Discussion in 'Community' started by Snax Rebo, Feb 5, 2017.
That was the first PC game I played.
Great PC game
I agree, i hated both the David Lynch monstrosity and the mini-series! sometimes it's hard to translate a nearly unfilmable book into a movie but a new big budget movie with 3 films on the same book be like Lord of the Rings you know complete with extended cut.
For some reason, this post bothers me. While I agree with Ramza that you shouldn't read Dune out of obligation, I think it's unfair to discredit its achievements based on a few reviews. And as everyone in this thread indicated, no live adaptations have been accurate to the material.
Is Dune the science fiction equivalent of Lord of the Rings? Many would say so because of what it contributed to the overall genre, much like how Lord of the Rings arguably laid the groundwork for our modern concept of the fantasy genre.
Dune heavily influenced modern science fiction, from creating the now typical desert planet where heroes are from (from Arrakis to Tatooine to Jakku), the blind Oracle obsessed with making sense of or controlling his visions of the future (Paul, Neo, Anakin), personal energy shields, and the now staple sandworm type creature (Dune, Star Wars, Mass Effect, etc).
You might not appreciate it and that's fine. But I wouldn't disregard its influence on so many other works.
Dune and Star Wars
The other pages are awesome too.
A realistic version of the future is being stuck on earth for the remainder of our existence as a species until we kill each other and or exhaust the planet's resources and or poison ourselves and our habitats.
Sci fi visions of interstellar colonizations are very literally escapist fantasies. Because there's no escape. Get it?
Unless we find a way to do the impossible and travel faster than the speed of light, yeah, we're stuck on earth. Really the only hope for humanity is that future generations show some better sense than the current ones.
I think the best idea from Dune that could be ported to the real world is "family atomics."
The best adaptations are the audiobooks that have different actors voicing the different parts. Some of them are free on youtube from time to time.
God Emperor is my favourite Dune book. I understand the criticisms, and I fundamentally disagree with much of Leto II's (Frank Herbert's) politics and philosophy, especially the parts relating to sex/gender and sexuality, but somehow this bigoted monster tyrant is a sympathetic character and the whole thing seems like a worthy climax to the preceding novels. The books that follow aren't really worth the investment of time and patience, imho. The KJA cash-ins are not worth discussing.
I really enjoy the Lynch film and its various edits, even the Alan Smithee TV version with the dodgy intro. I like the two SciFi channel series too. I never enjoyed the computer games. I'm not holding my breath for a new film version, I expect it will stay in development hell.
I hope the new film atleast doesn't have a bland aesthetic. If there's one redeeming quality from Lynch's movie, it's that, visually, it looks pretty good.
(aside from the Bene Gesserit. Bleh.)
I don't disagree that it has had influence.
I already addressed that it wasn't based on just a few reviews:
Yeah but you haven't actually read the book so it's impossible for you to determine that.
It's a metaphor for oil - not even a subtle one - and it's not trying to be realistic.
Again you haven't actually read the book so it's impossible for you to determine that.
Please disabuse yourself of this notion that perspectives gained from "resources, guides, research papers, etc." give you sufficient grounds to draw the broad conclusions you're trying to draw, particularly as regards aesthetics and delivery. They just don't. You're trying to comment on the tonal effect created in the third movement of Beethoven's fifth symphony without ever having listened past the first three notes of the first movement, and claiming it's okay because you read some essays on it.
What exactly is your goal, here? Do you want to be convinced to read Dune? Because ultimately that's on you. Do you want to be convinced that Dune is important? That should be absent any considerations of aesthetics anyway, something doesn't have to be considered good by you as an individual to be influential. Do you want to be convinced you're right? Because you will never have an understanding of the work unless you read it.
As I said 2 pages ago, I've tried to read the book, and I just couldn't get past it.
I know it's a metaphor for oil, but even in the real world it's more common than that. It stretches credibility.
Again, I have actually tried to read it. And I've gone rather in-depth into writings based on it. Also, you most certainly can tell if something is an interesting idea with bad execution without reading through the whole thing, just read a summary of something like LOTF or FOTJ.
That's a debatable point (and I think you're incredibly wrong, for the record), but regardless I wouldn't really be able to tell LOTF or FOTJ were "dry" or "off" or whatever because I haven't read them. Maybe the writing or storytelling is such that the bad execution is forgivable. Maybe what I perceive as bad execution is based of a synopsis not providing insights the direct text can provide. Maybe that's besides the point because I'm doomed to never, ever "win over" LOTF or FOTJ fans with my secondhand insights.
You're correct in guessing I haven't read those books. Thing is, I don't post in threads dedicated to those books questioning the validity of others' value judgements without reading them, or decrying fans comparing them to X because I like X but think I wouldn't like those books.
You forgot to answer his question. What is your goal here? What are you even doing?
You didn't actually try to read it, btw. You didn't even get through one chapter, that's not anything that could be called effort. If you're good stopping there, that's your choice, but you should be done talking here. You don't know anything about Dune. Not a damn thing, about it's execution, or anything outside those few pages you read, which you probably don't know much about, either.
Again, what is your deal?
Are you just offended that someone dared to call it the sci-fi equivalent of Lord of the Rings?
Ghost. Dune is high stakes politics. Spice is a luxury consumable for the wealthy on the one hand but also the glue that keeps the Imperium together on the other. The significance of the spice for the Guild and space travel is not something which is really known. Unlike oil, the spice cannot be synthesised. Therefore the viability of an entire interstellar society requires spice production to be maintained as without it, the society cannot exist. The planet which produces the spice is being used as a political trap to eliminate a political rival, but that rival discovers the truth about the spice and takes steps to control it and by doing that to control the universe. Personally I think it is very realistic premise. Beautiful.
It doesn't have gorillas.
Just want to add that you can't really experience a story by reading what others have to say about it. Like theology, you really need to read the source material if you don't want to fall into the "interpretation" trap.
I was talking about execution. And I'm someone who knows my literary tastes pretty well. I've always wanted to give it another try.
I think you're totally misreading me.
I was asking Dune fans to convince me why they thought it was so good, given my criticisms (which most people have not done).
A few people have responded to me, and I've responded back. I don't just keep coming in here and restarting the discussion. I'm still responding to responses from my original comment.
And yes, I do know a lot about it.
Thanks for actually trying to engage with me. It is a nice premise. It's just, in my mind, whenever I'm reading any book or watching any TV show or movie, I'm always thinking of how it could be done better. For me, it would be more interesting if it was concentrated but not necessarily limited to one planet, or if people tried to synthesize it but it didn't work right yet they keep trying. And other things, like the BG sisterhood have some interesting concepts (similar to the ATLA idea of reincarnation and multiple souls in one body) but also some things that I think would easily improve them. Like why do they have to be a sisterhood? There's also not that much humor and unpredictability in it. How it focuses on concubines is weird... I know it's supposed to be a flawed society, but I'd hope even the villains would go beyond some archaic things featured in the series. And at least in the movie, I know the books are different, there's a lot of things that seem too grotesque.
So you just want to "win" an argument you also want to have no stake in. Okay, have a nice day.
Here's a more appropriate thread for you to discuss Dune, Ghost.
Ignorance is not an Obstacle: The Manifesto of the Unread
You say you got bored with the first chapter? So did I, but it got more interesting from there.
Lord of the Rings is a thousand times more unapproachable than Dune, imo. Tolkien's writing is a real chore for me, as is the whole fantasy scene that followed. Dune is fantastical too of course, but setting it in an industrial, science-based universe requires a lot less suspension of disbelief, at least for me. It's a similar trick to the one Star Wars plays, but without the telekinesis and whatnot. A drug that expands your temporal perspective isn't that far fetched in principle, and once the more far fetched hereditary business arrives you're already invested in it. It's not just thrust upon you like magic, elves, wizards and dragons (or a third stage guild navigator).
When I was younger, Dune books served as quite an adequate cure for insomnia, and the books after God Emperor still have that effect, but I don't think I'd ever describe the writing as dry. Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov are dry. Brian Aldiss can be dry. Ray Bradbury, in his way, can be dry. Dune books are a lot more passionate (and witty, especially compared to Clarke and Asimov) than that. Richer, too, and everything flows in ways that Tolkien prose doesn't. I don't feel like the exposition gets in the way of the narrative flow, or even takes over as it does with Tolkien. Long winded, yes. Formal, at times yes. But dry?
The various introductory/scene-setting reports and historical documents are written to be dry, but get past those paragraphs and you're straight into all the action and intrigue. Dialogue involving military people and politicians is formal as you'd expect, but that's not all there is to it.
"I tried to read it, but couldn't get into it."
Yours is a straightforward story, well told. I like it. What it doesn't need is a lot of backstory or sequels that provide tonnages of additional details without contributing anything to that initial compelling narrative.
I would agree that Herbert, much moreso than Asimov or Tolkien, actually has talent as a writer. At the most basic level, he can put sentences together well, and he is also capable of weaving tight narratives. By contrast, Tolkien is too often a sprawling, aimless mess. Asimov is relentless and clunky, often more in the tradition of the novel of ideas than an actual story.