Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Sometimes you just have to roll with a setting and open up to the story being told.

Yeah. Dune is one of those settings you need to consciously turn a blind eye towards its faults and just focus on the story itself.

It will inherently annoy us nerds who love to discuss the minutia of a settings technology, magic, etc... due to its problems in that department. Dune was written to convey a message, not give enjoyment in its internally consistent immersion, to its reader.

I'm sure Frank Herbert would be disappointed to hear you say that, considering he had you specifically in mind when writing.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
- He’s suspicious of big government. This implies an idealised image of individualistic Americana. That’s a conservative point.

Remember kids, when the government says "We would never do that", they absolutely would:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Plus he was related to McCarthy.

McCarthy, whom he famously decried when McCarthy said communists shouldn't be allowed to work certain jobs because Herbert believed that was un-American.

Because critics of big government are really interested in any of that?

I am not surprised he would want to distance himself from McCarthy after the fact.

A work that wanted people to question and challenge the evils of their own society/gvt has to allow them agency. That they can make a difference. Dune, at a fundamental level is criticising the idea of heroism and hope that underpins that. It encourages you to doubt yourself. To doubt people advocating for change. That’s where the suspicion is being directed. Paul challenges “the man” and it leads to disaster. The Fremen try to liberate themselves and they become pawns of a power hungry man and a totalitarian nightmare. Oh if I listen to this guy causing trouble terrible things will happen; is the exact opposite of calling for action. Dune is a conservstive work. It’s a different kind of right wing to Starship Troopers or Lovecraft but it is conservative.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Because critics of big government are really interested in any of that?

I am not surprised he would want to distance himself from McCarthy after the fact.

A work that wanted people to question and challenge the evils of their own society/gvt has to allow them agency. That they can make a difference. Dune, at a fundamental level is criticising the idea of heroism and hope that underpins that. It encourages you to doubt yourself. To doubt people advocating for change. That’s where the suspicion is being directed. Paul challenges “the man” and it leads to disaster. The Fremen try to liberate themselves and they become pawns of a power hungry man and a totalitarian nightmare. Oh if I listen to this guy causing trouble terrible things will happen; is the exact opposite of calling for action. Dune is a conservstive work. It’s a different kind of right wing to Starship Troopers or Lovecraft but it is conservative.

You should read the prequels. From what you've described I think you'd find them more accessible.

I’m going to have to remember that one.

So, this thread is really just a Politics thread in disguise?

Cool!

No just Totalwar1402's viewpoint on Dune and its author is.

 Easy E wrote:
So, this thread is really just a Politics thread in disguise?

Cool!

I mean, all discussion of any media beyond the most shallow takes will end up discussing politics because politics shapes the media that is made and how we interpret that media.

As soon as you go beyond the surface of "recitation of what is shown on the screen or written on the page" into "why was this shown or written, what meaning is the creator trying to convey with this particular work, and why?" you hit politics.

People arguing about whether Dune is pro one side or the other of the left/right or conservative/progressive divide are missing the point just like people arguing the same or similar about 1984.
Neither is any of those; they're both anti-authoritarian.

Whether that authority is a charismatic leader or an oppressive police state, left-wing, right-wing, or whatever, is irrelevant to that.

Dune is explicitly political and I think it's fair game to discuss how contemporary political discourse affects its reading. The book is over 60 years old at this point, Herbert was pulling from contemporary social theory to sketch out the lifeways of Arrakis. The theory is a bit dated now but produced some compelling world building.

Given the variety of characters in Dune, from wildly different positionalities, their discussions on politics and power, you could take any quote out of context and argue that the author was endorsing radical, reactionary, fundamentalist, monarchist, or anti-colonial politics. Herbert's politics are relevant in how they shaped the writing but in my analysis I think his primary interest was exploring cultural ecology interspersed with some fun swordfights.

As the series goes on things get weirder. Villeneuve, give us the chairdogs, you coward!

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So, this thread is really just a Politics thread in disguise?

Cool!

I mean, all discussion of any media beyond the most shallow takes will end up discussing politics because politics shapes the media that is made and how we interpret that media.

As soon as you go beyond the surface of "recitation of what is shown on the screen or written on the page" into "why was this shown or written, what meaning is the creator trying to convey with this particular work, and why?" you hit politics.

I absolutely agree! I just don't want to give the Mods an excuse to shutdown my new favorite part of the forum!


So, do we think Dune was written to be art or product? Was it designed to teach a lesson, or to move books? If you had to lean one-way or the other, which side would you lean on?

We have no interest in shutting it down and wont unless people go off the rails. Of course though it helps if people can keep conspiracy theories, flamebait and political rants out of it. Always nice when the participants actually have engaged with the media before arguing with it too.

To your question, both? Herbert's career was down the can and he needed to eat but he also wanted to try and have his book serve as a warning. Luckily for him it took off well, if only he had stopped writing after three books and forbidden anyone else to write anymore.

Not a fan of God Emperor of Dune?

I find the series much more interesting now that I experienced how crazy it gets.

The story was interesting for me, the writing I found tedious though. He was a lot more verbose than was needed, though that goes for all his books...

Am I the only person who enjoyed Anderson & Brian Herbert's Butlerian era books?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Am I the only person who enjoyed Anderson & Brian Herbert's Butlerian era books?

Definitely not, although their writing style is so different from Frank's that it might as well be a different universe altogether

 Easy E wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So, this thread is really just a Politics thread in disguise?

Cool!

I mean, all discussion of any media beyond the most shallow takes will end up discussing politics because politics shapes the media that is made and how we interpret that media.

As soon as you go beyond the surface of "recitation of what is shown on the screen or written on the page" into "why was this shown or written, what meaning is the creator trying to convey with this particular work, and why?" you hit politics.

I absolutely agree! I just don't want to give the Mods an excuse to shutdown my new favorite part of the forum!


So, do we think Dune was written to be art or product? Was it designed to teach a lesson, or to move books? If you had to lean one-way or the other, which side would you lean on?

Whether he was reading them directly or indirectly I get the sense that Herbert was inspired by the cultural ecology of the time, with influence from Leslie White and/or Julian Steward, what would later be described as cultural materialism. A lot of great sci-fi from the time pulled from contemporary anthropology (LeGuin is another great example). In this view the environment is the primary influence on cultural development, starting with subsistence and technology and working up to social organization and ideology. The appendices at the back establish this a little further and I really like how Liet-Kynes as a character gives voice to some of these ideas.

A large part of the book is the various justifications for power or rulership. "He who can destroy a thing controls a thing." This is probably the closest we get to Herbert endorsing an Arrakeen political ecology. Based on how the series unfolds I would say at minimum Herbert is anti-authoritarian and anti-Colonial. I love the back-and-forth between the Bene Gesserit who aggressively enforce the limits of humanity and the Bene Tleilax and Ix who run past those limits as fast as they can. Neither purely represent Herbert I'm sure - as Kirk says, "we're both extremist. The truth is somewhere in between."

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Not a fan of God Emperor of Dune?

I find the series much more interesting now that I experienced how crazy it gets.

IMO it was the best book from ones I read = it, Dune, and Messiah.

Finally saw part 2 just now.

Not sure what to think. I liked it, but didn’t love it. Have no regrets about watching it but not in a rush to re-watch it.

About halfway through the movie I wanted to pause it and finish Fallout or catch up on Shogun.

Everything was great, but it just didn’t grab me like part one.

Managed to watch Part two last night. There were a few bits liked but over all I didn't enjoy either of the new takes on Dune. So far the Si-fi mini series has been the telling I have enjoyed the most even if it wasn't as flashy and cool as this new one. I liked the floating suites and the lasers. some of the extras were hilarious mostly because of the looks on their faces. The lady Jessica arguing with her unborn child was funny and clever. The pace seemed much faster than in the first movie, I'm not sure if that's accurate or not but it felt much faster.
I found part one completely tedious to watch this was a slight step up.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/movies/denis-villeneuve-dune-part-two.html

Good interview, interesting explanations for some of his creative changes and his approach to the narrative - I'd say some of you might be surprised by his answers, but realistically I expect it will only incite more nerd rage.

The one question I wish would have been asked is how the hell do sandworms move? It's been bugging me since seeing part 2 - we never see enough of a worm in part 1 for it to become a thing, but in part 2 we see them fully extended out of the sand being ridden, and they just kind of.... go. Like a jet engine taking in air through their mouths and producing thrust out their rears. There's no side to serpentine side motion like a snake, there's no "inching" like an earthworm. Their bodies remain relatively straight and they just move as if carried by millions of tiny invisible feet.

The side to side thing is only one part of snake movement; the other is basically doing the same thing earthworms do; but just on their lower belly region only.

chaos0xomega wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/movies/denis-villeneuve-dune-part-two.html

Good interview, interesting explanations for some of his creative changes and his approach to the narrative - I'd say some of you might be surprised by his answers, but realistically I expect it will only incite more nerd rage.

The one question I wish would have been asked is how the hell do sandworms move? It's been bugging me since seeing part 2 - we never see enough of a worm in part 1 for it to become a thing, but in part 2 we see them fully extended out of the sand being ridden, and they just kind of.... go. Like a jet engine taking in air through their mouths and producing thrust out their rears. There's no side to serpentine side motion like a snake, there's no "inching" like an earthworm. Their bodies remain relatively straight and they just move as if carried by millions of tiny invisible feet.

Saw a short youtube video on that. The conclusion was that they don't do either snake or worm movements (because it would be seen in the movie), and they obviously can't roll, because the riders stay stationary on top.

On the other hand, they're shown swallowing tons of sand (and vehicles) at several points in the film, so... yeah. They just expel all that out their back end for propulsion.

 Overread wrote:
The side to side thing is only one part of snake movement; the other is basically doing the same thing earthworms do; but just on their lower belly region only.

To expand on this snakes are also able to scoot forward using only their belly muscles while staying relatively straight (relevant footage at 3:55). Plausible enough to scale up for science fiction.

Voss wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/movies/denis-villeneuve-dune-part-two.html

Good interview, interesting explanations for some of his creative changes and his approach to the narrative - I'd say some of you might be surprised by his answers, but realistically I expect it will only incite more nerd rage.

The one question I wish would have been asked is how the hell do sandworms move? It's been bugging me since seeing part 2 - we never see enough of a worm in part 1 for it to become a thing, but in part 2 we see them fully extended out of the sand being ridden, and they just kind of.... go. Like a jet engine taking in air through their mouths and producing thrust out their rears. There's no side to serpentine side motion like a snake, there's no "inching" like an earthworm. Their bodies remain relatively straight and they just move as if carried by millions of tiny invisible feet.

Saw a short youtube video on that. The conclusion was that they don't do either snake or worm movements (because it would be seen in the movie), and they obviously can't roll, because the riders stay stationary on top.

On the other hand, they're shown swallowing tons of sand (and vehicles) at several points in the film, so... yeah. They just expel all that out their back end for propulsion.

I was going to make a Tremors reference to their little projecting scales but perhaps Tremors 3 is a better fit!

IIRC they use sound to do it. They sonically liquifact the sand around their bodies, allowing them to basically swim through it as the sand behaves like a liquid.

But even a fish swimming have discernable motion to propel themselves, whereas the worms don't.

Interesting on the snakes using their abs to propel themselves, never knew that, but a good concept for how the worms may work, though it looks like a relatively slow going way of movement.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Alternately, if shields are so effective against even melee weapons such that "The slow knife penetrates the shield" is quite literally true, then melee should genuinely be useless with their technology level. Simply giving everybody chainmail armor would make melee combat a frustratingly futile thing. You swing hard enough to get through armor, the shield stops you. You swing slow enough to get through the shield, the armor stops you.

I believe they have monofil tech so sharp enough knives to go through armour would be a thing.