Frank Herbert's Dune, 50 Years On

An anonymous reader writes: This October will be the 50th anniversary of Frank Herbert's massively popular and influential sci-fi novel Dune. The Guardian has written a piece examining its effects on the world at large, and how the book remains relevant even now. Quoting: 'Books read differently as the world reforms itself around them, and the Dune of 2015 has geopolitical echoes that it didn't in 1965, before the oil crisis and 9/11. ... As Paul's destiny becomes clear to him, he begins to have visions 'of fanatic legions following the green and black banner of the Atreides, pillaging and burning across the universe in the name of their prophet Muad'Dib.' If Paul accepts this future, he will be responsible for 'the jihad's bloody swords,' unleashing a nomad war machine that will up-end the corrupt and oppressive rule of the emperor Shaddam IV (good) but will kill untold billions (not so good) in the process. In 2015, the story of a white prophet leading a blue-eyed brown-skinned horde of jihadis against a ruler called Shaddam produces a weird funhouse mirror effect, as if someone has jumbled up recent history and stuck the pieces back together in a different order."

Comments

Missing History

[Anonymous Coward]

T. E. Lawrence is missing in the action of writing summaries.

Um ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

... um, yeah, that's the eerie parallel. OK.

Re:Um ...

[Anonymous Coward]

lol

Lawrence

[tleaf100]

I wonder how long he or todays t.e,would last in the middle east today ?

Re:Lawrence

[smittyoneeach]

"Lawrence would, I assure you, get along swimmingly," said Tony Blair.

Re:Lawrence

[perpenso]

I wonder how long he or todays t.e,would last in the middle east today ?

One major difference between then and now is that according to the Arab leaders of the day who explained things to Lawrence, a fundamentalist movement arose once or twice a century for many centuries. And when these fundamentalists became troublesome the moderate majority would rise up against them, from the mosque to the street and everything in between. But the Arab leaders added that such fundamentalists are always lurking somewhere so it will be best to travel in native clothing and with a native guard in the desert.

Perhaps I am mistaken but I think the fundamentalists becoming troublesome refers to something far less than what we are seeing today. The cultural understanding and respect and the diplomacy of Lawrence would not help him much in an environment where being a local moderate muslim can be a death sentence.

Re:Lawrence

[lgw]

I think the fundamental difference here (so to speak) is that ISIS is not a fundamentalist uprising. Oh, sure, they claim to be a religious movement, but everyone in the region does. Fundamentalism, in any religion, is not typically accompanied by using sexual slavery as an incentive to get young men to fight for you (ISIS has quite the flexible and convenient moral code).

My understanding of ISIS (mostly from a Muslim Arab coworker, so of course my "expert" could be wrong) is that they're "religious" in the same way Scientology is: they have all the trappings of religion, but it's all quite contrived. They emphasize whatever parts of scripture helps their goals and ignore the rest in a very obvious and transparent way that fools almost no one. It's not that they're murdering "moderate Muslims" per se, they're simply murdering anyone who speaks up about how evil they are, or simply speaks against them, whether on religious grounds or any other grounds.

There are many other places in the world where IMO the problem really is religious fundamentalism, but those guys aren't raising armies and conquering vast territory. Even in Afghanistan it's just one tribe after another, not a united fundamentalist army.

I think it's a mistake to confuse the problem with fundamentalist Islam in other parts of the world and other cultures with ISIS and the Arabian Peninsula.

Re:Lawrence

[perpenso]

In Lawrence's day the Arab leaders referred to such fundamentalism as a heresy for many of the reasons your co-worker states. A heretical intolerant only our beliefs is permissible fundamentalist islam. ISIS accurately represents some of these fundamentalist heretics, Lawrence was explicitly warned by Arab leaders of fanatics who would murder him for nothing more than being a christian in arab lands even with the permission of the Saudi king. And yes, to such fanatics slavery and murder are absolutely within their "religious beliefs" because those things are permissible when the victim is a non-believer and has been given the opportunity to convert; and these people consider non-believers to include moderate muslims. Anything short of their beliefs is a heresy and un-islamic to these fundamentalists and if you decline conversion you are fair game. Centuries of central and north african slave trade was founded upon this idea that a non-believer was fair game.

Re:Lawrence

[gweihir]

Unfortunately, the same thing about regular arising of fundamentalists seems to be true of the west, and with a population much, much slower on the update. We are now well into another resurgence of fascism. Last time, it took WWII to stop it. This time will likely be worse.

Re:Lawrence

[dbIII]

Fundamentalism, in any religion, is not typically accompanied by using sexual slavery as an incentive to get young men to fight for you

It manifests as "all the old rules are not good enough" and sometimes the new rules look like utter heresy. A much milder Christian version was some Puritans who banned Christmas - only used as a comparison because it's an example of an offshoot denying what people see as a core of the religion.
So even though it looks like an utter heresy of absolute evil (the first case not the very mild comparison) the practitioners/perpetrators see themselves as "fundamentalist".

is that they're "religious" in the same way Scientology is: they have all the trappings of religion, but it's all quite contrived

Yes, but it's not just Scientologists that have a group aiming for control that pretends to be something else, and a dumbed down shell of religion with all new rules does the job.

I think it's a mistake to confuse the problem with fundamentalist Islam in other parts of the world

That's where they are getting their resources from. It's just like how Senator Peter King (New York) didn't build bombs to kill Englishmen but was quite proud of sending money to people in the IRA who did.

Re:Lawrence

[Moridineas]

My understanding of ISIS (mostly from a Muslim Arab coworker, so of course my "expert" could be wrong) is that they're "religious" in the same way Scientology is: they have all the trappings of religion, but it's all quite contrived. They emphasize whatever parts of scripture helps their goals and ignore the rest in a very obvious and transparent way that fools almost no one. It's not that they're murdering "moderate Muslims" per se, they're simply murdering anyone who speaks up about how evil they are, or simply speaks against them, whether on religious grounds or any other grounds.

I would argue that that's true of all religions, and everybody. If you can show me an entirely internally consistent religion and a person who follows 100% of those teachings exactly, I would be shocked! Everybody emphasizes whatever part of the scripture they want and ignore other parts. Some conservative Christians glide past the "Do not judge" part and spend a lot of time focusing on sexual immorality! Some liberal Christians glide past the many parts of the new testament that deal with sexual immorality and spend a lot more time with the "do not judge" part! That's just religion for you. Remember, even a religion as seemingly peaceful as Buddhism had adherents who really perfected the modern concept of the suicide bomber.

Personally, I was offended when President Obama attempted to define what true Islam was, and who was a true Muslim and who was a faker. How colonialist of him to attempt to be the arbiter and definer of native religion!

There are many other places in the world where IMO the problem really is religious fundamentalism, but those guys aren't raising armies and conquering vast territory. Even in Afghanistan it's just one tribe after another, not a united fundamentalist army.

I think you're partially right and partially wrong. The issue is that Islam to a very large degree overlaps with parts of the world that have maintained pre-modern tribal ties to a degree that most of us in the east and west are no longer familiar with. Thus, in Afghanistan, it's not that the fundamentalists aren't united, but that many tribal coalitions have been unified through fundamentalist Islam.

I think it's a mistake to confuse the problem with fundamentalist Islam in other parts of the world and other cultures with ISIS and the Arabian Peninsula.

I don't. We could have a nearly infinite discussion about the history of Islam, the history of the Middle East, the rise of the West, and the economic and social morass of much of the Islamic world. We would actually probably end up agreeing about a lot of these things! Militant fundamentalism used to be a part of Christianity, but was stamped out a long time ago. Militant fundamentalism in Islam has yet to be eradicated. If you think the trappings of Caliphate, the revival of the 'Uthman dinar and other potent symbols of early Islam, and the persecution of historical enemies exist in a vacuum, I think you're very wrong.

Have you ever heard a evangelical Christian Bible study or lesson? It's interesting. They will focus to an incredible degree on each word of the verse they are studying. They will talk about the word in the original Greek (or Aramaic, etc.) and its connotations, how it compares to other Biblical accounts, etc. We're talking nitty gritty minutia and some interesting historical analysis. BUT, they also start with the inviolable precondition that the Bible is the literal word of God and divinely inspired. So, forget any line of reasoning like "Maybe Paul said XYZ because of his Jewish heritage and don't forget that the Roman governor had been stamping down on ABC, so if the early Christians wanted to avoid being persecuted, they had to act this way." The correct answer is always "Because God."

Same for ISIS. They are VERY grounded in history, but they are very one dimensional. Belittling (or disregarding the validity of) their beliefs is a huge mistake, however.

Re:Lawrence

[Bing Tsher E]

The Islamists in isis are a front. The core leadership and power behind isis are the Bathist former generals from Sadaam Hussein's Iraq. It's the folks who were thrown from power after the Iraq invasion. They use the islamist front as cover.

Re: Lawrence

[Anonymous Coward]

If lgw's anecdote is accurate, you're right on the money -- the fanatical with-us-or-die tactics and superficial adherence to a cause (whether religious or nationalist) closely mirrors the rise of the brownshirts and some of the darkest times in living memory.

Re:Lawrence

[angel'o'sphere]

+10 insightful
Unfortunately most western politicians don't see it like this, or at least claim to see it different for their own agendas.

Re:Lawrence

[angel'o'sphere]

within their "religious beliefs" because those things are permissible when the victim is a non-believer and has been given the opportunity to convert;
That is nonsense.
There are three so called "book religions", Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Islam honours all those as "believers". Some fanatics in any of those religions might disagree.
However as a matter of fact: all those religions pray to the same god. And actually there are a few more religions that pray to that god, eg. the Yazidis.

Centuries of central and north african slave trade was founded upon this idea that a non-believer was fair game.
No, it was founded on the fact that Christians payed a fair amount of money for black slaves!

Re:Lawrence

[angel'o'sphere]

So, forget any line of reasoning like "Maybe Paul said XYZ because of his Jewish heritage and don't forget that the Roman governor had been stamping down on ABC, so if the early Christians wanted to avoid being persecuted, they had to act this way." The correct answer is always "Because God."
That is complete nonsense.
Everyone I'm aware about doing bible interpretations is fully aware about the fact that the bible was written by humans.
We all know Jesus was not "walking on water" as the amaraic phrase only means "to stroll at the beach".

parts of the new testament that deal with sexual immorality
Care to point some out? AFAIK the new testament has not much to say about sexuality.

Re:Lawrence

[lgw]

Have you ever heard a evangelical Christian Bible study or lesson? They will focus to an incredible degree on each word of the verse they are studying. They will talk about the word in the original Greek (or Aramaic, etc.) and its connotations, how it compares to other Biblical accounts, etc. We're talking nitty gritty minutia and some interesting historical analysis. BUT, they also start with the inviolable precondition that the Bible is the literal word of God and divinely inspired.

You might try learning the difference between evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity. Nothing of what you said is a good generalization of evangelicals, which is why the fundamentalists don't like them much. Evangelicals are about the church (and especially the financial success of it), while fundies are often as you describe. It's fun to remind fundies that they are also, technically, evangelicals (an evangelical church is simply one that does not have an exclusive territory assigned, but must compete with other churches of the same faith for followers and tithes).

Re:Lawrence

[perpenso]

within their "religious beliefs" because those things are permissible when the victim is a non-believer and has been given the opportunity to convert; That is nonsense.

Yes, but that remains what these heretical fundamentalists believe.

There are three so called "book religions", Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Islam honours all those as "believers". Some fanatics in any of those religions might disagree.

Do you realize we agree? Yes, traditional Islam considers Jews and Christians "people of the book", people at different levels of God's revelations depending on what prophet they are following. A string of prophets, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and finally Mohammed. All prophets of the same monotheistic God. However the non-Muslims were not on a par with Muslims, they were merely "protected people". They had to pay a special tax, were not allowed to bear arms, however they were allowed to practice their religion in private, establish their own courts among their people for certain levels of crimes and the Muslim government was completely obligated to protect them as they would a muslim citizen. This changed over time as European power grew, moderates not requiring the tax and recognizing more equality for civil matters.

However as a matter of fact: all those religions pray to the same god. And actually there are a few more religions that pray to that god, eg. the Yazidis.

The "people of the book" concept and certainly the "protected people" status was also extended to Hindus by some rulers/scholars and to Buddhists as well. Although the arguments for the later were a little more complicated.

However Jews and Christians are not necessarily considered "people of the book" by some of the more conservative believers. They require a certain amount of faith and adherence to a person's respective religious laws to be so qualified. And for even more conservative minds a Jew or Christian in Islamic lands not paying the special tax and otherwise behaving under a "protected people" contract were also not considered "people of the book". So yes Jews and Christians can become fair game with respect to be treated as unbelievers. In short, believers must act as believers to some degree, expectations varying.

And of course, the heretical fundamentalist level of expectation is something that has always existed to some degree. Again, Lawrence was specifically warned to travel in native clothing with guards because there were heretics who would kill him for no other reason than being a Christian in Islamic lands, even with the blessing of the Saudi king.

Centuries of central and north african slave trade was founded upon this idea that a non-believer was fair game. No, it was founded on the fact that Christians payed a fair amount of money for black slaves!

No. Internal slavery predated and coexisted with the North American slave trade. Various African kingdoms had a long tradition of slavery and would participate in the North American trade. This included several Islamic governments. I believe that Lawrence also witnessed some slaves among the Arabian nobles. Admittedly their situation seemed closer to what in North America would have been temporary indentured servitude, so perhaps something was lost in translation. However it remains a fact that slavery in its most brutal and dehumanizing fashion was practiced by some Islamic african governments and that being classified as a "non-believer" made one fair game, a "non-believer" in the eyes of that government to be specific.

Re:Lawrence

[Zumbs]

I think the fundamental difference here (so to speak) is that ISIS is not a fundamentalist uprising.

The leadership of ISIS is dominated by military officers who served under secular dictator Saddam Hussein (source). So, unless all these people just had a religious awakening (not entirely impossible), the leadership of ISIS is simply trying to grab a lot of land and power for themselves. And they found that a Sunni Islamic fundamentalist agenda would aid in their recruitment. Especially in Iraq, where the Shia dominate government and Sunnis are being persecuted.

Re: Lawrence

[Anonymous Coward]

Mentions of sexuality do come up in the Paulinian books, but mostly as proscriptions to refrain from sexual immorality, and always listed with adultery and fornication. And we can see how hard the church works on keeping their flock from fornicating amd commuting adultery. Funny we bring up the Puritans. Some might consider them a repressed bunch of folk, but if you read some of their legal discourse you get a clear picture that even they encouraged sex, and a lot of it. It was one of the grounds that a woman could divorce her husband, if he was unwilling to keep up his husbandry duties.

Re:Lawrence

[stdarg]

I don't understand why you're calling them heretics. That means someone engaging in heresy. Heresy is a belief or action that is fundamentally opposed to the commonly held beliefs of a religion, taken as legitimate for that religion. For instance, if a Christian were to say "Well, Jesus was not the son of God, I think the Bible really says that he was a regular guy who did so and so with God's help" that is heresy because you are attempting to redefine Christianity.

Calling fundamentalism heretical doesn't really make sense in general.

Re:Lawrence

[stdarg]

Islam honours all those as "believers".

Umm no, not if they are seen as oppressing Muslims. Then they are enemies. How do you think Mohammed justified going to war against Jewish tribes -- aka people of the book.

Even if they are not oppressing Muslims, but just seen as being too "uppity" they become targets. That's why jizya was prescribed to be collected in a humiliating way.. in the Ottoman Empire, Christians would be slapped and cajoled by a crowd as they lined up to pay their jizya. These are also people of the book.

So no.

Re:Lawrence

[TheRaven64]

A much milder Christian version was some Puritans who banned Christmas

Minor clarification, but Puritans didn't ban Christmas, they banned the non-religious parties and traditions rooted in Saturnalia that had become associated with Christmas. Puritan Christmas involved spending most of the day in Church. They certainly tried to ban fun at Christmas (and at most other times), but not the Christian festival.

Re:Lawrence

[Moridineas]

That is complete nonsense.
Everyone I'm aware about doing bible interpretations is fully aware about the fact that the bible was written by humans.
We all know Jesus was not "walking on water" as the amaraic phrase only means "to stroll at the beach".

With all due respect, "everyone you're aware of" does not constitute probably much but a tiny fraction of the diversity of religious belief in the world. Just google "Bible divinely inspired" or see the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration or view a local evangelical or fundamentalist church service. Many Christians do believe that while the Bible was written by humans, it was divinely inspired and as such is the literal word of God.

This belief is even more universal in Islam, where there is much less of a history of critical or literary theory reading of the Qur'an. It's a tenet of faith that the Qur'an was "revealed" to Muhammad one revelation at a time. There is a concept of the "Umm al-Kitab" -- the mother book -- a sort of celestial ur-book of wisdom and religious teaching that sets there floating in the ether. The Qur'an is but a portion of the umm al-kitab that God chose to reveal to Muhammad.

Care to point some out? AFAIK the new testament has not much to say about sexuality.

Sure. Most are in the Pauline epistles (that's actually why I mentioned Paul in the section of mine you quoted), but they appear directly as quotes from Jesus too. Here are just a few:

Jesus:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/matthew/passage/?q=matthew+5:27-28 -- Looking at a woman with lust is the same as adultery. (Matthew 5:27-28)

http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/matthew/passage/?q=matthew+5:31-32 -- Divorce is as bad as adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32). (You can also get out of these two that adultery is bad)

Paul:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/1-corinthians/passage/?q=1-corinthians+5:1-5 -- Sexual immorality is a big deal. (1 Corinthians 5:1-5)

http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/romans/passage/?q=romans+1:26-32 -- More on sexual immorality. Those practice such things (one of such things being ... well, read it and see!) are "deserving of death." (Romans 1:26-32)

You can find probably dozens more.

Re:Lawrence

[Moridineas]

You might try learning the difference between evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity. Nothing of what you said is a good generalization of evangelicals, which is why the fundamentalists don't like them much. Evangelicals are about the church (and especially the financial success of it), while fundies are often as you describe. It's fun to remind fundies that they are also, technically, evangelicals (an evangelical church is simply one that does not have an exclusive territory assigned, but must compete with other churches of the same faith for followers and tithes).

I disagree with everything you just wrote. There is a considerable overlap between fundamental and evangelical Christianity. No part of the definition of evangelical stresses that they are "about the church" or the "financial success" of the church. I think you are conflating evangelical with Pat Robertson / Jerry Falwell breed of televangelist?

It is not true that an evangelical is just a church that does not have an exclusive territory assigned...that's jut not it at all.

I don't really care to get into a pedantic argument over definitions of different Christians sects, but on quick google for "what is an evangelical" (there's of course the WIkipedia page too, with a bullet point definition, see, e.g., the rise of fundamentalism in evangelical Christianity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism#Fundamentalism) comes up with plenty of pages, from the horses mouth so to speak, that talks about what it means to be evangelical.

Re:Lawrence

[Anonymous Coward]

And the disciples were afraid Jesus was a ghost because only ghosts could walk on the beach! And when Jesus asked Peter to step out onto the "beach", Peter started sinking into the "ground" when he lost faith in Jesus.
Walking on water sounds like a better explanation. If you want to disbelieve the whole story because you dislike miracles, go ahead, but don't change the story.

Re:Lawrence

[perpenso]

I don't understand why you're calling them heretics.

Because that was what the moderate muslims who put down these movements called these fundamentalist extremists. That is the language arabs used to explain things to Lawrence. It is neither Lawrence's nor my phrasing, it was the mainstream arab phrasing of the day.

You see the same thing today when modern moderate muslims say that Al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc are preaching a false interpretation of Islam. This false, heretical, etc interpretation is not a modern invention, it is one that popped up once or twice a century for many centuries according the arabs explaining things to Lawrence.

Back then they were not referring to, nor are we referring to today, conservatives muslims who preach simple/strict personal practices for one's self but also conform to the tolerant practices of traditional Islam with respect to others who have different beliefs. Tolerance of moderate muslims as well as Jews and Christians.

Re:Lawrence

[Hognoxious]

At the risk of being an etymological pedant, if you take the fun out you don't have much of a festival left.

Re:Lawrence

[perpenso]

At the risk of being an etymological pedant, if you take the fun out you don't have much of a festival left.

Well that pretty much describes puritanism, taking the fun out of everything. Aren't these the people that made the church benches/pews intentionally uncomfortable to sit on? :-)

Re:Lawrence

[lgw]

Evangelical originally referred to protestant churches in general, excepting those that were Catholic in all but name - that is, the ones without assigned "sales territories" were evangelical. This meant successful churches had to "evangelize" in order to grow the flock, and in a nation where almost everyone was already attending one church or another, this meant churches became successful by attracting people away from other churches, often of the same faith. Much marketing, entertainment, and socializing ensued. When "hellfire and brimstone" sermons were in fashion, evangelical churches might seem very conservative if you judged by their sermons, but that was just the fashion. The term has become non-technical over time, but still means "working to attract new membership" as it's core. That's the sense in which people speak of "an evangelical Pope" - no longer an oxymoron as it once would have been.

Here's a long-winded piece on the distinctions. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/r... I think the following captures the distinction well:

The distinctive hallmarks of post-1925 fundamentalism are 1) adding to those essentials of Christianity non-essentials such as premillennial eschatology, 2) âoebiblical separationâ as the duty of every Christian to refuse fellowship with people who call themselves Christians but are considered doctrinally or morally impure, 3) a chronically negative and critical attitude toward culture including non-fundamentalist higher education, 4) emphatic anti-evolution, anti-communist, anti-Catholic and anti-ecumenical attitudes and actions (including elevation of young earth creationism and American exceptionalism as markers of authentic Christianity), 5) emphasis on verbal inspiration and technical inerrancy of the Bible as necessary for real Christianity (including exclusion of all biblical criticism and, often, exclusive use the KJV), and 6) a general tendency to require adherence to traditional lifestyle norms (hair, clothes, entertainment, sex roles, etc.).

My grandparents were fundies in that sense. The perhaps surprising thing was, they weren't all that devout - they never really talked about church except on Sundays, and while their morals were certainly set by this, it wasn't their main hobby. Still, in any discussion of religion, they had great certainty, and they went to a church that emphasized literal interpretation, witnessing to spread the faith, and the like. Really creeped me out when I would go there as a kid when visiting them.

Fundamentalists point to Lakewood Church as the example of the distinction from their side. A church that most would consider evangelical, that "rarely mentions Jesus, and never mentions sin" (to quote from a fundie rant), that is incredibly successful by any objective measure, mostly by avoiding everything quoted above and focusing on an entertaining and uplifting social experience. It's a pattern followed by many evangelical churches, often described as "up with people! and, by the the way, Jesus". This is religion with solid mainstream appeal. Fundies are generally a subset of evangelicals, but they don't like to see it that way, as separation from churches like Lakewood is a big deal to them.

Re:Lawrence

[dbIII]

Fair enough, but from the outside of the group it does look Anti-Christian to ban Christmas even in that way.
I suppose a better example is a video clip I saw of some visiting US fundamentalists disrupting an Easter procession in St. Petersberg Russia - blocking the way of people carrying statues of Jesus and yelling "turn to Jesus" as if they didn't know it was an Easter procession - how insane is that? It was probably about idols which is where we come full circle back to the Moslem extremists demolishing old Islamic art.

Re:Lawrence

[angel'o'sphere]

You are wrong.

Uncivilized rulers suppressing jews or christians has nothing to do with Islam or religion.

Mohamed himself excluded Jews, Christians and a few minor religions from being heathens.

Islam only "officially" is "against" heathens who are considered god less.

Not blue eyed ...

[perpenso]

the story of a white prophet leading a blue-eyed brown-skinned horde of jihadis

They were not blue eyed in the normal sense of iris color. They were blue eyed in the sense that the drug they were saturated with had turned the whites of their eyes blue. And for heavy long term users it could be a dark blue making their eyes seem black at a distance.

Re:Not blue eyed ...

[just_a_monkey]

Ah, so it's about the War on Drugs.

Re:Not blue eyed ...

[Anonymous Coward]

More like a war FOR drugs. Melange provided benefits such as extended lifespan and expanded consciousness at the cost of severe addiction.

Re:Not blue eyed ...

[perpenso]

More like a war FOR drugs. Melange provided benefits such as extended lifespan and expanded consciousness at the cost of severe addiction.

Well the war on drugs does fit better in the sense that "melange" would be a controlled substance subject to government regulation. Its production, processing, distribution and use government controlled. Much like medicinal opioids made from the same poppies as heroin. Cocaine and THC (marijuana) have their approved medicinal uses too. Referring to THC at the federal level, not state deregulation of medicinal marijuana.

Re:Not blue eyed ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you didn't read the book but watched the Sci-Fi channel version of it, you'd think they'd have fluorescent blue eyes.

The David Lynch version has appropriate blue around the pupils, but the special effects aren't great so it doesn't stand out too much. It was just rotoscoped in.

Re:Not blue eyed ...

[rbrander]

Actually, the cool parallel you forgot is that melange was essential to the Guild Navigators, they couldn't navigate ships between stars without constant heavy use of melange to make them future-seeing. The rest of melange properties were merely valuable; this one kept universal trade going, essential to the economy. In short, it was the absolutely necessary strategic resource that kept transportation working.

Now that's a parallel.

Re:Not blue eyed ...

[perpenso]

Actually, the cool parallel you forgot is that melange was essential to the Guild Navigators, they couldn't navigate ships between stars without constant heavy use of melange to make them future-seeing. The rest of melange properties were merely valuable; this one kept universal trade going, essential to the economy. In short, it was the absolutely necessary strategic resource that kept transportation working. Now that's a parallel.

Well we did have many centuries of land and sea transportation before oil. Admittedly the long range transportation usually involved more important stuff. The less important and simpler stuff coming from more local sources, unlike today where even this comes from the other side of the world. Our society has alternative, historical and modern. The imperial society of Herbert's Dune had no alternative, they were interstellar not terrestrial. The absence of melange meant planetary isolation with the loss of instantaneous travel (folding space, even better than light/warp speed). By comparison our strategic resource is a convenience.

Re:Not blue eyed ...

[Half-pint HAL]

Yeah, but the need for spice was that foresight enabled high-speed travel. Interstellar travel was possible, but employing "traditional" methods, while still pissible, would have been "uncompetitive'. The workers were exposed to dangerous chemicals purely for commercial advantage.

Re:Not blue eyed ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Only until they developed AI that could do the navigation and melange was being artificially produced by the Bene Tleilaxu when Arrakis/Rakis was terraformed.

Re:Not blue eyed ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the problem with the David Lynch version. Their entire eyes, including the whites, should have been blue.

Re:Not blue eyed ...

[radarskiy]

There were many millennia of space travel before spice-guided navigators. It was slow and dangerous and there was a good chance you just wouldn't show up at your destination. You couldn't discount the price enough to make up that risk premium and still turn a profit. The government in a sense subsidized the Guild via the prohibitions on certain kinds of scientific research. It wasn't until the Ixians flouted those prohibitions competitive alternative was found, and they also had to assassinate the emperor to make the no-ships commercially viable.

Re:Not blue eyed ...

[ihtoit]

dude, I got some great gasoline off a guy I know from way back, wanna sniff a pint later?

Re:Not blue eyed ...

[Anonymous Coward]

They had alternatives, space folding was used well before navigators, or even the spice melange was known. Just like our long range historically it was expensive and had a high loss rate, but it was still useful to risk tolerant merchants and militaries. They even used illegal computers in the final push of the butlerian jihaad to slightly lower the catastrophic loss rate.

Re:Not blue eyed ...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Well we did have many centuries of land and sea transportation before oil. Admittedly the long range transportation usually involved more important stuff.

Not so much as you might think. Often, you wanted to move some very valuable but small cargo from here to the far end of nowhere, so you filled your cargo hold with...stuff. Not particularly valuable, but might as well carry it since it'll make a bit of money, and otherwise you're travelling nearly empty.

This applied even more when you paid for the trip on one leg, so carry anything at all on the other. For instance, there was a period during the San Fransisco Gold Rush (1849) when laundry was shipped from San Fran to Honolulu to be cleaned and returned on the next ship....

Re:Not blue eyed ...

[perpenso]

Sure. "Ballast" need not be rock too. However the valuable stuff was the focus of the journey in the first place and why the investment in the journey was made. The valuable stuff had to pay for any dead-head leg too. They'd pack in as much of the valuable stuff they could find and fit in. The remaining space and any necessary ballast could be anything, including nearly all the cargo space on a dead-head leg where the only other option is empty.

Cue the alien influence ...

[perpenso]

... um, yeah, that's the eerie parallel. OK.

Yeah Herbert's "Shaddam" is similar to "Saddam", like Nostradamus' "Hister" was similar to "Hitler". Next season the "History Channel" will be running shows discussing possible extraterrestrial influences on Herbert's writings. :-)

Re:Cue the alien influence ...

[93 Escort Wagon]

Nostradamus' "Hister" was clearly a foretelling of Lister. It's eerie how he knew about Red Dwarf hundreds of years before television was even invented!

Re:Cue the alien influence ...

[perpenso]

Nostradamus' "Hister" was clearly a foretelling of Lister. It's eerie how he knew about Red Dwarf hundreds of years before television was even invented!

Clearly Red Dwarf is a documentary and they eventually time travel and visit Nostradamus and the BBC.

Re:Cue the alien influence ...

[sphealey]

But the invention of liquid disinfectant was a good thing, no?

sPh

Re:Cue the alien influence ...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://henrycorbinproject.blogspot.com/2008/07/selected-quotations.html

Re:Cue the alien influence ...

[Anonymous Coward]

But the invention of liquid disinfectant was a good thing, no?

If only a revolution could spread the word of oral hygiene throughout geekdom. Then we could safely meet face to face and have a conversation.

Re:Cue the alien influence ...

[93 Escort Wagon]

The device they thought of as the "Total Immersion Video" unit was in truth a time machine.

Re:Cue the alien influence ...

[ihtoit]

it wasn't Lister; I was found in a box with OUR ROB OR ROS (or something similar) written on it, under a pub table...

Re:Cue the alien influence ...

[dmaul99]

Confirmation Bias. How many things were those two wrong about, thousands?

That said, DUNE is awesome.

Re:Cue the alien influence ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that was a simulation. The photos processed with the mutated developing solution (ie. Timeslides) were actually time machines. After all, Lister went back and changed his life so that he never joined the Space Corps and patented the Tension Sheet(tm) so that he became incredibly wealthy.

Re:Cue the alien influence ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So THAT's where you were found, eh?

Re:Cue the alien influence ...

[RockDoctor]

Next season the "History Channel" will be running shows discussing possible extraterrestrial influences on Herbert's writings. :-)

If they're showing it next year, then it has been in production for about 6 months already, and they've probably finished main filming already. I wonder if they had the gonads to film at Armageddon (modern Meggido). Or more likely an important question - whether they had the budget for it.

That's still exactly what it was

[preaction]

Herbert was exactly writing about hydraulic despotism, which is a common thing for varying definitions of "hydraulic". Oil is the big one right now, but water is showing all signs of being the next. As for revolution, anyone compassionate enough to be a good leader will have to face the choice that what path they are embarking upon will lead to death and destruction. Playing a race card is just shock value clickbait...

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[turbidostato]

"As for revolution, anyone compassionate enough to be a good leader..."

Compassionate... I don't think it means what you think it means.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[khallow]

Oil is the big one right now, but water is showing all signs of being the next.

No, it isn't. Water falls out of the sky in most of the world. And farmers, the largest consumers of water can in most parts of the world considerably reduce their water consumption with some simple approaches should that ever become important enough to do so.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[drinkypoo]

Water falls out of the sky in most of the world.

Sadly, in more and more parts of it, it's becoming illegal to collect it. And mind you, I'm not talking about diverting seasonal drainage, I'm talking about collecting rainfall from your roof, let alone from a structure purpose-built for collecting water like you commonly see in areas with high rainfall and low government interference.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[khallow]

Sadly, in more and more parts of it, it's becoming illegal to collect it. And mind you, I'm not talking about diverting seasonal drainage, I'm talking about collecting rainfall from your roof, let alone from a structure purpose-built for collecting water like you commonly see in areas with high rainfall and low government interference.

That's a far cry from a hydraulic empire since first, there would be no central control over water and it's trivial in the cases you mention to circumvent any such authority.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[preaction]

Do you think Hitler or Lenin weren't compassionate for those groups of people they were trying to help? If everyone hates you, nobody is going to follow you.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[Bing Tsher E]

Mostly you're just talking about California, and arid regions where people just shouldn't congregate to live.

Here, I am using electricity to pump excess water off a corner of my land and to the railroad drainage ditch.

Low government interference? Again, you're just talking about a California problem.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[Anonymous Coward]

Oil is the big one right now, but water is showing all signs of being the next.

No, it isn't. Water falls out of the sky in most of the world..

Great soundbite, but the problem is most of the world is ocean. Water scarcity is in fact a growing problem, as GP correctly observes.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[ihtoit]

apparently it isn't that much of a problem that fracking consumes more freshwater than humans use domestically.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[kwbauer]

I suppose you are referring to the Rocky Mountain region of the US where it has always been illegal to divert the rains from the rivers to an extent that you are withholding more than the allotment accompanying the title to your land. Small-scale wars were fought over this. Read history, it really does have more to it than "white people were mean to non-whites" and "men were mean to women."

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[drinkypoo]

Low government interference? Again, you're just talking about a California problem.

That's what they say about everything... well, everything that doesn't come from NY.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[Bing Tsher E]

Charismatic. Very different word.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[angel'o'sphere]

Sadly, in more and more parts of it, it's becoming illegal to collect it. [...] I'm talking about collecting rainfall from your roof
Care to give a reference?
This is hard to believe!

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[Anonymous Coward]

Charismatic. Very different word.

Arguing that Hitler wasn't compassionate about his precious Arian race. Not on good terms with reality eh?

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[Zumbs]

Drinking water is not distributed evenly over the surface of the planet. Some areas have an abundance, others do not. Climate change means that some areas become more arid, causing widespread and long lasting droughts. Usage of various poisons in agriculture and other pollution is making it into ground water, slowly causing well after well to be unfit as a source for drinking water. On top of that, the consumption of water in many areas is larger than the replenishment due to rainfall, so local reserves are dwindling. In the richest parts of the world this is not much of a problem as alternatives exist, but they come at a cost.

Regarding fracking, the heavy use of water is an issue that has been raised, albeit I think mostly due to fear of the chemicals used seeping into ground water.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[ihtoit]

it's not so much the fear of that happening, the oil industry themselves admit that every single borehole on the planet, no matter where it is or how carefully it's sealed, *leaks*.

No, the concern is that we're not being told what's in the soup. We can guess, going by what's been seen rolling onto the sites (hydrochloric acid is one chemical often cited), but that's all we can do. If the public knew for sure what's being pumped in, I'm fairly certain that there would be blood spilled.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[ScentCone]

fracking consumes more freshwater than humans use domestically

Sure, if you look at water use by comparing it locally where intensive fracking operations are in remote areas that are essentially unpopulated. Otherwise that's utter nonsense.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[turbidostato]

"Arguing that Hitler wasn't compassionate about his precious Arian race. Not on good terms with reality eh?"

He was so compassionate that he didn't doubt at putting as many arians in front of their enemy's gun machines to be killed as he could, including women and children and stating that if "his" people couldn't win the war, then they weren't worth to exist (i.e. not surrending after carpet bombing their big cities, using children for the last stand of Berlin...).

No, there's no need to be compassionate to be a great leader and, sadly, in so many cases, it is the sociopath the best one, since he knows what to say to whom in order to make them move, disregarding the consequencies.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[drinkypoo]

Care to give a reference?
This is hard to believe!

I thought I had read about it happening in Oregon too, but so far it's Colorado and Nevada. It's not state-wide in either case, AFAIK. But look for more of this.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[khallow]

Actually, the trend is towards liberalization of such policies.

Rainwater harvesting is not illegal. It was heavily restricted in Colorado, Washington and Utah until 2009, but all three states have since relaxed their bans. In six or seven other states, rainwater harvesting is regulated -- you have to obtain a permit, which is in most cases is about making certain that your harvesting equipment doesn't contaminate groundwater -- but not illegal. (You have to obtain permits to construct houses or drive automobiles, but that doesn't make people claim such activities are "illegal.")

I note your link says pretty much the same thing.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[drinkypoo]

I note your link says pretty much the same thing.

My link also says that it was just colorado, but is now also nevada

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[Anonymous Coward]

The current Chairman and former CEO of Nestlé, the largest producer of food products in the world, believes that the answer to global water issues is privatization.
Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, believes that “access to water is not a public right.” Nor is it a human right.

So in lets say 10-15 years, it will be "criminal", "not eco friendly" and so to collect free water. Expect water quotas for each human, and "useless eater".
Brought to you by your friendly guberment-corporation.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[khallow]

And my link notes, it used to be three states with tighter restrictions than Colorado now has and now it is none.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[khallow]

So in lets say 10-15 years, it will be "criminal", "not eco friendly" and so to collect free water.

Or we could just not say that. I don't see any reason to "expect" water quotas.

If there is a "right" to have access to water, how far does that right go? Does my mobile home on the Moon have a right to the same access to water as you? Should society ship me water at 10k euro per kg? I see that there's apparently about 150 liters of water consumed per person in Europe. That's a 1.5 million euro per day per person right I have there. And oh look, I'm the one providing the extremely profitable shipping to my locale. How convenient.

Entitlement rights are nonsensical. It's too easy to contrive a situation where one can milk such a system for tremendous gain. Then it becomes the duty of some mealy-mouthed bureaucrat to explain why the right really isn't a right. Cue the water quotas. It's better not to waste our time with the exercise in the first place.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[Anonymous Coward]

A great leader is not the same thing as a successful leader

Re: That's still exactly what it was

[Anonymous Coward]

You are surely referring to colorado water rights (similar are valid elsewhere in the wild wild west). These laws are an example of what happens when oligarch establish a small state. Small state graws but wholy laws stay. Idiocy ensues.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[Anonymous Coward]

Hydrochloric acid isn't that bad. It reacts with minerals like chalk to become harmless.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[tehcyder]

Water falls out of the sky in most of the world.

Sadly, in more and more parts of it, it's becoming illegal to collect it. And mind you, I'm not talking about diverting seasonal drainage, I'm talking about collecting rainfall from your roof, let alone from a structure purpose-built for collecting water like you commonly see in areas with high rainfall and low government interference.

What? How can "the government" stop you from collecting rain water? And, perhaps more to the point, why would they care if you do?

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[tehcyder]

Oh, I see, it's about farmers using water for their business, not individuals collecting water in a barrel under their roof. Got it.

Since a large farm in a dry place like California presumably requires an awful lot of water, it seems entirely reasonable for the actual rain falling to be shared out reasonably and not hoarded by big business.

Re:That's still exactly what it was

[khallow]

Oh, I see, it's about farmers using water for their business, not individuals collecting water in a barrel under their roof.

No, it doesn't sound like you understand. No one in the US prevents you from using a rain barrel. Further, please recall that this thread was originally about the up and coming water-based hydraulic empire. I merely pointed out why that assertion was flawed.

The most obvious parallel:

[SuricouRaven]

If there is a small area which contains an essential resource of which a global shortage exists, there will inevitably be some form of political or military conflict for that area. This situation will last until the resource is depleted or the resource becomes non-essential.

T. E. Lawrence is missing from many reading lists

[perpenso]

T. E. Lawrence is missing in the action of writing summaries.

T. E. Lawrence is missing from many places, especially the reading lists of the politicians and diplomats who tried to manage the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. That said, Lawrence is also absent from the reading lists of many who criticize the US' anti-terrorist efforts. Regardless of your opinions regarding the wars, US policy, etc Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" is an absolutely informative and insightful book and "both" sides of the issue will learn from it.

Holy Mountain

[PopeRatzo]

I can't think of Frank Herbert's Dune without sadness over the fact that Alejandro Jodorowsky didn't get to finish his movie version.

https://youtu.be/jg4OCeSTL08

Re:Holy Mountain

[spire3661]

I doubt it would have been as good as you think. HE wanted to change some major plot devices like the role of *Melange*.

Re:Holy Mountain

[PopeRatzo]

I doubt it would have been as good as you think. HE wanted to change some major plot devices like the role of *Melange*.

It didn't have to be as good as I think. It only had to be a singular vision from a cinematic shaman. With all the sequels and "re-boots", it's not like any one film has to be THE film. Just look at the Lynch version. Even with all the holes and miscues, bad decisions and questionable choices, it's still a terrific experience. Better in many ways than the book.

I trust genius. Herbert wrote a good, workmanlike book, but Jodorowsky, like Lynch, is a visionary.

Re:Holy Mountain

[MightyMartian]

A good workmanlike book? It is to SF what The Lord of the Rings is to fantasy, and one of the greatest pieces of world creation ever written.

Re:Holy Mountain

[PopeRatzo]

It is to SF what The Lord of the Rings is to fantasy

That says it all, right there.

and one of the greatest pieces of world creation ever written.

No matter what you think of the book, I hope you don't believe that every movie version has to stick slavishly to "canon".

Re:Holy Mountain

[Anonymous Coward]

>No matter what you think of the book, I hope you don't believe that every movie version has to stick slavishly to "canon".

I thought the Watchmen movie improved on the graphic novel by ditching the giant fake alien and replacing it with Dr-Manhatten brand blue nukes, made far more sense, and the alien thing wouldn't have stood up to even brief scrutiny.

I'm sorry Mr Moore

Re:Holy Mountain

[drinkypoo]

No matter what you think of the book, I hope you don't believe that every movie version has to stick slavishly to "canon".

If a movie violates canon, it should use a different name. If the movie isn't good enough to be made without using a name it doesn't deserve, then it isn't good enough to watch.

Re:Holy Mountain

[PopeRatzo]

If a movie violates canon, it should use a different name. If the movie isn't good enough to be made without using a name it doesn't deserve, then it isn't good enough to watch.

Tell that to The Godfather and Wizard of Oz, two movies that are both in just about every top 10 of all time list.

"Canon" only comes into play in sci-fi, video games and comic books, which is one reason those wonderful art forms have such trouble getting taken seriously as art.

Oh, and of course, "canon" also comes into play in religion, which also says a whole lot.

Re:Holy Mountain

[drinkypoo]

Oh, and of course, "canon" also comes into play in religion, which also says a whole lot.

I think it says something about people, and their brains. The need for belief. I don't care enough to go out and picket, let alone to kill people over it, though.

Re: Holy Mountain

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's just the same story but with moving pictures, why even bother making a movie in the first place.

Re: Holy Mountain

[drinkypoo]

If it's just the same story but with moving pictures, why even bother making a movie in the first place.

So that I can share cool ideas with people who won't read the book, or so that great stories with mediocre writing can be retold competently in a way that is more palatable to the masses.

Re:Holy Mountain

[Culture20]

But the alien conspiracy creates an "other" which binds the Earth together. Dr. Manhattan creates a new nuclear arms race to create more Dr. Manhattans (even if in secret). The squid might not have been necessary, but something alien was. This is from the Antogonist's perspective. From the readers' perspective, we all understand that it's a matter of time before the house of cards for either secret falls.

Re:Holy Mountain

[Anonymous Coward]

A good workmanlike book? It is to SF what The Lord of the Rings is to fantasy, and one of the greatest pieces of world creation ever written.

Hardly. The Lord of the Rings is far better than any prior (and most subsequent) fantasy books, and is quite different from what had come before. Dune, on the other hand, is nowhere near as good as other, earlier sci-fi works, such as EE Doc Smith's Lensman series (Triplanetary through Children of the Lens), a work of sheer genius (and light years beyond anything else Smith ever achieved, though the second Subspace book - unpublished at his death - had potential). The universe Smith created was every bit as rich as that of Dune, so in a sense Herbert was following a well trodden path.

Asimov's work beat Smith in the 1966 Hugo awards, but in my opinion that was more a function of other factors than the merits of the relative works.

Dune is a well crafted book, but owes much of its early popularity to its appeal to the drug culture of the 60's and not any exceptional merit. The success of Dune is much like that of Pink Floyd and The Wall. The ex-hippies have kept it alive, with fond memories of reading it when they were younger, and it will fade as they do.

Re:Holy Mountain

[vux984]

If a movie violates canon,

If the subject of the movie has 'canon' to violate, then the subject of the movie has a problem, not the movie.

I do not mean to offend, but 'canon' and the people who take it seriously... they are the ones with the problem. A story is told for its audience, not for the sake of the story. Tailoring the tale to the medium and the audience is as old as the oral tradition of telling stories.

When I sit around telling campfire stories, tailoring the details and events to localize them, modernize them, and make them more accessible and more engaging... your the guy looking them up in the big book of canon shrilly bleating that such and such didn't happen just-so; and so-and-so went here first and then there.... and the whole thing was in New York not Seattle... trust me the problem is NOT with the story i told.

Re:Holy Mountain

[tehcyder]

Lynch is a great film maker, but Dune was not a good film.

Re:Holy Mountain

[tehcyder]

I thought the Watchmen movie improved on the graphic novel by ditching the giant fake alien and replacing it with Dr-Manhatten brand blue nukes, made far more sense, and the alien thing wouldn't have stood up to even brief scrutiny.

Make up your own movie and don't call it Watchmen then.

Re:Holy Mountain

[PopeRatzo]

Lynch is a great film maker, but Dune was not a good film.

And yet, I couldn't take my eyes off a single frame of that movie.

It wasn't the movie you or I wanted, but it was a marvel.

Islamic State vs Al-Assad

[Anonymous Coward]

The stories are almost identical, except one is sic-fi and the other seeks to live in stone age.

First Book Is Still Solid

[Anonymous Coward]

After that they quickly descend into weirded-out crap(sandworm god, anyone?)

Re:First Book Is Still Solid

[Jamu]

Dune and Children of Dune could easily be considered four parts of a single volume. God Emperor of Dune and the rest are fairly skippable.

Re:First Book Is Still Solid

[ph0rk]

I just re-read Dune and Dune Messiah a month or so ago. I think Dune Messiah is terribly underrated, and a necessary counterpoint to the mythical heroism of Paul Muad'Dib in the first book.

Perhaps you meant to include it between Dune and Children of Dune? If not, you should give it another look - especially after a rereading of Dune.

Re:First Book Is Still Solid

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Dune Messiah was a better book than Dune. God Emperor is even better and the final two books were absolutely fantastic.

When Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson started writing Dune books, I tried to read House Atreides, but got disgusted with it halfway through and tossed it in the bin. It was one of the few books that I owned that I actually threw away, it was that bad.

Re:First Book Is Still Solid

[kwbauer]

For me, Heretics was a struggle and Chapterhouse was unreadable until after I read the House books. It was in the House books that some of the technology that seemed to come out of nowhere in Chapterhouse was introduced and then it fit in. They weren't as well written as the original books, but the House series did do a nice job of filling in much of the backstory.

Re:First Book Is Still Solid

[Antique Geekmeister]

Dune Messia has more legible when it was originally published in serial installments in Analog magazine. The somewhat disjointed plot was less apparent if you only read 1/4 of in a month.

Re:First Book Is Still Solid

[TheRaven64]

What do you think they introduced that made sense? The House series ended up having to do a load of hard resets that just didn't make sense (the no-ship technology appearing a few thousand years early? Well, just brush it under the rug - we all know that technologies are developed in a vacuum and so if you cover up an invention that has all of its prerequisites it won't be reinvented for a long time). The only redeeming feature of the House books was that they weren't as bad as the Butlerian Jihad series.

Re:First Book Is Still Solid

[mrsquid0]

> When Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson started writing Dune books, I tried to read House Atreides, but got disgusted with it halfway through and tossed it in the bin. It was one of the few books that I owned that I actually threw away, it was that bad.

And House Atreides was, by far, the best of the Brian & Kevin books. I found that the best way to read their books is to treat them as second-rate fan fiction.

Re:First Book Is Still Solid

[Jamu]

Sorry, I did mean Dune and Dune Messiah.

Re:First Book Is Still Solid

[Anonymous Coward]

God Emperor of Dune and the rest are fairly skippable.

Just because you're struggling with what the big talking worm is actually talking about doesn't mean it's skippable.

Re:First Book Is Still Solid

[witherstaff]

I'd love to see the supposed notes from Frank that were found. Perhaps a clue of who Daniel and Marty were. Not the horrid explanation that Brian and Kevin gave for them.

Re:First Book Is Still Solid

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm actually in the middle of re-reading God Emperor. I thought the same thing first read through (because I think I was speed reading and a bit "duned" out by that point), but now, I actually think its also pretty under-rated. You really get a sense for how absolutely lonely leto 2 is.

The part where he cried himself to sleep after trying to think about some other inner memory to take his mind off Hwi was pretty sad, it really strikes home the humanity he had to give up for everyone else.

Re:First Book Is Still Solid

[Anonymous Coward]

I always assumed that Daniel and Marty were representations of Frank and Beverly Herbert.

Re:First Book Is Still Solid

[tehcyder]

I found that the best way to read their books is to treat them as second-rate fan fiction.

Life's too short to read much fan fiction, never mind second-rate fan fiction.

Re:First Book Is Still Solid

[kwbauer]

The no-ship in Chapterhouse was associated with a crashed Guild freighter. A crashed freighter that had happened at some time in the past was mentioned prior to Chapterhouse but no details. The no-ship was never mentioned until Chapterhouse. Since Ix had been taken over the Tlielaxu long before the time of Dune, the no-ship had to have been built before the time of Dune.

Re:First Book Is Still Solid

[TheRaven64]

Huh? The no-ship in Chapterhouse was stolen from the Honoured Matres in Heretics. Ix began building no-ships in God Emperor, there are no references to their existence before then.

The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Karmashock]

Frank is a deeper fellow than all but a few really grasp.

"The people I distrust most are those who want to improve our lives but have only one course of action."

- Frank Herbert.

How perfectly does that describe the Guardian and most of its readership?

True wisdom requires the humility to see the universe for what it is... a step beyond our reason... always and forever. That is not an endorsement of some religion... that is rather a caution before anyone becomes consumed by unshakable convictions.

Be decisive for he that hesitates is lost... but always be prepared to reverse course and never come back.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Anonymous Coward]

So we should all be decisive but not follow our convictions and while we're being decisive be prepared to completely reverse course and change our minds? Shit, I guess I'm just not smart enough to understand Frank Herbert like you do.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[sphealey]

As long as they stop along the way to beat up the LIE-brals (libruls) all is good.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Anonymous Coward]

http://henrycorbinproject.blogspot.com/2008/07/selected-quotations.html

Allan Watts did a lot of LSD with Herbert and lectured Frank on the philosopher of Islam, Henry Corbin.

Corbin + LSD = 'Dune'

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[umafuckit]

Frank is a deeper fellow than all but a few really grasp.

"The people I distrust most are those who want to improve our lives but have only one course of action."

- Frank Herbert.

How perfectly does that describe the Guardian and most of its readership?

Um... not very well?

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Karmashock]

oh really? So you think the Guardian is an open minded institution that doesn't routinely engage in ideological advocacy of the same ideology?

Or that that ideology in question doesn't basically a have the same solution for everything?

Because if you don't know that... you haven't been paying attention.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Karmashock]

It makes more sense if you understand eastern philosophy or actually read any of the Herbert books.

What I'm talking about is neither being so conflicted with doubt that you're unable to act effectively nor so married to any way of thinking that you can't change. As Lee said "be like water".

The point is... act... but be open to change. Maintain that child like ability to both commit to courses of action but also entirely alter your thinking at any moment.

My comment was not for anyone... it was for people that understood Herbert's work.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Karmashock]

I never contradicted that.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[chihowa]

Frank is a deeper fellow than all but a few really grasp.

His books were largely philosophical treatises and it's so often disappointing to talk with people who can't see past the superficial stories that he uses to explore an element of philosophy. I'm surprised that anyone can get through the entirety of Dune without that dawning on them, but it becomes much more clear when you start reading his other works (especially those not set in sci fi settings).

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Anonymous Coward]

What I'm talking about is out my ass

FTFY.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Bing Tsher E]

Really, the most disappointing people to talk to about Herbert and Dune are the people with a throwaway attitude. They say 'That movie really sucked' and you can't get them to think about the matter further. I've tried to read Herbert more widely. Just last week I picked up a second copy of 'Whipping Star' to reread it. He wrote a lot of books besides the Dune series.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ on a bike. You mean like any other newspaper that's ever been published by anyone, anywhere?

That person has said three words about not branding the entire Guardian readership and you're prepared to jump down their throat, make crass generalisations and turn the debate into a polarised shitstorm. That there is the problem with the world today. Thanks for illustrating it.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, looking at your posting history, you're a really weird, angry douchebag. Chill the fuck out man. You'll enjoy life a lot more.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes more sense if you understand eastern philosophy or actually read any of the Herbert books.

My comment was not for anyone... it was for people that understood Herbert's work.

I've read Herbert and I also understand eastern philosophy quite well. Herbert's collectivism is the antithesis of Rand. Go fuck yourself, you Marxist faggot.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I read the Dune books, I find myself spending more time thinking about the quotes at the beginning of each chapter than reading the chapter itself.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Anonymous Coward]

"The people I distrust most are those who want to improve our lives but have only one course of action."

- Frank Herbert.

How perfectly does that describe the Guardian and most of its readership?

Lemme get this straight...you're blasting the journalistic integrity of a reputable news operation that just published a glowing piece on Frank Herbert. What the fuck is wrong with y...oh...it's Karmashock. Cognitive dissonance is your deal. Nevermind. Carry on.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Karmashock]

precisely...

I read Dune at the same time I was reading "the User Illusion" and a book on zen philosophy... I was 16... it was sort of surreal mix and it changed the way I see myself, society, and the rest of humanity... apparently permanently.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Karmashock]

Yep... That's where I fucking live... Down people's throats... Watch the teeth. I'm almost there. :D

I can't help myself... its too easy.

In all seriousness, my issue was with the attempt by the author to attribute Herbert with a culture and and political framework that he's actually well beyond. This "age of Aquarius" thing is beneath Herbert. That movement was typified by phoney mystics, people that were more high than actually thoughtful, and often callow philosophies that were so trite as to be comical.

What made that irritating is that the Guardian is effectively that culture grown up. The kids sitting there blitzed out of their minds asking questions like "is this my hand or is this only what I think of as my hand?"... eventually grew up to both write for and read the guardian.

And for that segment of the population to claim Herbert is offensive to me. They don't deserve him.

From Herbert's own mouth... he distrusts people that want to help others but only have the same solution... FOR EVERYONE.

Now... how does that not describe the Guardian? Are they not about their "solution"... and is not that solution the same for everyone?

My point was to show that Herbert is not what the author thinks he is.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Karmashock]

1. ACs don't get to talk about the posting history of people that actually log in. Its idiotically hypocritical.

2. I'm not angry. Just contemptuous of nitwits and I don't like it when they claim authors as being members of their little club that are dead and can't defend themselves from such fallacious associations.

Who will defend Herbert from such people if not people like me? He's dead. Anyone can claim herbert as one of their own unless someone stands up and says "no." that's all I did.

3. I'm weird am I? I'm really interested to hear this explained. Tell me why I'm weird. I'm genuinely really really interested what about me you find to be weird. I actually like being weird by the way... I take it as a high compliment. It implies distinctiveness and thus individuality. One of the things I value more than anything else is independence of thought. I don't like conformity because it suggests a dehumanizing socialization where people just mirror each other surrendering their own ability to think and be to... something else. So I like being weird. But I am genuinely interested to know what about me especially you find to be weird?

4 As to enjoying life... I'm having a ball, bro. I come here for entertainment. Occasionally there is an interesting article but those are happening less and less. Mostly slashdot is turning into another progressive cesspit like the rest of the social networks. I can't stop it... so I'm going to enjoy the ride. ;-D

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Karmashock]

You think I'm an Ayn Randian or a Marxist?... I can't tell which... I was clearly defending Herbert from association with the guardian... who are basically marxists... so that implies your randian statement is directed at me. And then you call me a marxist.

Your post is very confusing.

Do you think I'm a Randian or a Marxist? I'm neither.

I believe in freedom of course... individual self determination... but I don't ascribe to organized political philosophies personally. I might support one or the other from one moment and context to the next but that has more to do with choosing the lesser of evils from one moment to the next or desiring a given faction to win a given struggle than it does with actually identifying with any of them.

I am my own man, cupcake. I know that isn't convenient. Its hard to organize people when they insist on being personally evaluated rather than judged as arbitrary groups. But despite the difficulty, it is not unreasonable for me to expect that before being judged.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Karmashock]

Okay... lets be straight.

1. Reputable news organization? Debatable.

2. The glowing piece also claimed ownership of his work effectively within the ideological camp of the paper. That was the core my disagreement with the fellow. If he had just said nice things about Herbert that would have been one thing. It was the whole age of Aquarius thing that was unacceptable.

3. As to your presumption to judge the posting history of someone that logs in while yourself being an AC... that you can't grasp the mindblowing levels of hypocrisy in that action then you're too stupid to be credited with a having a dead rat's worth of wisdom. If I were like you... and posted as AC... could you make that comment? You couldn't.

And I have an EXCELLENT Karma rating. What is your Karma rating? Zero.

And yet you presume to judge my posting history? Who the fuck are you to do that, mr ac?

Glad we got that straight. ;-)

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Karmashock]

... and not a single falsifiable statement in there anywhere.

Good job. It is literally impossible for you to be wrong. Why? Because you didn't make complete argument in there anywhere. And as such... you can't be wrong... you also can't be right but I imagine you don't care about that.

Your real worry is being proven wrong and surrendering any ability to be right in the process is probably a small price to pay.

Make a complete argument or your fucking statement is null. Idiot.

Re: The author doesn't understand Herbert

[iluvcapra]

"glowing piece also claimed ownership of his work effectively within the ideological camp of the paper"

So on the one hand, down with the Guardian because it is rigidly ideological. And on the other, down with the Guardian because it doesn't adhere to your rigid, singular interpretation of the novel Dune.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Anonymous Coward]

3. As to your presumption to judge the posting history of someone that logs in while yourself being an AC... that you can't grasp the mindblowing levels of hypocrisy in that action then you're too stupid to be credited with a having a dead rat's worth of wisdom. If I were like you... and posted as AC... could you make that comment? You couldn't.

And I have an EXCELLENT Karma rating. What is your Karma rating? Zero.

And yet you presume to judge my posting history? Who the fuck are you to do that, mr ac?

JFC, who mentioned your posting history? No one until you did, and your rabid response indicates it's a sore spot for you. What an insecure little worm you are.

Re: The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Karmashock]

No... down with the people appropriating people that don't share their ideology or way of thinking as members of their group.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Karmashock]

""oh...it's Karmashock. Cognitive dissonance is your deal. Nevermind. Carry on.""
That looks like someone judging my post by some record I have left behind of previous posts.

I have no problem with people that actually log in doing that. That's fine. But ACs are fucking hypocrite trash when they do it.

Re: The author doesn't understand Herbert

[iluvcapra]

"No... down with the people appropriating people that don't share their ideology or way of thinking as members of their group."

In your opinion. It's up for interpretation, and anyway there's a lot more to the Guardian than some caricature of brain-dead leftism, and there's a lot more to Dune than a one sentence quote from Paul Atreides.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Anonymous Coward]

What an idiot.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no problem with people that actually log in doing that. That's fine. But ACs are fucking hypocrite trash when they do it.

What is the difference between someone you don't know who posts as AC and someone you don't know who posts as Karmaschmuck?

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post is very confusing.

Only to a Marxist faggot.

I believe in freedom of course... individual self determination...I am my own man, cupcake.

Especially when it comes to applying lube to your cornhole. But since you brought baked goods into the mix, let's see where that will take us....

I know that isn't convenient. Its hard to organize people when they insist on being personally evaluated [yadda yadda yadda].

Can we get back to the touching and the lube and the cornholes please? That is where your strengths lie. BINGO!

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Karmashock]

Says the AC shithead? I got rated up for saying that.

I got 7 downvotes in the last 24 hours... and 20 upvotes. Suck it.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[tehcyder]

the guardian... who are basically marxists

No, the Guardian is actually a liberal UK newspaper. I suppose in US terms that makes it communist, but in the rest of the world it would be a mildly left of centre mainstream media outlet.

Re: The author doesn't understand Herbert

[tehcyder]

I hate to break it to you, but works of fiction are not rigid ideological treatises.

Re: The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Karmashock]

I hate to break it to you but a work of fiction is a work of art and a work of art can mean anything the author intends it to mean which can include complex philosphical ideas amongst many other things.

So... what you need to argue now is that Herbert did not express complex philosophical ideas in his books.

Spoiler alert... He did.

I've read all his novels and I think all of his novellas and even short stories. So... can you make the same claim, shithead?

Kind of doubt it.

*pushes the filthy peasant back into the pig sty he climbed out of and wipes the filth from touching him onto a hanky and then throws the hanky into the sty*

Fucking peasants.

Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert

[Anonymous Coward]

Karmashit whines a lot more.

Lawrence would not survive today

[perpenso]

"Lawrence would, I assure you, get along swimmingly," said Tony Blair.

Perhaps in the Saudi palace but not over the countryside he once roamed. The cultural understanding and respect and the diplomacy of Lawrence would not help him much in an environment where being a local moderate muslim can be a death sentence. Re-read your Seven Pillars. The fundamentalist herecies that periodically occurred were normally put down by the local moderates before they caused much trouble. Plus the protection of the Saudi king doesn't carry the weight it used to in the region. Things are completely different today in so many ways.

Re:Lawrence would not survive today

[smittyoneeach]

Things are completely different today in so many ways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9dHL7GA1nk

Future prediction...

[mafutha]

I remember watching an interview with Herbert that talked about the type of leader paul was based on. In the end I thought he was talking about Pres. Obama not someone from the 1980's. Eerie......

Re:Future prediction...

[drinkypoo]

(And during the few moments that we have left
We want to talk right down to earth in a language
That everybody here can easily understand)

Look in my eyes, what do you see?
The Cult of Personality
I know your anger
I know your dreams
I've been everything you want to be
I'm the Cult of Personality
Like Mussolini and Kennedy
I'm the Cult of Personality
The Cult of Personality
The Cult of Personality

Neon lights, a Nobel Prize
When a mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You won't have to follow me
Only you can set me free

I sell the things you need to be
I'm the smiling face on your TV
I'm the Cult of Personality
I exploit you
Still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three
I'm the Cult of Personality

Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi
I'm the Cult of Personality
The Cult of Personality
The Cult of Personality

Neon lights, a Nobel Prize
When a leader speaks, that leader dies
You won't have to follow me
Only you can set you free

You gave me fortune
You gave me fame
You gave me power in your God's name
I'm every person you need to be
I'm the cult of personality!

I'm the Cult of
I'm the Cult of
I'm the Cult of
I'm the Cult of
I'm the Cult of
I'm the Cult of
I'm the Cult of
I'm the Cult of
Personality!

Re:Future prediction...

[kwbauer]

Uh, Dune was copyrighted in 1965 so I'm fairly certain Paul Atreides was also not modelled on some politician from the 1980's either.

Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes even the palm readers get it right.

How many palms not? How many stories not?

Haha, silly believers waiting for heaven no doubt, so says the eponymous tarot card.

The last is the death card, with a pair of dice on top showing snake eyes.

Re:T. E. Lawrence is missing from many reading lis

[Anonymous Coward]

They should make a movie ... oh wait ...

On a serious note, and is nearly always the case, don't confuse the movie with the book it is "based" on. Lawrence's book is more accurate and provides a much more detailed window into that world.

I suddenly realized that the preceding is true for both Lawrence and Herbert. :-)

The Golden Path

[Anonymous Coward]

*SPOILERS!*

> 'of fanatic legions following the green and black banner of the Atreides, pillaging and burning across the universe in the name of their prophet Muad'Dib.

This is exactly what happens. Paul Muad'Dib is later able to see the future, yet doesn't stop this from happening.

It's all in the name of some greater plot to prevent a catastrophe in the far future, thousands of years ahead. The "Golden Path".

After six books in the Dune series, Frank Herbert died. At this point, it's still not fully revealed what the future catastrophe would be, and how the Golden Path would prevent it. At most, at this point we've finally figured out who the main character is in the Dune series. It's not Paul.

Frank Herbert's son later teamed up with a sci-fi author and published some books which wrap up the story and also explain some of the events that happened before the Dune books take place. Supposedly from his father's notes. Not everyone considers these books canon. The catastrophe, however, is revealed but at this point it mostly seemed the first book had some parallells with the Middle East.

The story gets more weird after that, more about worms, man-worms and superior human capabilities.

Re: The Golden Path

[Anonymous Coward]

As I recall the last F. Herbert book had a small, mixed group of characters fleeing into deep space to escape the war started by The Return (sex based religion works wonders ;) Never read any of his son's stuff.

Re: The Golden Path

[MillerHighLife21]

The prequel books were very good. I really enjoyed reading all of the lead up to the original Dune book. House Harkonnen, House Attreides and the Bulterian Jihad.

Re:The Golden Path

[TheRaven64]

Frank Herbert's son later teamed up with a sci-fi author and published some books which wrap up the story and also explain some of the events that happened before the Dune books take place. Supposedly from his father's notes. Not everyone considers these books canon. The catastrophe, however, is revealed but at this point it mostly seemed the first book had some parallells with the Middle East.

The reason that many don't consider it canon is that it directly contradicts not just small events in the originals but the entire premise. In Dune, the Butlerian Jihad was an ideological struggle against people who were willing to delegate their thinking to machines without considering the long-term social consequences (hmm, still seems pretty relevant) and ended up being controlled by oligarchs who controlled the machines. The outcome was an overreaction against machines, banning even simple calculating engines. In the cash-in novels, it was recharacterised as a war against a two-dimensional and completely unbelievable machine intelligence.

The final revelation in the sequels was then that this machine intelligence had survived and had been building an empire in secret all of the time that humanity had been building their own and eventually decided that it wanted to destroy all of the humans (why? Because that's what evil robot overlords do! Obviously). These books could have been written by the Bene Gesserit sister that Leto just managed to restrain himself from killing in God Emperor, for her stupidity. He explained that humanity had moved past the point where machines could be a threat (remember: they were never a physical threat, the threat was always stagnation and decay as humans delegated more and more to machines until there was no point in continuing to live).

The point of the scattering in Leto's Golden Path was that humanity would spread out so that nothing could be an existential threat (the old Empire had more or less stopped expanding and didn't have exponential growth to protect it). Part of the point of Chapterhouse was that the conflict that was going on, in spite of engulfing more worlds than the Empire in the time of Dune, was a tiny sideshow - nothing that happened would affect humanity and the descendants of humanity as a whole. The big hint about the changes that were happening out of the empire was the extent to which the Honoured Matres and Futars had diverged from what was considered human. The implication was that they were the ones that had diverged the least and were no longer able to compete with far more predatory creatures that had evolved from humans.

Re: The Golden Path

[witherstaff]

The son's stuff was a pure and simple cash grab. It's like the Star Wars prequels but far worse, changing the entire tone and actually reason behind the original novels. I suffered through them as supposedly there were notes left behind by Frank Herbert outlining the last book. The conclusion of Dune the son wrote tied up things by including people and events from the various prequel trilogies he wrote and it wasn't satisfying or even believable in context of the original novels. I can only think the supposed finding of notes about the conclusion of Dune was an outright marketing ploy.

He foresaw the xian takeover of the Republicans...

[greenwow]

just as Barry Goldwater did. He, like Goldwater, knew what was going to happen. He knew they would decide to start wars for spice, err, oil.

FWIW - suggest book over kindle

[perpenso]

FWIW I read it on a kindle and the OCR errors are frequent and the editing/corrections seem non-existent. The arabic names of people and places obviously not part of the OCR software's training. Some day when I do a second reading I will probably use a book.

Re:FWIW - suggest book over kindle

[Anonymous Coward]

I notice that the word "ME" shows up when the word "life" should be used instead.

Re: FWIW - suggest book over kindle

[iluvcapra]

On paper many of the Arabic personal and place names are spelled strangely. Lawrence favored his own style of transliteration.

Re: FWIW - suggest book over kindle

[perpenso]

On paper many of the Arabic personal and place names are spelled strangely. Lawrence favored his own style of transliteration.

Its pretty clear the many digital errors are OCR based. One can often see how the original likely letters were erroneously joined, split, etc. OCR sometimes uses "dictionaries" to detect and repair such errors, dictionaries developed from a training/learning phase of development. I think no training or Arabic name friendly dictionaries were used.

Re: FWIW - suggest book over kindle

[demonrob]

and explained it and the why of it in his books.

Henry Corbin

[Anonymous Coward]

The work of the philosopher Henry Corbin is central to really understanding "Dune." Herbert got lectured on Corbin while he was doing LSD with Alan Watts.

http://henrycorbinproject.blogspot.com/2008/07/selected-quotations.html

The moderation here is very liberal

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing how just the mention of Goldwater gets someone marked as a troll. His exact quote was:

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

He was against religious influence in political parties. The moderation here is ignorant.

Re:The moderation here is very liberal

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't a question of being "Liberal", but of the post being stupid. Remember this gem of a line?

He knew they would decide to start wars for spice, err, oil.

Oil is an economic question, not a religious question. Why anyone would think that nonsense quote is reasonable is beyond me. In fact is seems more like a troll than anything.

Re:The moderation here is very liberal

[Anonymous Coward]

> Oil is an economic question, not a religious question.

To the Republicans it isn't. To them, they believe their invisible man in the sky told them the entire Earth is theirs to use. That is why the USian empire keeps expanding. It is the foundation of the Bush Crime Family Doctrine. They think they own everything.

Re:The moderation here is very liberal

[techno-vampire]

To the Republicans it isn't. To them, they believe their invisible man in the sky told them the entire Earth is theirs to use.

Not to all, or even most Republicans. That's mostly the Religious Right, and they have far, far more influence than their numbers say they should because the GOP needs their votes to win elections. Just because the far right extremists act that way doesn't mean that the party as a whole agrees with them.

Re:The moderation here is very liberal

[lucien86]

The problem is that Murdock agrees with them, and Murdock controls the minds of many voters.

Dune is for cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are all cows. Cows say moo. MOOOOOOOOO! MOOOOOOOO! Moooo cows MOOOOOO! Moo say the cows. YOU COWS!!

Re:Dune is for cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Milk me

in 1917 it was Lawrence of Arabia

[known_coward_69]

a British national who led the saudi's to revolt against the rule of the ottoman empire to help the british in the middle east. the story of Mohammed is probably more similar since the Muslims actually killed off the Eastern Roman Empire in the end. and there are theories that Mohammed's family was somewhat new in the area and were actually Jews who fled the Roman destruction of Israel during one of the revolts. the Muslim and ancient Christian/Hebrew names for God are virtually identical frank herbert didn't predict much of anything

Re:in 1917 it was Lawrence of Arabia

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you pluralize "saudi" with an apostrophe, but not Muslim or theories or Jews or revolts or names?

Dune was good, but still failed

[Anonymous Coward]

Dune was good,, but fails the sniff test.

It kinda lost me when the Harkonans, a powerful empire in their own right, had to melt down their artillery pieces because they needed the materials elsewhere.

Um right.

I can keep my suspicion of disbelief and let people right kilometer long worms for the "Rule of Cool". But when you bring realistic elements into a story, you have to treat them realistically, or the suspension of disbelief is shot.

Re:Dune was good, but still failed

[Anonymous Coward]

"I can keep my suspicion of disbelief "

Good. Keep it. I don't know what it is... Suspension, maybe?

Re:Dune was good, but still failed

[mrsquid0]

> It kinda lost me when the Harkonans, a powerful empire in their own right, had to melt down their artillery pieces because they needed the materials elsewhere.

This was explained in the book, and the explanation was internally consistent with technology of the time. The magic shield technology had made artillery usless millennia earlier. It was just the unique conditions on Dune that made artillery tactically useful. Once the Harkonnens had won the artillery was no longer needed, and may not be needed again for centuries or longer.

You don't understand the universe

[Okian Warrior]

True wisdom requires the humility to see the universe for what it is... a step beyond our reason... always and forever.

I heartily endorse that statement, and encourage you to teach it to your children.

(My children, on the other hand, will be competing with yours in the global society and I want to give them the best chance of success.)

Re:You don't understand the universe

[Karmashock]

vague... what will you be teaching your children? And why do you think they'll out compete people taught to be flexible and open minded?

Re:You don't understand the universe

[Bing Tsher E]

Forces that are beyond your control will reach your children, and your children will grow to be what they want to be, not what you want them to be.

They might even choose paths of wisdom that cause them to dislike what you tried to do to them.

Re:You don't understand the universe

[ScentCone]

And why do you think they'll out compete people taught to be flexible and open minded?

Because in practice, that default position morphs into "incapable of critical thinking about objective reality and causality, and spending your life trying to make sense of the world while being poisoned with a crippling case of mixed premises and moral relativism" - that's why. Being open to new facts is important and wonderful. But being an intellectual invertebrate is unfortunately what's generally being indoctrinated.

Re:You don't understand the universe

[Karmashock]

moral relativism is not the same thing as being open minded.

What is more, moral relativism largely becomes a problem when you presume to still judge people morally AFTER you accept a premise of moral relativism.

The automatic consequence of moral relativism is that morality can't be used to judge a situation because its all relative to the morality being used. Thus you have to make your judgements on something besides morality... ethics... or something objective.

As to critical thinking... that is a core belief of mine and I would certainly instill that.

As to causality... also something I think is very important.

As to being poisoned by mixed premises... that's more a question of your personal intelligence actually. It has been said that a sign of a first quality mind is the ability to hold two mutually exclusive concepts in your mind at once and be able to think in both terms at once.

Not to toot my own horn but I can maintain dozens of compartmentalized mentalities in my mind at once.

I use some of them to model the behavior of other people by emtulating what I believe to be simulations of their thought process. I also have expert system mentalities that are myopically focused on being hyper competent in specific tasks while not especially useful in any other role. And then I divide my personality into different elements to control aspects of my mind that need to be contained and also give a freer reign to my better angels if you will.

I've done this for years and as time goes on, I get better at it.

I think I first started consciously doing it after reading the "User Illusion" which was a book about the illusion of human consciousness/awareness from a neurological and psychological perspective.

I read that book at the same time I read Dune and some other books that were psychologically transformative.

Regardless, those books at that formative time in my life allowed me to organize my mind. I do not suffer conflicting premises because I compartmentalize them into different mentalities. Each mentality is intellectually pure.

The only thing that changes is which I listen to more from one second to the next.

My mind is something of a council... no one gets a vote but me... but I take advice from one and all.

Re:You don't understand the universe

[Anonymous Coward]

but I take advice from one and all.

you really should consider not just TAKING but actually FOLLOWING the advice that people have been giving you here. people have been suggesting you chill the fuck out - turn your anger down from 11 to a more manageable 2 or 3 - for example. others have been suggesting you might want to seek counseling. yet others have been suggesting you might want to seek out employment so you can some day move out of your parents' basement.

Re:You don't understand the universe

[Karmashock]

More ACs telling me how I should behave!

Tell me AC... how do you behave on this site. Can you show me your record here?

Yes you can or no you're another hypocritical shithead?

LOG IN or don't presume to judge those that do.

Re:You don't understand the universe

[Any Web Loco]

Christ you're a wanker.

Re:You don't understand the universe

[Anonymous Coward]

More ACs telling me how I should behave!

well, if you are actually TAKING advice as you claim, you are halfway to making yourself into a better person. now try FOLLOWING it. you expect others to follow your advice, but refuse to follow the advice that others offer you... isn't there a word for that kind of attitude, it begins with H?

hypocritical

ahh, yes - there it is.

Re:You don't understand the universe

[Anonymous Coward]

No no no no no! We don't want Karmaschmuck to change! We want him to remain as he is! What will us ACs do without him?

Garbage then,

[__aasehi2499]

garbage now.

Re:The Guardian

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus ca change...
30 year old description but still scarily accurate:
"The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is."

Golly, you think?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Is the OP aware the Dune milieu was intended as a commentary on the West and Middle Eastern oil?

IIRC, in the story, as ridiculously profitable as Dune was for the Emperor, the cost of his army assault ate up some 40 years worth of sales, which was almost spot on to the first Gulf War vs. Iraq's profits, which were not even taken to pay for it

Dune was good just took a few chapters to grab you

[Trax3001BBS]

I forget the last Dune book I read as there were so many books in the series. They became well garbage and I thought he was milking it for all it's worth.

Re:Dune was good just took a few chapters to grab

[Chris Mattern]

You may want to remember that Frank Herbert wrote only first six--and the last two were done a couple of years before he died. After that it was his son, Brian Herbert, in conjunction with Kevin J. Anderson, work about which some people, well, have a rather low opinion.

Arabic and Islamic themes in the Dune universe

[kbahey]

Many years ago, I wrote an article on Arabic and Islamic themes in Frank Herbert's Dune. It includes many etymological info on terms used in Dune.

Hope some of you enjoy it.

Re:Dune was good just took a few chapters to grab

[Anonymous Coward]

I found that the books got better as they went along. The last three are my favourites. The first was probably the weakest of the six.

Original Dune

[Whiteox]

I read the original Dune book quite fast as soon as I discovered that reading every 2nd chapter (the sci-fi parts) were a lot more interesting than the arab based filler.
I never really paid that much attention to it until I saw the movie many years later.

Cordwainer Smith

[TheMiddleRoad]

Shows Herbert for the so-so writer he is.

My favorite Frank Herbert book after Dune

[bdwoolman]

Check Out Hellstrom's Hive. It is about a hidden human community based on the principles of the social insects. Oh so totally creepy. Its chill has stayed with me for decades. Would love to see it as a movie.

Re:My favorite Frank Herbert book after Dune

[dargaud]

I liked 'The White Plague', about an artificial disease that wipes out all women... and the crumbling society that remains.

Re:My favorite Frank Herbert book after Dune

[Anonymous Coward]

Check Out Hellstrom's Hive. It is about a hidden human community based on the principles of the social insects. Oh so totally creepy. Its chill has stayed with me for decades. Would love to see it as a movie.

I prefer Herbert's Destination Void series.

For movies, if you like creepy, you may "enjoy" Johnny Got His Gun, based on Dalton Trumbo's book of the same name.

Re:My favorite Frank Herbert book after Dune

[bdwoolman]

Oh yes. I remember it. A world without women would be a bad old world indeed.

seven pillars is also not particularly accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

There are several recent books on Lawrence that discuss the inaccuracies/selective memory in 7 pillars. Notwithstanding that, it is a good book and worth reading.

Re:T. E. Lawrence is missing from many reading lis

[Anonymous Coward]

I would urge reading "Lawrence in Arabia" by Scott Anderson for a more comprehensive view of the key players in the Middle East a century ago. I found it very enlightening as to how that mess got the way it is now.

Re:Dune was good just took a few chapters to grab

[Trax3001BBS]

You may want to remember that Frank Herbert wrote only first six--and the last two were done a couple of years before he died. After that it was his son, Brian Herbert, in conjunction with Kevin J. Anderson, work about which some people, well, have a rather low opinion.

No I wasn't aware.

Reminds me then of the L. Ron Hubbard's series "Mission Earth" it's a 10 volume set. It's said he died while writing it, someone taking over the story. I can tell you where it happened - volume 3 it went stupid after that one, just ridiculous. I have the 10 volume hard back set (hopeful collectors item) but just collected the last 6 (unread).

'Dune' is in the details.

[Hussman32]

ive read the six Herbert Dune books several time, and while there are several over-arching themes, it's the little things that bring me back...

'Governments hate a popular leader.'
'Revenge is for children and the emotionally retarded.'
'His greatest skill is that he learned how to learn.'

So many bits of wisdom from a man that thought with purity.

Decades pass, hillarity ensues...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Herbert, looking for exotic inspiration for his stories, uses elements of the Arab, Persian and Muslim world thus making his stories very different from the vast majority of scifi at the time, which tended to be was based in civilizations resembling those built by Jews and Christians in moderate climates (most authors start with what they and their readers are familiar with and then get busy telling a story). Herbert floods his stories with words that have a middle-eastern sound, scenery straight out of "Lawrence of Arabia", middle-eastern-style tribal and martial behaviors, and titles the first book "Dune" as if to put a huge capstone advertizing this on the endeavor. This is all obvious to the early readers of the work. The military aspects of Dune are obvious both in the way the off-world forces approach Arrakis (an actual Arabic word) like Westerners approaching the Arab/Muslim world. The Fremen are clearly modeled on the tribal people of the middle-east, and therefore are organized and fight as those people have historically organized themselves and fought (absent the scifi props of worms and such). Even the spice is an allegory both for oil (which from a Western perspective "must flow" and is required for transportation across large distances) and for actual drugs (such as the heroin from Afghanistan)

Decades pass

Ignorant morons pickup the book "Dune", skim through it (or, admittedly, SOME even READ it), and declare that the author was amazingly prophetic and that aspects of what he wrote seem to have a mysterious connection to the modern world etc.

[face palm]

One one level it's very a funny display of extreme ignorance, but on another level it's a disturbing display of intellectual failure. This confusion about cause-and-effect, source-and-sink, and otherwise backward thinking is right up there with cargo cultism and is an indictment of the reasoning and education of the person displaying it.

Re:Decades pass, hillarity ensues...

[lucien86]

Dune is full of subtexts and secret meanings, some of which cannot be decoded without very specific knowledge. It might use many Arabic idioms in its setting but its message is profoundly anti-Islamic. It is a book of religious mysticism, psychic power, and deep magical secrets set in a sci-fi setting. (eg Paul Atreides gains immortality by becoming a god!)
Maybe not surprising that it momentarily 'synchronises' with events and people start reading it as 'prophesy'. If it is a book about prophesy it certainly isn't about the Middle East today..

Re:Decades pass, hillarity ensues...

[Anonymous Coward]

Paul never gained immortality. Did you only watch the movie or something?

Re:The Guardian

[Karmashock]

thank you for that, that was amusing.

Re:Dune was good just took a few chapters to grab

[Anonymous Coward]

The last few are equivalent to the Robot Chicken version of J.R.R. Tolkien J., Jr.'s completion of a Lord of the Rings final work.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The Robot Chicken version was actually *better* than the Silmarillion and had a much tighter plot.

Not a mistake

[drinkypoo]

Belittling (or disregarding the validity of) their beliefs is a huge mistake, however.

It's not a mistake. It's a critical step in moving forward as a species.

Re:Not a mistake

[Moridineas]

You're 100% correct, and I wrote poorly. We should belittle ISIS and their twisted beliefs.

What I was trying (again, poorly) to say was that we trivialize their beliefs at our own risk. President Obama saying pretty much "that's not true Islam" might make for a nice feel-good quote, but what's the point of the statement? Does he think ISIS is going to rethink their beliefs because a Christian from the US thinks they're interpreting the Qur'an wrong?

Re:Not a mistake

[drinkypoo]

Does he think ISIS is going to rethink their beliefs because a Christian from the US thinks they're interpreting the Qur'an wrong?

I think that he, or whoever writes his speeches, thinks that this is an opportunity to get inb4claimsofsharialaw.

I do think there's an outside chance that some people might not join ISIS if they hear a strong voice telling them why it's idiotic. But I think the first reason is the real reason.

This needs to be a well done movie

[MillerHighLife21]

The attempts to put Dune on screen have been largely terrible, but this is one of those books where the "big budget blockbuster" would be totally justified. Either that or potentially an HBO series in the vein of Game of Thrones. Given the amount of story to tell that might be the best chance to really do it justice.

Somehow, it really needs to happen.

Re:This needs to be a well done movie

[iluvcapra]

The attempts to put Dune on screen have been largely terrible, but this is one of those books where the "big budget blockbuster" would be totally justified.

Huge stretches of the book are internal monologue or whispered conversations in dark rooms, where two people exchange few words and pages are spent on exposition. The book is unfilmable; or rather, you can make a lot of movies with the title Dune but they're going to end up just sharing character names and the general bag of situations.

Re: This needs to be a well done movie

[Anonymous Coward]

I really think a movie adaptation could be done without all of the internal dialogue. You could take some liberties with scenes for sake of explanation or confiding in another character to tell the story without needing a narrarator voice.

Re: This needs to be a well done movie

[iluvcapra]

I really think a movie adaptation could be done without all of the internal dialogue.

Yeah but it'd sorta be like doing a painting and calling it an "adaptation" of Bach's D-minor partita for violin. The medium is the essence of Dune in a way many other books aren't; any book that deals so heavily in metaphysics is going to be hard to realize visually.

A missed opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

The documentary Jodorowsky's Dune. If this was made with the concept as it was envisioned, the richness would have been eternal as much as the struggle in the middle east is to-day.

Re:The Guardian

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Sun?

They don't care as long as she's got big tits