The fact
that people use words or concepts from the novel who have not read it
is just a further tribute to the novel.
Living in London I am constantly being reminded of 1984, which I have
not read for a decade. Our modern world is in many ways defined by
the book, though things have turned out greatly different.
>
> And while it may have focused on the concept of a totalitarian state
> it only addresses a very narrow and simplistic version of one. There
> are no subtle realizations or explorations into the 'cause' of the
> state of being, it just is. Its a very narrow message of 'THIS IS A
> TOTALITARIAN STATE' and by defining it as such it narrows the
> definition instead of allowing people to understand it as a concept
> instead of a definative form.
>
The example given was Orwell's effort at a perfect totalitarian state
and party, but again we never see the state, we only see the main
characters evolving relationship to the state via his own experience,
so the story is the universal one of the person vs. the state. Since
only people ever think Orwell was a genius for showing how Big Brother
and the other chacters change in the eyes of the main character over
time, how things change their identity.
As a child I started reading thinking it would be about a revolution.
> >1984 changed the way
> >everyone thinks, even people who did not read it.
>
> Well, I don't know about that. How does something you don't read
> change they way you think?
>
Few people have read the Bible from cover to cover, and it has changed
their lives. Few people in America have read the Constitution and yet
their very life if utterly influenced by it.
Jefferson read Hobbes and Locke and these books helped defined the US
state, but who reads them today.
Books have massive influences upon the societies they were born in.
Ty
> rhook...@hotmail.com (bobbyhaqq) schrieb:
> >Well firstly to seperate Orwell 1984 and Animal Farm, these books are
> >universal classics of a first order mind and will be published for
> >generations to come.
>
> And so is the DC. Your opinion may differ but I see no reason to
> assume that the draw of Dune is any less than the works of Orwell and
> I have read both.
Oh, I think that Dune (in particular) is a far better novel than 1984. But I
think that 1984 has had an almost infinitely greater impact on Western
culture than Dune will ever have.
> And if you were to ask most people to expand on the book that is
> referenced when you talk about an 'Orwellian State" 8 out of 10 you
> get the response, "I never read the book". While people may know of
> the reference not as many have actually read the book.
I think you made his point for him. Words like "doublespeak" and "Big
Brother" are understood and used by millions of people who have never read
1984.
You can't say the same about "Kwisatz Haderach." :-)
--Ty
bobbyhaqq
> rhook...@hotmail.com (bobbyhaqq) schrieb:
> Well, in case you are to young to have noticed, there was a very large
> gap between the original books
I fear I am significantly older than you. I recall when Fondation was
just three books and had always been three books.
> (Second Foundation 1953, the last of
> the original series) and the prequels even done by the Asimov
> (Foundations Edge, 1982). In that gap there were many reprintings of
> the original Foundation series that had nothing to do with someone
> else using it's elements in a new story to promote it. People
> continued to read it in it's subsequent printings because it was a
> good story and good science fiction. IMO, the same can be said for
> DUNE. That's why people continue to read it.
>
Certainly Foundation and Dune have appeals, which also motivate
prequels. But the level of publishing books like _Foundation_ and
_Dune_ continue to recieve is singular for their age, with the
acception of Dick who's estate conquere Hollywood.
As I have said repeatedly you need to look at some excellent Sci Fi of
the same time frame that is not readily available. Presently I have
yet to find a new book store anywhere, and I travel alot, in the free
world that does not have one Dune book for sale, anywhere in the
world. This is pretty amazing.
I also have found it hard to find copies of books like _I Have No
Mouth But Must Scream_ _A Boy And His Dog_ _Stranger in A Strange
Land_ and many others of high quality.
The fact the estates of both writers has put new works on the best
sellers list has promoted publications of Dune and Foundation, that is
just the way the publishing business works. The DD have a bestseller,
so the publishers say wow there is money to make in Dune, release a
new edition of all the earlier Dune books and distribute them widely
for more profit, since we already have the rights and the books are
here anyways. No added cost and the risk would seem low and the
profit high.
So the Dune shows up in the Madrid bus stop, the Lisbon airport, the
Kansas City Barnes and Nobles, the airport in cleveland. More and
more people see the book, think it looks cool and read it.
I utterly fail to see what harm the DD are doing, I mean real harm.
Frankly I have only read one of their books and was neither angered
nor interested, they could have easily done much worse. Few authors
can carry a concept out this long and keep it fresh.
In return more and more business people are willing to back Dune
publications.
> DUNE's popularity having anything to do with the DD's coming up with
> their warped perspectives is an assumption based on ignoring DUNE's
> popularity prior to the prequels.
>
Well if you think that the fact that DD's works making the bestsellers
list and bringing in millions for the publishers does not make them
more willing to publish earlier versions of the series you obvious
simply have no exposure to business.
Publishing, especially publishing sci fi, is a business. there is a
great deal of marketing going on, and since sci fi is still so
under-respected in lit cricles it has fallen victim to business forces
that more high lit might be protected from.
> >I find it rather hard to find copies of Ringworld, I Have No Mouth But
> >Must Scream, and other books.
> >
>
> Which simply demonstrates that Dune related to more people than those
> you identified.
>
Have you ever read I Have No Mouth. It is horrific, scary, and very
very related to our current world problems. the core story has been
told again and again in T2 to the Matrix, but never as well.
I Have No Mouth has been repeated, the theme and story line have
become standard lines in books, TV, and Hollywood. The book was a
massive spash and I suggest you get a copy and read it and than we
should talk.
> >Though with the cost of publications going down some new editions of
> >older books are being published, but I have noticed a trend for the
> >printings to become cheaper and cheaper. This even happened to Dune
> >after Herbert's death with some awefully cheap reprintings. West of
> >Eden's new cover is a joke, a piece of art unrelated to the book
> >itself, I wonder if the publisher even read the book. And I found one
> >copy in Forbidden Planet in London, one of the world's best sci fi
> >shops.
> >
>
> Never judge a book by it's cover. I did that in the 70's (when my
> older brother discovered Dune, suggested it to me and I was put off by
> a giant worm on the cover). I picked it up in the 80's out of boredom
> and it became one of my favorite books.
>
i'm not judging a book by its cover, i'm talking about the budgets
that go in to printing and distributing books.
> >Dune, you can get anywhere.
>
> Because it is great writing that just about anyone can relate to.
>
Okay, in 1990, before the DD started their BestSellers, you could not
get Dune in any bookstore. The movie was a flop, and book 5 and 6
were not very well recieved. Over the following years I would
sometimes go to book stores and see the Herbert section first having
only Dune books, and than maybe one. I recall in 1993 going in to a
bookstore in downtown Chicago and not seeing any Herbert books. this
is fairly normal with something that was big coming a going.
then the DD made their books. They have now made 5 prequels, and I
think all were bestsellers, so Sci Fi has made a mini-series and now I
find copies of Dune in train stations in London.
This is business. Dune's writing and influences are nothing compares
to say Gravity's Rainbow, good luck finding a copy.
bobbyhaqq
> "Von Bailey" <red...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> news:78du409r6dfb243e2...@4ax.com...
> > rhook...@hotmail.com (bobbyhaqq) schrieb:
>
> > >Well firstly to seperate Orwell 1984 and Animal Farm, these books are
> > >universal classics of a first order mind and will be published for
> > >generations to come.
> >
> > And so is the DC. Your opinion may differ but I see no reason to
> > assume that the draw of Dune is any less than the works of Orwell and
> > I have read both.
>
> Oh, I think that Dune (in particular) is a far better novel than 1984. But I
> think that 1984 has had an almost infinitely greater impact on Western
> culture than Dune will ever have.
>
Well fankly when you think one book is a better piece of art than
another, yet the other art has had far far greater impact and meaning
in a culture, not just Western I remind you, than maybe you should
reconsider your opinions.
Look frankly I have tried to read the Odessy of Homer serval times,
and I don't like it. i don't know why I can't read it, but I have
never been able to get in to the book. I enjoy Bank's Look to
Windward much much more.
But I can view these things objectively. I know that Homer's work is
great, I understand that the survival and influece of the work is
because of the greatness of it. the fact that I as a singular person
may not enjoy reading the book as much as tens of millions of other
people has nothing to do with the book, it has to do with me.
Something about me gives me trouble Odessy and I hope some day to
enjoy the work.
But I understand that my impression is not the same as a well
considered opinion.
Dune just is not the same kind of book as say a 1984 or Catch 22.
Sure I have read Dune more than Catch 22, but less than 1984, and I
love the story and the characters, but I can see it as great fun with
some insight, but it is not as deep or rich as the other novels. That
is nothing wrong with Dune because it is iiter than other books. We
can't be reading Plato and Homer all the time.
Ty
> > Oh, I think that Dune (in particular) is a far better novel than 1984.
But I
> > think that 1984 has had an almost infinitely greater impact on Western
> > culture than Dune will ever have.
> >
>
> Well fankly when you think one book is a better piece of art than
> another, yet the other art has had far far greater impact and meaning
> in a culture, not just Western I remind you, than maybe you should
> reconsider your opinions.
Or maybe *you* should understand that there can be a huge difference between
a good novel and an influential novel. I see nothing inconsistent,
unreasonable or illogical in characterizing Dune as the former but not the
latter, or in characterizing 1984 as the latter and not the former.
--Ty
Von Bailey
>Von Bailey <red...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<0hbu40lv441of2uii...@4ax.com>...
>> rhook...@hotmail.com (bobbyhaqq) schrieb:
>
>> Well, in case you are to young to have noticed, there was a very large
>> gap between the original books
>
>I fear I am significantly older than you. I recall when Fondation was
>just three books and had always been three books.
>
>> (Second Foundation 1953, the last of
>> the original series) and the prequels even done by the Asimov
>> (Foundations Edge, 1982). In that gap there were many reprintings of
>> the original Foundation series that had nothing to do with someone
>> else using it's elements in a new story to promote it. People
>> continued to read it in it's subsequent printings because it was a
>> good story and good science fiction. IMO, the same can be said for
>> DUNE. That's why people continue to read it.
>>
>
>Certainly Foundation and Dune have appeals, which also motivate
>prequels. But the level of publishing books like _Foundation_ and
>_Dune_ continue to recieve is singular for their age, with the
>acception of Dick who's estate conquere Hollywood.
>
The FACT that they are 'singular for their age' begs the question WHY.
>As I have said repeatedly you need to look at some excellent Sci Fi of
>the same time frame that is not readily available.
Your assumption that I haven't read SciFi of the same time frame is
wrong. Just because I don't agree with your opinion of them doesn't
mean that I haven't read the books.
>Presently I have
>yet to find a new book store anywhere, and I travel alot, in the free
>world that does not have one Dune book for sale, anywhere in the
>world. This is pretty amazing.
>
So what?
>I also have found it hard to find copies of books like _I Have No
>Mouth But Must Scream_ _A Boy And His Dog_ _Stranger in A Strange
>Land_ and many others of high quality.
>
I could simply be that people don't get the same thing out of the
books that you do. I have never been a Ellison fan so his writings
disappering into the past is not a problem for me. (aren't "I have no
mouth.." and "A boy and his Dog" short stories? Are you suggesting
that someone should reprint the short stories as books or that you
can't find an anthology of his short stories)
As far as Stranger, maybe you should shop around some more. There was
a new edition of it published last year.
>The fact the estates of both writers has put new works on the best
>sellers list has promoted publications of Dune and Foundation, that is
>just the way the publishing business works. The DD have a bestseller,
>so the publishers say wow there is money to make in Dune, release a
>new edition of all the earlier Dune books and distribute them widely
>for more profit, since we already have the rights and the books are
>here anyways. No added cost and the risk would seem low and the
>profit high.
>
Somthing that they were doing before the DD prequels. I don't
understand why you think the prequels are the motivation for more Dune
reprints instead of the opposite. The reason the DD prequels are even
read it because of the large base of readers that support the original
DC.
>So the Dune shows up in the Madrid bus stop, the Lisbon airport, the
>Kansas City Barnes and Nobles, the airport in cleveland. More and
>more people see the book, think it looks cool and read it.
>
Just as they were *prior* to DC. I have never had a problem finding a
Dune book.
>I utterly fail to see what harm the DD are doing, I mean real harm.
That's because you have only read a single book of their efforts wrt
Dune. To me what they are doing is comparable to someone coming back
and writing a sequel to 1984 where Big Brother is really a corporate
scam instead of a political one, the proles were really all part of a
plot to stop the corporation and small bands of them were fighting
against the system and the thought police were robots with mental
powers.
How would such changes have affected your opinion of 1984? Would it
in any way change the value of the book in your mind?
>Frankly I have only read one of their books and was neither angered
>nor interested, they could have easily done much worse. Few authors
>can carry a concept out this long and keep it fresh.
>
And they have demonstrated their inability to do so. If you found it
uninteresting why would others? And if your first encounter with Dune
was the book that you read AND you had never read the original DC
would you have plodded through the other prequels to get to the actual
DC?
>In return more and more business people are willing to back Dune
>publications.
>
And I think that has more to do with people who have always loved the
books getting into positions of power and having the ability to decide
what gets published. DUNE became a movie 20+ years prior to DD's
attempts at writing for the series.
>
>> DUNE's popularity having anything to do with the DD's coming up with
>> their warped perspectives is an assumption based on ignoring DUNE's
>> popularity prior to the prequels.
>>
>
>Well if you think that the fact that DD's works making the bestsellers
>list and bringing in millions for the publishers does not make them
>more willing to publish earlier versions of the series you obvious
>simply have no exposure to business.
>
Well, if I had said that you would have a point. But since I
didn't...
Those 'millions' would not have come if there weren't the original DC
to give the books written by the DD credibility. Are you implying
that a book that you yourself dismiss would have had the pull it did
without the works of Frank Herbert to draw from?
>> >I find it rather hard to find copies of Ringworld, I Have No Mouth But
>> >Must Scream, and other books.
>> >
>>
>> Which simply demonstrates that Dune related to more people than those
>> you identified.
>>
>
>Have you ever read I Have No Mouth. It is horrific, scary, and very
>very related to our current world problems. the core story has been
>told again and again in T2 to the Matrix, but never as well.
>
>I Have No Mouth has been repeated, the theme and story line have
>become standard lines in books, TV, and Hollywood. The book was a
>massive spash and I suggest you get a copy and read it and than we
>should talk.
>
I suggest you explain to me why I should re-read stuff just because
you say it's good regardless of my personal opinion of the writing.
Harlan Ellison wrote some good short stories. but as far as his
books are concerned I am not impressed.
http://home.comcast.net/~redbai/
Von Bailey
>Von Bailey <red...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<78du409r6dfb243e2...@4ax.com>...
>> rhook...@hotmail.com (bobbyhaqq) schrieb:
>>
>
>> >
>> >Well firstly to seperate Orwell 1984 and Animal Farm, these books are
>> >universal classics of a first order mind and will be published for
>> >generations to come.
>>
>> And so is the DC. Your opinion may differ but I see no reason to
>> assume that the draw of Dune is any less than the works of Orwell and
>> I have read both.
>>
>
>Orwell's 1984 had an impact on our culture beyond anything Dune had.
Which simply shows that a superficial dialog can have a profound
affect on a culture. So what? That doesn't say anything about the
value of the writing of the book. I remember quite a few things
having an 'impact' on western culture that doen'st necessarily mean
that it was a good or positive thing.
>Orwell created the very lexicon with which people would think about
>dictatorship and total government. 1984 changed the way people who
>read about it viewed the relationship between state, mind, and
>language in a very subtle and deep way.
>
Maybe for you. I saw it as a simplistic pov wrt despotism. It's
based on so many assumptions about human behavior that are wrong that
it's almost useless in a real world analogy.
>Few books reach this level, and nothing in Dune comes close. For
>example with the introduction of Newspeak Orwell introduced to the
>world the concept that language would be the primary tool of
>oppressive government, and has taught generations to look more closely
>at the abuse of power through language.
>
I think you give to much credit to 'Newspeak' as a tool. The most
revealing aspect of the book was the brainwashing techniques used by
the state. If Newspeak worked there would be no need for the
brainwashing techniques used.
>1984 is one of a small handfull of English language novels since WWII
>which tower above the rest and have changed our view of the world and
>how it works.
I wasn't around before WWII so I can't speak for how people thought
about the world prior to it. What exactly has changed from a 'world
view' perspective because of 1984 beside syntax.
>Not only is it a great novel, but the vast appeal it
>has had has meant the novel is one of the most read in history, and
>therefore it influence is both wide and deep.
>
The same could be said for Dune.
>Frankly I can't think of anyway our political or artisitic culture has
>been changed by Dune.
>
IMO, the same could be said for 1984. Nothing has 'changed' because
of 1984 except some of the rhetoric used to define political entities.
>
>> > For example 1984 established the very way we
>> >talk and think about a total state, it created concepts for which we
>> >now think about Hitler and Stalin through.
>>
>> And if you were to ask most people to expand on the book that is
>> referenced when you talk about an 'Orwellian State" 8 out of 10 you
>> get the response, "I never read the book". While people may know of
>> the reference not as many have actually read the book. So the
>> 'cultural aspects' of the writings of Orwell are more a manifestation
>> of hearing the words in a particular context in movies and
>> conversations than any personal knowledge of the books contents.
>
>The ideas inside of Orwells books have influenced millions of people
>who read them, changing their ideas and influencing the way they
>speak.
>
IYO. However, I have read the book and I changed nothing in the way I
speak of despotic rule in the least. I am aware of what people were
talking about when they would use Orwellian rhetoric but then I would
have been able to do that simply by being aware of the context fo the
dialog.
>This is a tribute to the power of 1984 and not a criticism. The fact
>that people use words or concepts from the novel who have not read it
>is just a further tribute to the novel.
>
I would say that the reason peopole use words or concepts from the
novel is because those words and concepts are becoming more relevant
to their lives. This doesn't mean that the book is good but that the
political situation more reflects what's in the book now than ever.
If we were living in a utopean state the 'relevance' of 1984 would be
nill.
>Living in London I am constantly being reminded of 1984, which I have
>not read for a decade. Our modern world is in many ways defined by
>the book, though things have turned out greatly different.
>
I would rephrase that to say that our modern world more reflects the
ideas conveyed in the book and thus brings it to mind moreso than it
used to.
>>
>> And while it may have focused on the concept of a totalitarian state
>> it only addresses a very narrow and simplistic version of one. There
>> are no subtle realizations or explorations into the 'cause' of the
>> state of being, it just is. Its a very narrow message of 'THIS IS A
>> TOTALITARIAN STATE' and by defining it as such it narrows the
>> definition instead of allowing people to understand it as a concept
>> instead of a definative form.
>>
>
>The example given was Orwell's effort at a perfect totalitarian state
>and party, but again we never see the state, we only see the main
>characters evolving relationship to the state via his own experience,
>so the story is the universal one of the person vs. the state.
Interesting. I thougth the relationships were forced and had no
logical continuity.
> Since
>only people ever think Orwell was a genius for showing how Big Brother
>and the other chacters change in the eyes of the main character over
>time, how things change their identity.
>
I 'missed' that process altogether. As I said above, the
'relationships' weren't very real to me. I knew more about the woman
hanging clothes outside his 'hideout' than I did about his lover.
>As a child I started reading thinking it would be about a revolution.
>
>
>> >1984 changed the way
>> >everyone thinks, even people who did not read it.
>>
>> Well, I don't know about that. How does something you don't read
>> change they way you think?
>>
>
>Few people have read the Bible from cover to cover, and it has changed
>their lives. Few people in America have read the Constitution and yet
>their very life if utterly influenced by it.
>
But we were talking about 1984 the book. There are no regular weekly
meetings that millions attend to learn about 1984 as with the bible
and there aren't governmental institutions forcing its rules (read
laws) on you because 1984 gives them the right to do so as with the
Constitution.
>Books have massive influences upon the societies they were born in.
Not if nobody reads them.
Christopher Browne
>>I also have found it hard to find copies of books like _I Have No
>>Mouth But Must Scream_ _A Boy And His Dog_ _Stranger in A Strange
>>Land_ and many others of high quality.
>
> I could simply be that people don't get the same thing out of the
> books that you do. I have never been a Ellison fan so his writings
> disappering into the past is not a problem for me. (aren't "I have no
> mouth.." and "A boy and his Dog" short stories? Are you suggesting
> that someone should reprint the short stories as books or that you
> can't find an anthology of his short stories)
_I Have No Mouth_ has been reprinted in numerous short story
collections over the years.
I'm afraid I haven't seen _A Boy and His Dog_ in any of them; I was
only aware of it as being a movie. (Starring a pre-Miami Vice Don
Johnson.)
The grand challenge, with Ellison, is that people are afraid of his
anthologies after the "Dangerous Visions" series where there's a last
volume that has been 'late' for probably 25 years now. The horror
that that process turned into has doubtless discouraged further
anthologies.
> As far as Stranger, maybe you should shop around some more. There
> was a new edition of it published last year.
The publishers seem to be pushing through a fresh set of much of
Heinlein's stuff.
>>The fact the estates of both writers has put new works on the best
>>sellers list has promoted publications of Dune and Foundation, that
>>is just the way the publishing business works. The DD have a
>>bestseller, so the publishers say wow there is money to make in
>>Dune, release a new edition of all the earlier Dune books and
>>distribute them widely for more profit, since we already have the
>>rights and the books are here anyways. No added cost and the risk
>>would seem low and the profit high.
> Somthing that they were doing before the DD prequels. I don't
> understand why you think the prequels are the motivation for more
> Dune reprints instead of the opposite. The reason the DD prequels
> are even read it because of the large base of readers that support
> the original DC.
Furthermore, if there's something "new and creative" that would lead
to new readership, it's the miniseries material that tries to emulate
Frank's work, not the "DD."
>>I utterly fail to see what harm the DD are doing, I mean real harm.
>
> That's because you have only read a single book of their efforts wrt
> Dune. To me what they are doing is comparable to someone coming back
> and writing a sequel to 1984 where Big Brother is really a corporate
> scam instead of a political one, the proles were really all part of a
> plot to stop the corporation and small bands of them were fighting
> against the system and the thought police were robots with mental
> powers.
>
> How would such changes have affected your opinion of 1984? Would it
> in any way change the value of the book in your mind?
Actually, it's arguably a bit worse than that. If the 'scam' became a
corporate one, that would still at least represent a political matter.
It's more like someone writing a sequel to 1984 where the backstory
gets populated by timetravelling robots, and where the "politics" are
re-presented as being a case of the technology of those "meddling
robots" that force the reader to re-cast Winston Smith's world from
being a very dark "cold war" that prevents WWII from ever ending to
one which _actually_ was all about whatever whiz-bang things were
being hawked in Wired Magazine last month when they were knocking off
the book.
--
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','cbbrowne.com').
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/oses.html
If you stand in the middle of a library and shout "Aaaaaaaaargh" at
the top of your voice, everyone just stares at you. If you do the same
thing on an aeroplane, why does everyone join in?
Von Bailey
<red...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>rhook...@hotmail.com (bobbyhaqq) schrieb:
>
>>Von Bailey <red...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<0hbu40lv441of2uii...@4ax.com>...
>>> rhook...@hotmail.com (bobbyhaqq) schrieb:
>>
>>
>>Okay, in 1990, before the DD started their BestSellers, you could not
>>get Dune in any bookstore.
I don't agree with that. I had last purchased a copy of First Putnam
Edition that was printed in 1984 in the late 80's. I don't know where
you live, but I live in Los Angeles, CA and have never had a problem
finding a Dune book when I want one.
>> The movie was a flop, and book 5 and 6
>>were not very well recieved.
Which goes counter to the publication in 1987 of the last three books
(GE, HoD & CD) being put in a trilogy. Why would they reprint books
that 'were not very well recieved' in a trilogy? Wouldn't that be a
losing propostion?
>> Over the following years I would
>>sometimes go to book stores and see the Herbert section first having
>>only Dune books, and than maybe one. I recall in 1993 going in to a
>>bookstore in downtown Chicago and not seeing any Herbert books. this
>>is fairly normal with something that was big coming a going.
>>
>>then the DD made their books.
Where they made sure House Atreides came out around the same time with
the SciFi channel's version of Dune. Thus the marketing plan for the
DD books was not the content of the DD books but the much larger
audience who would be watching the much more advertised Dune
mini-series.
>> They have now made 5 prequels, and I
>>think all were bestsellers, so Sci Fi has made a mini-series and now I
>>find copies of Dune in train stations in London.
>>
SciFi is not making a mini-series of the prequels. The marketing
dynamic is really quite simple and repetitive. Create a SciFi channel
movie to draw attention to the series using Herbert's work and
advertise a new prequel around the same time. It's called bait and
switch in the sales jargon. You bait them in with something good
(scifi serial of DC book) and then advertise the prequel thus boosting
its overall sales. Dune 7 will probably come out when the SciFi
channel puts out God Emperor.
>>This is business.
Your right. The DD books are business. That has nothing to do with
whether or not it's good writing, which I believe was the original
point.
> Dune's writing and influences are nothing compares
>>to say Gravity's Rainbow, good luck finding a copy.
>
You mean this one...
von
http://home.comcast.net/~redbai/
In an intelligent dialog different does
not mean opposite.
Ty
> Okay, in 1990, before the DD started their BestSellers, you could not
> get Dune in any bookstore.
Yes you could. Interestingly, the reason I recall this is that I was working
on my teaching certification at the time -- and I did this in the Spring,
Summer and Fall Semesters of 1990. I specifically remember my "Educational
Psychology" professor seeing a newly bought copy of Dune (my old one had
packed up in a storage building) and discussing it with me after class one
day. Since I only attended that university in 1990, and I bought the book in
that particular town (some 90 miles from where I lived), Dune *had* to be
available in 1990.
The book is still in my collection and is a mass market paperback with
stills from the movie on the front.
--Ty
Doctor J. Frink
>
>Okay, in 1990, before the DD started their BestSellers, you could not
>get Dune in any bookstore. The movie was a flop, and book 5 and 6
>were not very well recieved. Over the following years I would
>sometimes go to book stores and see the Herbert section first having
>only Dune books, and than maybe one. I recall in 1993 going in to a
>bookstore in downtown Chicago and not seeing any Herbert books. this
>is fairly normal with something that was big coming a going.
Tripe. I started my Dune collection in the time-period of 1992-1994 and
I certainly did not have any problems obtaining the books in series from
a relatively small WHSmiths in the local town. I have also noticed in my
travels through SciFi sections across the land (ever since reading Dune
from a library loan in ~1990) that there has never been a shortage of
Dune books, well before the prequels were written.
Frink
--
Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail'
See his mind here : http://www.cmp.liv.ac.uk/frink/
Annoy his mind here : pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook
"No sir, I didn't like it!" - Mr Horse
Wild Monkshood
"Doctor J. Frink" wrote:
> On 12 Mar 2004 00:29:32 -0800, bobbyhaqq <rhook...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Okay, in 1990, before the DD started their BestSellers, you could not
> >get Dune in any bookstore. The movie was a flop, and book 5 and 6
> >were not very well recieved. Over the following years I would
> >sometimes go to book stores and see the Herbert section first having
> >only Dune books, and than maybe one. I recall in 1993 going in to a
> >bookstore in downtown Chicago and not seeing any Herbert books. this
> >is fairly normal with something that was big coming a going.
>
> Tripe. I started my Dune collection in the time-period of 1992-1994 and
> I certainly did not have any problems obtaining the books in series from
> a relatively small WHSmiths in the local town. I have also noticed in my
> travels through SciFi sections across the land (ever since reading Dune
> from a library loan in ~1990) that there has never been a shortage of
> Dune books, well before the prequels were written.
True. I have never failed to see the Dune Books in adequate supply at
local bookstores anytime I have checked, going back 10-15 years. It is the
other Frank Herbert books that have been underrepresented to an alarming
degree.
Wild Monkshood
Jeff Teunissen
> Von Bailey <red...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> news:<0hbu40lv441of2uii...@4ax.com>...
[snip]
> Okay, in 1990, before the DD started their BestSellers, you could not
> get Dune in any bookstore. The movie was a flop, and book 5 and 6
> were not very well recieved. Over the following years I would
> sometimes go to book stores and see the Herbert section first having
> only Dune books, and than maybe one. I recall in 1993 going in to a
> bookstore in downtown Chicago and not seeing any Herbert books. this
> is fairly normal with something that was big coming a going.
Badly-stocked book store. I bought my current copies of the Chronicles from
a book store in 1994.
Dune itself has been in _continuous_ publication since 1965. The others have
had somewhat more erratic printings (since they are driven by sales), but
there have regularly been new editions of the paperbacks ever since first
publication. The publication of the prequels has not dramatically changed
the turnover rate for the Dune Chronicles.
--
| Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -=- deek @ d2dc.net
| GPG: 1024D/9840105A 7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B 161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A
| Core developer, The QuakeForge Project http://www.quakeforge.net/
| Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/
bobbyhaqq
> True. I have never failed to see the Dune Books in adequate supply at
> local bookstores anytime I have checked, going back 10-15 years. It is the
> other Frank Herbert books that have been underrepresented to an alarming
> degree.
>
> Wild Monkshood
>
Well I can only speak for my own experience on this.
Changing the direction of this a bit, I would ask what damage the DD
books do to the availability and printings of the Dune books. I see
that Dune, the original series, gets a new printing ever year.
Assuming that this has nothing to do with the fact that the DD have
produced 5 best sellers in the series in the past decade, which as a
businessman myself I find a bit laughable, the sucess of the DD has
certainly not taken anything away from Herberts originals.
Von Bailey
> I'm afraid I haven't seen _A Boy and His Dog_ in any of them; I was
> only aware of it as being a movie. (Starring a pre-Miami Vice Don
> Johnson.)
>
(http://www.islets.net/illustrata/vicandblood.html) with Richard
Corben doing the artwork back in 1989. It's a great visual experience
as Mr. Corben's art usually is. They have created a sequel to the
book. Details at the same site as above.
IMO, Corben's work made it worth reading again. He's one of my
favorite graphic artists.
von