Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dune, 50 years on

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 109 posts

Re: Dune, 50 years on

#41

Post by camperman »

rodgerd wrote: post #36
revscat wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I agree with Tolkien on this front. Yes, I know: I'm disagreeing with an author's assessment of his own work. But authors are necessarily a part of their environment. It is -- literally -- inescapable. The good Professor was directly involved in the first World War, and the second was at his doorstep. His aversion to modernity could have led to him simply denying a a conscious connection between those re…

> I'm not sure I agree with Tolkien on this front. Yes, I know: I'm disagreeing with an author's assessment of his own work. It hardly takes more than a smidgen of familiarity with the author's history to see it's deeply rooted in the experience of the first world war, not the second. As Tolkien notes, the themes flat out don't make sense for the second.

Yep. And he points out that the Lord of The Rings as a concept and plot was finished well before WWII even started.

Re: Dune, 50 years on

#42

Post by ableal »

The writer missed one of the most interesting points of the Dune future history: it is one that rejected machine intelligence, and relies only on human abilities (however augmented by training, drugs and mystical handwaving).

The original Dune books mentioned, as part of the past, a war against AIs called the Butlerian Jihad, which humans somehow won. Frank Herbert's son later wrote it up in three prequel books.

This is very much against the grain of 1960s and later SF, which, when not ignoring the issue, largely developed into a range of AI friendly views going from blithely assuming machine submission (most SF) up to admitting that humans would be the amusing pets of AIs (e.g. Iain M. Banks and Neal Asher).

On the hostile side, there were dystopian stories that posited human persecution and extermination by machines, but I can't remember off-hand another major SF setting where AI was achieved and beaten back.

Re: Dune, 50 years on

#43

Post by cousin_it »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #15

I thoroughly enjoyed Dune. It had an interesting story, set in an even more interesting world. However, it's also the kind of book that should never have had a sequel; other books in the series not only don't measure up, but actively undermine what made the original interesting. It's possible that other good stories could have been written in that universe, but they weren't. I highly recommend reading only the origin…

I think Dune was successful because it was a straightforward hero story, whose plot meshed together many interesting sub-themes like politics, religion, ecology, colonialism, drugs, eugenics, AI etc. The sequels failed because they abandoned the simple entertainment that a hero story could provide, and instead put the sub-themes front and center.

Re: Dune, 50 years on

#45

Post by nl »

iwwr wrote: post #30
JoshTriplett wrote: post #15

I thoroughly enjoyed Dune. It had an interesting story, set in an even more interesting world. However, it's also the kind of book that should never have had a sequel; other books in the series not only don't measure up, but actively undermine what made the original interesting. It's possible that other good stories could have been written in that universe, but they weren't. I highly recommend reading only the origin…

I would disagree. The sequels, especially 5-6 open up the wider universe and explore a variety of human cultures and social interaction. It's a fantasy-scify with deep and complex characters and complex interactions. Normally you'd start to see a scifi universe break apart after a few books, but Dune's could stand, it's 'realistic' in a sense. If you mean the sequels, prequels, interquels made by Brian Herbert and Ke…

The sequels aren't that well written.

The prequels shouldn't have been written.

Re: Dune, 50 years on

#46

Post by RexRollman »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #15

I thoroughly enjoyed Dune. It had an interesting story, set in an even more interesting world. However, it's also the kind of book that should never have had a sequel; other books in the series not only don't measure up, but actively undermine what made the original interesting. It's possible that other good stories could have been written in that universe, but they weren't. I highly recommend reading only the origin…

Agreed. I have read all six but only still own the first one.

Re: Dune, 50 years on

#47

Post by octygen »

Dune and the Foundation series are by far my favorite SF series. The reason? Both have unparalleled universe depth. To today I still recite the Dune fear prayer to myself once in a while, I still think about how the Foundationeers used technology as a means to control the Galaxy after the fall of the Empire, I still think of spice as several natural resources on Earth today, etc.

I believe all the books in the Dune series are valuable and even enjoyed the prequels since they gave a background to the story that was just lightly touched in the originals. For me, they completed the Universe and helped me answer the "Why did they do/think...?"

P.S. The Dune 1 game also ruled! It was the first game on my 486 and boy did it help me get a lot of ladies :)

Re: Dune, 50 years on

#48

Post by Tycho »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #15

I thoroughly enjoyed Dune. It had an interesting story, set in an even more interesting world. However, it's also the kind of book that should never have had a sequel; other books in the series not only don't measure up, but actively undermine what made the original interesting. It's possible that other good stories could have been written in that universe, but they weren't. I highly recommend reading only the origin…

I really enjoyed the sequels, personally. I think the 2nd and 3rd have some low points in them with the very unappealing Alia character taking up a lot of the text. But the 4th book (God Emperor of Dune) really reframed the series as an aeon spanning meditation on civilisation and governance and institutions, while building around the fascinating concept of prescience. Then the 5th book is a real thriller with shades of the original. It also has a couple of great twists.

Re: Dune, 50 years on

#49

Post by aikah »

anotherevan wrote: post #31
veli_joza wrote: post #27

Another TV adaptation worth mentioning is SyFy's miniseries "Frank Herbert's Dune" and "Frank Herbert's Children of Dune". They are much more faithful to books than Lynch's movie and better show the epic universe that Herbert imagined.

I really disliked the that Dune miniseries[1]. There was some really awful acting and very cheap looking sets through a lot of it. I also thought they got the tone of Paul's character completely wrong. To me he came across starting off as an arrogant thug whereas my perception of him from the books was a very thoughtful if not perhaps demonstratively emotive young man. (Obviously subjective viewpoint, but it put me o…

I took it as "filmed theater" rather than a movie. Aside from William Hurt, all actors are playing their roles, not "acting". So if you see it that way it's enjoyable. Everything is theatric, from the costumes to the dialogs, it doesn't really feel like a movie at all.

I prefer this to Lynch's film which has great costumes and design but you can't tell Dune in less than 2 hours, like one cannot tell lord of the rings in one movie.

However,there is certainly room for a real trilogy movie. I'm sure it will happen in the next 10 years.

Re: Dune, 50 years on

#50

Post by uptownJimmy »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #15

I thoroughly enjoyed Dune. It had an interesting story, set in an even more interesting world. However, it's also the kind of book that should never have had a sequel; other books in the series not only don't measure up, but actively undermine what made the original interesting. It's possible that other good stories could have been written in that universe, but they weren't. I highly recommend reading only the origin…

I agree wholeheartedly.
Post reply on HN