George Lucas Frank Herbert
Tony
Herbert?
Wild Monkshood
Tony wrote:
> What are some similarities between the careers of George Lucas and Frank
> Herbert?
One told stories that were science fiction, the other told science
fiction that was stories, bit I can't remember which was which. :(
WM
>
>
Omphalos
Tony
"Omphalos" <gtid...@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:19c95e87-489b-48f0...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Take a look here:
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20070711011920/http://www.spookybug.com/origins/dune.html
That's a big article with some good information.
Hitch
Well...I admire the writer's tenacity and verve, but if all of his work is
as woefully uninformed as this passage:
"Frank Herbert's father was agnostic, but his mother and his ten matriarchal
aunts were Jesuits, and they ganged up on him and tried to convert him!
Herbert's Bene Gessert are basically a cross between Asimov's
Psychohistorians and the Jesuits (Jesuit = Gesserit)"
then most of it is utter pap. "Jesuit = Gesserit?" What driveling nonsense
is THAT? And the idea that Herbert's mother and "ten matriarchal aunts" are
Jesuits? What, were his mother and his endless parade of aunts all
transvestites or mayhaps transsexuals? The Jesuits are a MALE ONLY order,
folks.
All this effluvia in ONE paragraph? I shudder to think what a scholarly
review of the rest of the article would reveal. We already live in a age
wherein most people seem incapable of distinguishing fact from opinion; it's
unfortunate that yet more BAD information is being presented as "fact" in
this article.
Hitch
"Tony" <to...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Q56dne_XDI-dyBra...@giganews.com...
Tony
"Hitch" <hi...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:478b1884$0$500$815e...@news.qwest.net...
> Hallo, all:
>
> Well...I admire the writer's tenacity and verve, but if all of his work is
> as woefully uninformed as this passage:
>
> "Frank Herbert's father was agnostic, but his mother and his ten
> matriarchal aunts were Jesuits, and they ganged up on him and tried to
> convert him! Herbert's Bene Gessert are basically a cross between Asimov's
> Psychohistorians and the Jesuits (Jesuit = Gesserit)"
>
> then most of it is utter pap. "Jesuit = Gesserit?" What driveling
> nonsense is THAT? And the idea that Herbert's mother and "ten matriarchal
> aunts" are Jesuits? What, were his mother and his endless parade of aunts
> all transvestites or mayhaps transsexuals? The Jesuits are a MALE ONLY
> order, folks.
>
Hi Hitch,
You raise a good point about the Jesuits being an all male order. I think
the website author's information comes from the book "Frank Herbert." Here
is a quote from Timothy O'Reilly's book "Frank Herbert" that's posted on
Timothy O'Reilly's website:
http://tim.oreilly.com/herbert/ch05.html
"More importantly-- and this provides a clue to the eventual amalgamation of
the Nathian matriarchy and the Foundation in the Bene Gesserit-- Herbert has
described the Bene Gesserit as 'female Jesuits.' The aunts overcame
Herbert's agnostic father and insisted that the son receive Catholic
training. As it turned out, he was taught by Jesuits. An order whose
political power and long-term vision silently shaped a great sweep of world
affairs, and who were once famed for their training and asceticism, the
Society of Jesus bears no small resemblance to the witches of the Imperium.
The association in Herbert's mind between the aunts and the Jesuits seems to
have stuck, and may have provided the link between the matriarchy and future
management in the Bene Gesserit. In the long run, Herbert recalls:
My father really won. I was a rebel against Jesuit positivism. I can win an
argument in the Jesuit fashion, hut I think it's flying under false colors.
If you control the givens, you can win any argument. "
Sandusky
>
> Well...I admire the writer's tenacity and verve, but if all of his work is
> as woefully uninformed as this passage:
>
> "Frank Herbert's father was agnostic, but his mother and his ten
> matriarchal aunts were Jesuits, and they ganged up on him and tried to
> convert him! Herbert's Bene Gessert are basically a cross between Asimov's
> Psychohistorians and the Jesuits (Jesuit = Gesserit)"
>
> then most of it is utter pap. "Jesuit = Gesserit?" What driveling
> nonsense is THAT? And the idea that Herbert's mother and "ten matriarchal
> aunts" are Jesuits? What, were his mother and his endless parade of aunts
> all transvestites or mayhaps transsexuals? The Jesuits are a MALE ONLY
> order, folks.
[snip]
> Hitch
>
I think Tony's reply is a great explanation, but I just wanted to chime in
that even though I know all about Jesuits (and Marianists, Benedictines,
etc.), when I read that sentence I never saw a contradiction. I just took
it to mean that his aunts were Jesuit supporters. I guess I just want to
point out that it's likely that not everyone had the same initial
interpretation of the text as you.
Hitch
I was taught by Jesuits myself...but that's a far cry from making ME a
"Jesuit." It's akin to saying that if your Logic and Language instructor is
a Baptist (yes, I know that's probably contraindicated, but bear with me
here :-), then YOU are a Baptist. Moronic statement(s) altogether, and
sloppy research on the part of the writer. Not to mention, but a GREAT DEAL
of Catholic instruction is provided by Jesuits - as opposed to other orders,
generally speaking - and we don't go running around characterizing THOSE
students as "Jesuits," either. (Any other St. Ignatius Loyola grads here?).
Moreover, I find the quote attributed to Herbert suspect; either in the
attribution or frankly in Herbert's use of it. The "Jesuit fashion" of
argument is hardly designed to control the givens; it is, rather, to use
FACTS. It's a queer statement altogether.
I also think that O'Reilly's "connection" between the infamous aunts and the
Jesuits is a reach of Gumby proportions; an attempt to create something from
nothing. Can I see the BG as female Jesuits, in a Twisted Sister sort of
way? Sure. But as some representation of his aunts? Meh.
And that O'Reilly quote certainly doesn't salvage the ludicrous
"Gesserit=Jesuit" nonsense. <shrug>. I don't particularly care if people
want to read the original SW-Dune "essay;" but the fact that it is badly
flawed research shouldn't be overlooked.
Hitch
"Tony" <to...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CcidnU_9e4DuEhba...@giganews.com...
Hitch
I'm not sure that I would characterize Tony's apologia (for the original
author) as "great," but I suppose THAT genuinely is a matter for
interpretation by the individual reader. However, I would disagree that the
phrase "...his mother and his ten matriarchal aunts were Jesuits, and they
ganged up on him and tried to convert him" is really subject to
"interpretation." Your idea that they were "Jesuitical supporters" seems a
bit farfetched to me, as I'm not quite sure what that would entail? Out of
curiosity, how would you define a (female) supporter of Jesuits? :-)
(The mind BOGGLES with ideas, though....)
My point was that yet another "author" cobbled together a loosely-researched
collection of "facts" which are factually incorrect, supported by
supposition and wildly imaginative opinions, and presented it as though it
had some thoughtful basis. If the author DID have some in-depth analysis,
it is overshadowed by the lack of diligent research and thought. That's all
I'm saying. The world is sadly short of people capable of distinguishing
fact from opinion, and articles (or blogs, or essays, or whatever) like that
in question contribute to this deficiency.
Regards,
Hitch
"Sandusky" <sandu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13onrui...@corp.supernews.com...
Tony
> Hi, Tony:
>
> I was taught by Jesuits myself...but that's a far cry from making ME a
> "Jesuit." It's akin to saying that if your Logic and Language instructor
> is a Baptist (yes, I know that's probably contraindicated, but bear with
> me here :-), then YOU are a Baptist. Moronic statement(s) altogether, and
> sloppy research on the part of the writer. Not to mention, but a GREAT
> DEAL of Catholic instruction is provided by Jesuits - as opposed to other
> orders, generally speaking - and we don't go running around characterizing
> THOSE students as "Jesuits," either. (Any other St. Ignatius Loyola grads
> here?). Moreover, I find the quote attributed to Herbert suspect; either
> in the attribution or frankly in Herbert's use of it. The "Jesuit
> fashion" of argument is hardly designed to control the givens; it is,
> rather, to use FACTS. It's a queer statement altogether.
Hi Hitch,
That's interesting that you were taught by Jesuits, and something you share
with Frank Herbert. I tried to track down the source of the Frank Herbert
quote and it is: "Author's interview, Feb. 27, 1978." In other words, an
interview of Frank Herbert conducted by Timothy O'Reilly.
>
> I also think that O'Reilly's "connection" between the infamous aunts and
> the Jesuits is a reach of Gumby proportions; an attempt to create
> something from nothing. Can I see the BG as female Jesuits, in a Twisted
> Sister sort of way? Sure. But as some representation of his aunts? Meh.
Yes, this is of course speculation on Timothy O'Reilly's part.
>
> And that O'Reilly quote certainly doesn't salvage the ludicrous
> "Gesserit=Jesuit" nonsense. <shrug>. I don't particularly care if people
> want to read the original SW-Dune "essay;" but the fact that it is badly
> flawed research shouldn't be overlooked.
>
I've hesitated to read it because I dislike reading pages of text on a
computer screen.
Hitch
> computer screen. "
Boy, I'm with you there! I confess a deep abiding passion for the plain old
FEEL and smell of books; a tactile experience in addition to a cerebral one.
I would have said "printed books," but I believe that's redundant, despite
Amazon's efforts to the contrary. (I also admit to a mild desire for the
Kindle device, but I think of that as a mechanism for toting newspapers and
magazines around, not books.)
And if Frank had an issue with Jesuits, he was obviously never taught in his
formative years by nuns (of whatever sisterly order). In my experience,
nuns are WAY more formidable then Jesuits. :-) (And I have the scars on my
knuckles to prove it!!). Hmmm....there you go; perhaps in FH's head, the BG
were Jesuits, and the HM were Nuns, LOL!! It kind of works from a
naming-symbology convention standpoint, as well. Yikes, I'm already sorry I
said that, now THAT will show up somewhere!! :-0
Hitch
"Tony" <to...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NLadnUV5PZldoxDa...@giganews.com...
Tony
> Tony wrote: "> I've hesitated to read it because I dislike reading pages
> of text on a
>> computer screen. "
>
> Boy, I'm with you there! I confess a deep abiding passion for the plain
> old FEEL and smell of books; a tactile experience in addition to a
> cerebral one. I would have said "printed books," but I believe that's
> redundant, despite Amazon's efforts to the contrary. (I also admit to a
> mild desire for the Kindle device, but I think of that as a mechanism for
> toting newspapers and magazines around, not books.)
>
> And if Frank had an issue with Jesuits, he was obviously never taught in
> his formative years by nuns (of whatever sisterly order). In my
> experience, nuns are WAY more formidable then Jesuits. :-) (And I have
> the scars on my knuckles to prove it!!). Hmmm....there you go; perhaps in
> FH's head, the BG were Jesuits, and the HM were Nuns, LOL!! It kind of
> works from a naming-symbology convention standpoint, as well. Yikes, I'm
> already sorry I said that, now THAT will show up somewhere!! :-0
>
That's interesting Hitch and you touch on some important ideas. I've never
had the opportunity to be taught by Jesuits or Nuns, but my Great Aunt was a
nun. However, she wasn't very threatening or intimidating to me. However,
she was the principal of a school. By the way, do you remember the
television show The Flying Nun with Sally Field? Her hat reminds me of some
of the hats appearing in the Dune television series. ;-)