Print Story ATTN: ATREIDES. I'M READING DUNE.
Linux
By gzt (Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 11:56:16 AM EST) gzt, theophany, teeth, dune, bogart, drain, hair, goo (all tags)
I now understand your name. That is all.


Rule number one of making data usable to the team: don't bogart the data. Put it somewhere we all can find it even if you think you're the only one who uses it. Especially if you're on vacation. And we need it.

Some really huge guy was talking to me at the gym last night when I was doing cleans. Awesome. The guy is really huge. He said I could use his chalk.

Speaking of really huge, I cleaned out the tub drain. That's it. We're both going for the bald look now.

Speaking of bald, I shaved off my beard. I didn't mean to grow a beard, I was just lazy. It happened one night. I know I didn't shave for a while after getting married. I don't know when I shaved. I'm sure I did, because I was definitely not long enough last night to have not cut if off for 2.5 months.

Bathroom needs cleaning. I cleaned the tub a little bit last night after pulling out the hair goo, but it needs a scrub.

Woo Theophany tomorrow wooo. I'll eat an entire chicken for dinner. Maybe.

I had a dream about Fringe and my teeth falling out, except it wasn't a dream and my teeth really were breaking down and chipping apart, except when I woke up it was a dream.

So I started reading Dune at the behest of Teh Wife.

woo theophany: coming up.

< hooray, the lights are back on! | Tales from the Hospital >
ATTN: ATREIDES. I'M READING DUNE. | 75 comments (75 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Dune by duxup (2.00 / 0) #1 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:02:03 PM EST
Not being a book lear'ner I have not read the book.

I did find the sci-fi channels Dune mini series quite good, and the Children of Dune series even better.    I found both far better than the David Lynch film.

____
They're both much closer to the books by wiredog (4.00 / 2) #11 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:58:41 PM EST
than the film.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
ATOMICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! by MillMan (2.00 / 0) #33 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 03:05:13 PM EST

"Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no libertarians in financial crises." -Krugman

[ Parent ]
better than the David Lynch film by codemonkey uk (4.00 / 1) #20 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:52:23 PM EST
as is being punched in the face

--- Thad ---
Almost as Smart As you.
[ Parent ]
I went to see that in the theatre by marvin (4.00 / 1) #23 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 02:00:15 PM EST
I was 13, and my mom took me, along with my 11y old brother.

All I remember was cringing in my seat by a quarter of the way through, apologetically whispering to my mom "This is nothing like the book, the book was way better".

I felt the same way about the butchery of LotR. I started watching FotR, and held my nose up until Moria. When Gimli said "Dwarves are not tossed", I couldn't take it any more, and turned it off. Why do egotistical directors take a good story, throw it away, and make the movie into a string of battles and special effects instead of just telling the story?

[ Parent ]
the treatment of gimli by aphrael (4.00 / 2) #24 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 02:02:46 PM EST
was one of the weakest parts of that movie.

That said, I thought it was faithful to the feel of the book ... and was much better than I had expected it to be.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.

[ Parent ]
One of many weaknesses by marvin (2.00 / 0) #26 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 02:11:57 PM EST
I might have turned it off after seeing a bit of Lothlorien as well. It was cold, lifeless and blue-grey.

I hated the feel of the movie - it was all Hollywood, not Tolkien. I'll stick with the mental pictures I got from the books back in my youth, of a brightly lit, eternal summertime, vibrantly filled with greens and yellows. I prefer the version that lives in my imagination.

With more recent movies of well-loved books, I thought the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was amazing, even after re-reading the series. It faithfully brought the story to life, without too many of the usual Hollywood "improvements". Prince Caspian was a steaming chud for the same reasons as LotR.

[ Parent ]
Have you seen Where The Wild Things Are by codemonkey uk (4.00 / 1) #27 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 02:37:53 PM EST
Now, that's an adaptation.

--- Thad ---
Almost as Smart As you.
[ Parent ]
Is it anything like Girls Gone Wild? by marvin (2.00 / 0) #28 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 02:41:34 PM EST
Haven't seen it, not sure if I've read the book.

[ Parent ]
perhaps it was in the expectations by aphrael (4.00 / 1) #44 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 04:13:40 PM EST
i expected them to trash it, so i was pleasantly surprised.

things that felt right: the scene where they are setting out of rivendell. the moment of utter silence after frodo says he will take the ring. the scene in moria where gandalf lets up his light and shows the beauty of the place. sam's reluctance to actually leave the shire. the feel of the arrival in bree and the sense of doom closing in around them as they sat in the tavern.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.

[ Parent ]
Expectations differ by marvin (2.00 / 0) #47 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 04:18:32 PM EST
Based on the /. comments, I expected them to be somewhat faithful to the book - they had almost 10 hours and a huge budget. Instead, they cut important stuff and replaced it with battle scenes and director-written romantic shite featuring Arwen as some sort of warrior princess. They also miscast Boromir and Aragorn - they should have swapped them.

I was disappointed.

[ Parent ]
Almost 10 hours by lm (2.00 / 0) #50 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 05:13:51 PM EST
And you expected them to justice to the entire trilogy?

I'm going to go chuckle now.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Yes. Yes I do by marvin (2.00 / 0) #52 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 05:31:49 PM EST
If they're not good enough to do the job right, then they shouldn't be taking on a classic like LotR. Hubris is a failing.

Make yourself a list with two columns.

One one side, put in the critical stuff that was left out (scouring of the shire, etc).

On the other side, put in the gratuitous fluff that was inserted as eye candy (eg, the long battle scenes) or the pandering tripe that was added by Jackson to try and broaden the appeal of the movie (eg, expansion of Arwen's role). Also include segments that could be trimmed without disrupting the storyline (how many minutes of terror-stricken hobbits do you need before you get the point).

Put the number of minutes beside each item. Add each column up and tell me how close they are. The numbers might surprise you.

[ Parent ]
Long battle scenes by lm (4.00 / 1) #53 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 05:40:48 PM EST
I don't recall many being that much longer than in the book. And most of the poetry/songs were left out without so much as narrative monologue to fill in the bits of history that were missed. Not to mention entire sequences like Tom Bombadil. If fidelity to the books is an important criterion, then it seems to me that each of the books could easily have been broken into two (or even three) movies.

Fortunately, for me anyway, I'm not one of those that thinks fidelity to the books is all that important. I don't think Jackson's movies do any more damage to Tolkein than Sophocles Ajax does to Homer. It's a different medium and both were recapitulating a story rather than offering a strict translation.

But if one were to make fidelity to the source a criterion, it seems pretty straightforwards that the entire trilogy needs more than 10 hours to do it justice.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Fidelity by marvin (2.00 / 0) #55 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 05:53:08 PM EST
My problem was that it didn't even feel like the same story by the time Jackson was done with it, at least for the limited portions I was able to stomach. Gimli was butchered and turned into a lame attempt at comic relief. Everything he touched was left dripping with yuck. From the hour or two I watched, I could have left half on the cutting room floor, and restored an equal amount of far more important stuff such as dialogue, characterization, and plot development.

I've watched Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet. That was an adaptation that was only faithful in the text, but nothing else. It still worked because they kept the characters and the dialogue. People manage to trim Shakespeare down all the time for film and stage (especially Hamlet) without losing as much as Jackson did of LotR.

[ Parent ]
A full production of Hamlet, is what? 4-5 hours? by lm (2.00 / 0) #58 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 06:41:32 PM EST
That's from well under 200 pages of text if I'm not mistaken. To make it comparable to Jackson's LoTR, I think you'd have to cut Hamlet down to 50 minutes or less.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Yeah. And add 120 minutes of filler by marvin (2.00 / 0) #61 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 07:08:39 PM EST
Pulled out of Jackson's ass.

[ Parent ]
Gilligan's Island hit the highlights in 15 minutes by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #62 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 07:31:19 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Have you ever seen by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #69 Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 07:06:31 AM EST
"The Complete Wrks of Wllm Shkspr (Abridged)"?

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
No, but I came close by lm (2.00 / 0) #73 Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 03:33:35 PM EST
Cincinnati has a Shakespeare company that put it on. I almost went to see it. I can't recall why I didn't.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Romeo and Juliet by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #70 Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 07:09:55 AM EST
I liked the Baz Luhrman version. The leads were, well, not so much miscast as visibly afraid of the text. They did nail a couple of scenes.

But the supporting roles. Man. Leguizamo was the best Tybalt ever. The Nurse. Mercutio was wonderful. Lady Capulet.

I've rewatched the DVD several times just for the supporting roles.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
Sean Bean was perfect as Boromir. by muchagecko (2.00 / 0) #64 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 08:16:07 PM EST
Which was especially nice, since Boromir has always been my favorite character in the series.

I don't like even thinking of Viggo as Boromir.


A purpose gives you a reason to wake up every morning.
So a purpose is like a box of powdered donut holes?
Exactly
My Name is Earl

[ Parent ]
You try and sell by technician (2.00 / 0) #30 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 02:56:37 PM EST
a story.

Audiences won't sit through it. Case in point: how much cash has Avatar made? Now, how many people have seen Junebug? Or Me and You and Everyone We Know?

The problem with film isn't a problem. It's the way film works. It isn't a book. Sometimes the film maker misses your mark, and hits 900 million others.  Me, I find the LoTR books tedious and annoyingly complex. The movies were a much better medium for the story. Maybe not the characters, but no movie will have the depth of character development that a book will.

Movies as art, well, they do something books cannot hope to accomplish, but most movies aren't art these days. Movies as vessels for stories do things a book cannot do as well, and while books are far superior at letting you develop your mind's eye of the story, a film is better at telling a director's vision of a story without concern for your details.

In other words, it ain't all about you (the royal you, or you personally). Yeah, I know I'm going to really hate Youth in Revolt because they leave out all the good bits and all this detail and oh my god you should just read the book. But you know what? I'm still going to enjoy the movie for what it is: an interpretation of a story that I love. Nothing like seeing what other people think matters (good and bad, wrong and right) with something as intimate and personal as a book or story that you love.

[ Parent ]
you are dead to me. by gzt (4.00 / 2) #37 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 03:23:15 PM EST
get the fuck out of my diaries.

no, just kidding. but, seriously, this is the internet, you're supposed to like tolkien on the internet. are you sure you're supposed to be on the internet? there's probably a monster truck rally somewhere right now...

actually, never mind, i think that'd be cool, too. and i hate the internet.

[ Parent ]
I know I'm a minority by marvin (2.00 / 0) #38 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 03:41:34 PM EST
Keep lining up for the bread and circuses.

I disagree with your thoughts on the way film works. Casablanca told a story, with decently developed characters. The special effects are quaint today, but that wasn't what made the movie. All that recent movies seem to do is keep setting records for the amount of money and time it takes to make them, as if spending more money on special effects can overcome poor scriptwriting / adaption, lame acting, and shoddy directing. If you want quality storytelling, your best option these days is still to go read a book.

I cannot see how you can divorce storyline from characters so readily. If you're missing one or the other, or one is more developed than the other, then the work suffers. All that movies do is add a visual element. Storytelling is a discipline as old as language. The old stories that cavemen told around the campfire in an oral tradition differ little from the stories written down in books, which differ little from movies. To me, they're all storytelling.

The director's "vision" of a story adapted from a book is usually shite that resulted from a bad acid trip, and bears little resemblance to the story as originally written by the author. Had LotR and Prince Caspian instead both been more accurately named as "Lame dwarf mistreatment and lotsa big CGI battle scenes; leave your brains at the door", there would be justice in the world.

I mostly watch animated movies now, and not just because I have kids. Shrek, Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc., and the like are better movies than 99% of the other stuff out there, because they have characters that matter to the audience, and a compelling storyline.

My opinions are all about me. I am also a precious and unique snowflake.

[ Parent ]
MONSTERS, INC. FOR LYFE! by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #39 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 03:54:58 PM EST
Mrs. NFB and I share a deep love of that movie. And Shrek. Even the sequel wasn't complete crap. The third is a bit weaksauce though.

[ Parent ]
Saw Shrek the Third for the first time on Dec 24th by marvin (2.00 / 0) #41 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 04:03:20 PM EST
Agreed that it was weak. Although I can't think of many movies or books that were not wearing a little thin by the third go-round.

The winner for best film adaptation evar remains Princess Bride. Unfortunately, I saw the movie before reading the book, but as I read the book, I couldn't believe how similar they were. You could easily watch the movie and pass a high school test on the book. The book ending is seriously depressing though. Skipping the last page in the movie was one adaptation that I didn't mind.

[ Parent ]
Never actually read the book. by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #42 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 04:07:04 PM EST
I was always afraid the book would ruin the movie for me when it comes to the Princess Bride. And that movie is a classic, and was the day it came out.

[ Parent ]
it won't happen with that book. by gzt (2.00 / 0) #46 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 04:17:52 PM EST
They're both awesome in their own way. You should read the book.

[ Parent ]
Agreed by marvin (2.00 / 0) #48 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 04:23:28 PM EST
Reading the book won't wreck the movie. I've watched it several times since, and it gets better each time.

I found Schindler's List the same - both the book and the movie were good. The fiddle / violin (what's the difference?) music from the movie was haunting.

[ Parent ]
animated movies by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #43 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 04:11:15 PM EST
you should add: the iron giant, princess mononoke, spirited away.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.
[ Parent ]
Think I've seen Spirited Away thx to bittorrent by marvin (2.00 / 0) #45 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 04:15:05 PM EST
Little girl, amusement park, people turned into pigs? I liked it. Not easy to find that sort of thing in meatspace where I live.

Going outside of animation, and into Japanese films, I tried watching Kurosawa's Ran when I was a teenager, but I think I fell asleep. I'd like to try watching that one again.

[ Parent ]
Stories by technician (2.00 / 0) #59 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 06:49:47 PM EST
and their storytellers are not independent. If you want the document of what you imagined while reading Lord of the Rings, you can try to make that movie. You won't be able to.

What a skilled movie team does is make a story that 1) sells and 2) is entertaining to the majority of the audience that supplied #1. What a skilled movie team does is make something from a mix of resources, capabilities, and visions, and through tedious and heart breaking work, wrenches a narrative from piles of useless data. This isn't something that happens in one person's head.

Casablanca may be an agreed upon classic, but how many of those are there? A hundred? Maybe? Yet it was weak in many areas. Deficient. Could have been better. Not much better, but it certainly could have been.

And that's the point: the movies that you cite as being bad acid trips (proof?) are labors of a delusion that you chose to not accept. You instead labor under the delusion that there is a "proper" way to film an existing story, from a point-of-view that cannot exist, in a way that cannot be accomplished unless you do the entire film yourself, with your own cash, and play it only for yourself.

So what happens instead is, the movie team says, hey, here's a script. It's 1800 pages...or worse, it is only four. We need to create a vision that 80 percent of the males between 17 and 28 love.

The rest of us can go back to arthouse films, or give up on movies, and decry the lack of "vision" or "artistry" in films, and be smug in our own world where the movie is perfectly matched to our delusional state.

OR we can suspend disbelief and munch on some popcorn while partaking in someone else's delusion strictly because we can no longer do any goddamn drugs without losing our jobs. A waking hallucination that, at worst, pulls you away from the stark reality of slowly dying in a world that doesn't give a shit about your vision and at best fills your head and your time with endless new imaginary ways of being that provide escape, enlightenment, and the utter joy of living (however fleeting) someone else's life through the eyes of another human.

[ Parent ]
Delusional state by marvin (2.00 / 0) #60 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 07:07:52 PM EST
(proof?)

There is a vision already for LotR. It is written down in a book. They desecrated it with their changes. End of story. I'm not artsy, don't give a rat's ass about vision or artistry. Just don't make stuff worse, or make changes for the sake of change. That's where the problem is.

Jackson should have taken the same approach to changes to the script as Gimli planned for the Glittering Caves - cautiously, tap by tap. If he truly loved the LotR, he would have done so.

"Then I will wish you this fortune for your comfort, Gimli," said the Elf, "that you may come safe from war and return to see them again. But do not tell all your kindred! There seems little left for them to do, from your account. Maybe the men of this land are wise to say little: one family of busy dwarves with hammer and chisel might mar more than they made."

"No, you do not understand," said Gimli. "No dwarf could be unmoved by such loveliness. None of Durin's race would mine those caves for stones or ore, not if diamonds and gold could be got there. Do you cut down groves of blossoming trees in the springtime for firewood? We would tend these glades of flowering stone, not quarry them. With cautious skill, tap by tap -- a small chip of rock and no more, perhaps, in a whole anxious day -- so we would work, and as the years went by, we should open up new ways, and display far chambers that are still dark, glimpsed only as a void beyond fissures in the rock. And lights, Legolas! We should make lights, such lamps as once shone in Khazad-dum; and when we wished we would drive away the night that has lain there since the hills were made; and when we desired rest, we would let the night return."



[ Parent ]
He should have? by technician (2.00 / 0) #63 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 08:12:56 PM EST
According to you, then.

[ Parent ]
At any point by marvin (2.00 / 0) #65 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 09:02:08 PM EST
Did I suggest that I am speaking anything other than my opinion? Of course what I say is according to me, and me only.

Take it for what it's worth - while some people value my opinion in areas I specialize in, I am not sought after as a film critic.

That doesn't necessarily prevent me from still being right though.

[ Parent ]
True. by technician (2.00 / 0) #66 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 09:26:04 PM EST
My thinking is, why is correcting the movie an option, and correcting the original story isn't? Maybe the version in the movie is closer to what I think.

Now, this is how wars start over ideological differences. No wonder there is no peace anywhere: all of you fundamentalists are insisting on purity of the word over it's popularity.

Heh. This was fun! Hope you aren't offended by any of it.

[ Parent ]
Gaaaahh by marvin (4.00 / 1) #67 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 09:51:16 PM EST
The original is the One True Story. Any bastardized version is secondary at best. Tolkien was a genius who created something, much like the creation of the elves in Silmarillon (hazy here, I've only read snippets of that). Jackson is like Sauron - he created something as well: Orcs, a poor imitation of elves.

I like Keats' poem Eve of St. Agnes 100x more than I do Romeo and Juliet. Even though R&J could be considered a forerunner to Eve of St. Agnes, they are completely different works. If Eve of St. Agnes is a derivative, it is at best a distant relative to R&J, and certainly not a bastardization like the LotR movies. Keats did not try and pass it off as R&J by giving it the same name. He did not borrow name recognition from Shakespeare; he created something of his own that stood on its own.

No offense taken. That movie has to be one of the most divisive topics among nerds. I should have trawled through some of the old slashdot threads more more ammo though, as I could have been more convincing, given more time.


[ Parent ]
LoTR (movie failure). by wumpus (2.00 / 0) #49 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 05:05:20 PM EST
Was almost entirely due to dropping the ending ("The Scouring of the Shire"). They couldn't put that in the movies, people were already walking out the Return of the King a few minutes after the ring melted. The catch is the whole point of "Scouring" is to show the hobbits after they've gotten all the levels from the adventure (the whole "hero's journey" thing). Since we won't be seeing the hobbits level, Aragon becomes the hero and has to improve. Once you water down Aragon so he can improve, you need to ruin Faramir, etc. I think the movie works best as a proof that Tolkien meant what he said about "Scouring" being required from the story and not tacked on as a metaphor for what usually happens after a war (with widespread deployment).

I don't know where you heard the movie was true to the book. Middle Earth was done well (you might not have liked Lolth Lorien, but it was quite elvish and noticably more so than Rivendell).

Wumpus

[ Parent ]
Did I say true? by marvin (2.00 / 0) #51 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 05:23:43 PM EST
I recall using the words somewhat faithful in another comment.

I only made it half-way through the first movie before deeming it an epic fail that was not worth the time required to watch it. And this is coming from someone who watched Waterworld* to the very end. I'm glad I never saw how Peter Jackson ruined Faramir.

With your unusual application of the concept of levelling, I am thinking that you are playing too much DDO. The One Ring would be a very rare drop though, and I bet Frodo and Sam got a ton of XP from that quest.

* my excuse is that it was the first movie in a double feature at a drive-in, with Apollo 13 to follow. I might have distracted myself from the first movie by engaging in varied diversions with female company that happened to be present.

[ Parent ]
It's an older idea of mine. by wumpus (2.00 / 0) #54 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 05:47:05 PM EST
I think "leveling" was well known in geek circles by the time LoTR was raped. I didn't just add it after DDO.

Wumpus

[ Parent ]
I loved Dune by marvin (2.00 / 0) #2 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:10:57 PM EST
None of the many sequels even came close though. Might be time to re-read it.

This is not entirely true. by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #4 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:18:38 PM EST
Some of the sequels were pretty good. However, avoid the Brian Herbert follow up "this is what daddy would have wrote" books at all costs. AT ALL COSTS!

[ Parent ]
Well you know, the dude's got to eat by georgeha (4.00 / 1) #6 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:24:32 PM EST
and butchering his father's legacy with ham handed prequels and sequels beats flipping burgers.


[ Parent ]
Mel Blanc's son by johnny (2.00 / 0) #56 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 06:21:06 PM EST
voicing the Warner Brothers cartoons in the 90's.

Wish he had further explored burger-flipping.

She has effectively checked out. She's an un-person of her own making. So it falls to me.--ad hoc (in the hole)

[ Parent ]
I've been lucky enough by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #57 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 06:22:26 PM EST
not see any Warner Brother's cartoons made in the last few decades.


[ Parent ]
He's still pissing me off. by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #68 Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 06:20:45 AM EST
That new Elmer Fudd commercial makes me want to punch the screen. I don't know who they got to voice the Muppets that Jim Henson used to do, but they took the correct approach and found someone who does the voice well, rather than has ties to the old man.

[ Parent ]
Pretty good is still not exceptional by marvin (4.00 / 1) #8 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:50:44 PM EST
Dune is outstanding. If I were limited to a box of 50 books that would be all I could read for the rest of my life while trapped on a desert island, Dune would be in the top 10 or 20. None of the sequels would make the list (although one or two other Herbert novels such as the Lazarus Effect might).

I bought one of Brian Herbert's first books back when I was in high school. It sucked more than an shop vac. I have no desire to read his attempts to carry on the Dune franchise.

[ Parent ]
See, to me by nightflameblue (4.00 / 2) #14 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:36:16 PM EST
while the original novel is pretty all-encompassing on the awesome front, it only becomes even more impressive when read as part of the whole saga. I hear a lot of complaints about the latter novels, but honestly some of that work is even more enjoyable to me than the first novel. I know, blasphemy, but I dig it.

[ Parent ]
NO!!! You must see the world MY way by marvin (2.00 / 0) #19 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:46:39 PM EST
Uhhh, because. That's why.

[ Parent ]
to me by StackyMcRacky (2.00 / 0) #36 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 03:17:35 PM EST
the books got more confusing as time went on.  but, as i have said many times before, sometimes I just don't "get" things because I can be simple-minded.

[ Parent ]
Nothing wrong with that. by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #40 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 03:56:21 PM EST
I think I just dig things that make me turn back fifty pages and go, "wait, what? That doesn't make sense." I'm self-abusing in that way.

[ Parent ]
I'd like to see the notes by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #18 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:42:34 PM EST
that sonny boy supposedly based his books on.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
If it's anything like notes I make by nightflameblue (4.00 / 1) #31 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 02:58:52 PM EST
he's writing 400 pages based on single snips like, "probably have something with that Harkonen family to clear up why they hate the Atreides here. Blood feud? Dunno."

[ Parent ]
robots and cyborgs are kewl! by georgeha (4.00 / 1) #34 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 03:06:53 PM EST
how can I fit some robots and cyborgs in?


[ Parent ]
Children of Dune came close by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #12 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:01:27 PM EST
The later ones went off the rails. In a way that was consistent with what Children laid out, but still.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
I need to read that book in its entirety by marvin (2.00 / 0) #13 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:22:03 PM EST
My paperback box set that I bought used in the mid-80s was a mis-print. The pages in my copy of Children of Dune went something like 1-200, 150-200, 250-280, so I missed a critical chunk of it.

I don't remember caring about the characters as much in anything after the first one though. They just got too weird (eg, Leto II), or too specialized and hyperfocused (any of the BG). Too much mental crap, and not enough shiny technology. I cared about the series, but didn't think it went anywhere as interesting as the original.

It's been a while since I read the Dune series, but I wonder that Herbert ran into the same problem that Niven hit early on in his Known Space novels - too much near-magical technology. Niven wrote about hitting the wall, where after you've got eternal life, teleportation, FTL travel, and materials like scrith, slaver stasis fields, and similar fantastic techs, you run out of believable problems that cannot be solved by applying these amazing tools.

Niven switched to other worlds. Herbert just added more mysticism crap to try and get out of the corner he painted himself into. He's not as good at that stuff as relative newcomers like Steven Barnes (Street Lethal).

[ Parent ]
I'm forced to go back to my favorite. by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #15 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:39:26 PM EST
Dan Simmons in the Hyperion/Endymion books. All of the near-magical science you mentioned, solved simply by destroying all of it and making humanity claw its way back up. Granted, from a much higher platform than we currently actually exist on, but still made for a much more interesting story than trying to fabricate a problem that couldn't be tackled by the existing tech.

[ Parent ]
Read Dune Messiah and then Children of Dune by wiredog (4.00 / 1) #17 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:41:02 PM EST
as one book.

If he'd ended it at Children the series would've been one of the greats, rather than great book, decent series.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
God Emperor by aphrael (4.00 / 1) #25 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 02:04:13 PM EST
wasn't bad. It took some work to wrap my head around it, but it was an interesting coda to the series.

The stuff after that verged on the incomprehensible.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.

[ Parent ]
I have the 1st edition hardcover by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #29 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 02:55:14 PM EST
Read it twice. "Interesting" is a good description. Or "weird". It does flow, logically, from the things laid out in "Children"

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
i always differ with people on this by infinitera (2.00 / 0) #32 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 03:00:19 PM EST
I really liked God Emperor, Heretics, and Chapterhouse.

[…] a professional layabout. Which I aspire to be, but am not yet. — CheeseburgerBrown

[ Parent ]
I'm with you. by nightflameblue (4.00 / 1) #35 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 03:12:15 PM EST
So there are two of us anyway.

[ Parent ]
I've read them more than once. by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #71 Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 07:15:37 AM EST
God Emperor is necessary for reading the other two, but not as good. It reads as if Heretics and Chapterhouse are the first 2 of a trilogy that he didn't get to finish.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
Possibly true. by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #72 Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 07:47:03 AM EST
I really enjoyed God Emperor though. Sort of a "what if" on the concept of a supreme being being interactive and real.

[ Parent ]
Dune, whoa, that's awesome by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #3 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:12:22 PM EST



Speaking of Dune by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #5 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:19:33 PM EST
They're making another movie. You could have just waited for that.

Also also House of Atreus.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

The most shocking part of that article? by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #7 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:26:19 PM EST
They're making a movie based on the board game Battleship. Allow me to give an internet "WAT?" to that.

[ Parent ]
It was probably wise... by gzt (2.00 / 0) #9 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:52:19 PM EST
...to accept the Battleship movie over a Dune remake, though.

[ Parent ]
And another internet: by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #16 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:39:58 PM EST
TRUFE!

[ Parent ]
I'm imagining it "Princess Bride"-style. by gzt (2.00 / 0) #21 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:53:26 PM EST
Genial old grandfather visiting sick grandchild, kid seems averse to the idea of a silly boardgame like Battleship, but the drama of it draws him in...

[ Parent ]
I bet the little two hole destroyer by georgeha (4.00 / 1) #22 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:54:46 PM EST
hangs on to the end and sends the winning salvo.


[ Parent ]
Well, yes, the house of Atreus by gzt (2.00 / 0) #10 Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:53:58 PM EST
Being the student of the Greek language that I was, I knew that connection, but I figured the connection here was a lot more plausible.

[ Parent ]
Nice try but... by atreides (2.00 / 0) #74 Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 06:51:17 PM EST
...wrong Atreides. However, I was reading this around the same time and the House claims descent from the House of Atreus so I should amend my previous statement to "You're half right."

He sails from world to world in a flying tomb, serving gods who eat hope.

Drat. by gzt (2.00 / 0) #75 Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:02:35 AM EST
Then I should've written this diary, like, more than a decade ago.

[ Parent ]
ATTN: ATREIDES. I'M READING DUNE. | 75 comments (75 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback