Slashdot Mirror
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."
... um, yeah, that's the eerie parallel. OK.
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.
... 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. :-)
"Lawrence would, I assure you, get along swimmingly," said Tony Blair.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
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...
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 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.
After that they quickly descend into weirded-out crap(sandworm god, anyone?)
I doubt it would have been as good as you think. HE wanted to change some major plot devices like the role of *Melange*.
Good-bye
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.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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.
"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.
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......
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.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
*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.
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 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.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
That says it all, right there.
No matter what you think of the book, I hope you don't believe that every movie version has to stick slavishly to "canon".
You are welcome on my lawn.
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
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.)
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
>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
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.
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."
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
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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.
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.
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.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
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.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
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.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
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".
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.
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.
Shows Herbert for the so-so writer he is.
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.
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.
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.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
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.
+10 insightful
Unfortunately most western politicians don't see it like this, or at least claim to see it different for their own agendas.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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).
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.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
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).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
thank you for that, that was amusing.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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.
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.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.
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.
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
> 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.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
At the risk of being an etymological pedant, if you take the fun out you don't have much of a festival left.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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? :-)
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
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.
Lynch is a great film maker, but Dune was not a good film.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.