World building. That's it. It's really a terrible story poorly told, but the setting is compelling, even after Star Wars and everyone else ripped it off.
Star Wars doesn't have the sandworms, and is a film. I really liked the parts where Herbert would stop and describe the horizon/landscape, and I know SW has amazing landscape shots too, but in my head they're different.
Yeah it's insane to me that so many of the scifi "greats" had such mediocre prose. Kind of gives me hope as a shitty writer
Keep hearing about this, but I don't see the connection between them besides >secretive order of space wizards/witches >melee combat in the future (except only the space wizards do that in star wars) >space emperor (except it's a completely different political system) >big desert planet
And I'm sure dune wasn't the first to use that stuff
They all have mid prose. If anything its a feature of the genre (although most genre fiction is like that as a whole). At best a sci-fi writer will be an actual IRL STEMgay, but many are just readers of other science-fiction and thus never exposed to good prose.
thats a low bar even Verne surpasses it
and I know because I tried it (and abandoned the trial) recently
Heinlein & Asimov are orbits above Herbie
yet I still hope and wish, from the bottom of my heart, that somebody knowledgeable and dedicated condense ALL the Dune stuff into a 365 page book that still contains ALL the cool stuff
now that's a challenge :3
I literally just completed the trilogy a week ago and I couldn't agree less. Foundation while great and full of interesting ideas ends up making less sense the closer you look at it. Dune is in many ways a response to what Herbert sees as Foundation's shortcomings and unlike Foundation actually attempts to create answers for many of the questions that the Foundation trilogy leaves quite vague.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Foundation promises to jog the mind and delivers on its promise, that's why it's loved by many (people usually read it as kids... also the "working class")
Dune doesn't deliver on its promises... or it does, if we consider that it only promised to make $$$$$$$$$ for the author
I wish I knew what Mr. Herbert invested all that money in so I could have real appreciation for his all-encompassing culture, solid intuition, and a flair for life-changing adventures... and I ain't even saying that sarcastically
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
What promises does Dune not deliver on?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
what kind of moron are you that you think "the foundation" is some obscure, hidden work in asimovs catalog, one which you needed to smugly point out?
I'm not talking about the plot / mythology / drama / whatever but the prose itself
if Asimov is like having a meat and potatoes in a diner in some stereotypical city, Frank Herbert is like chewing cardboard spiced with the finest spices of the world... sure the spice is nice... but yeah... cardboard
I have no idea what you mean.
Seriously, not enough clever descriptions of sand rolling around? Or clever descriptions of Jessica's lips? Or clever comparisons between male character and hunting animals?
What makes it dull prose?
are you people reading in a daze?
the words floating by your eyes with no meaning or understanding?
have you seriously just been treating books as collections of pretty words your entire life?
You ever read poetry before? After you've read a couple good poems, I just can't see why anyone would want to read a novel instead (if the prose is bad). Maybe you're relatively new to reading or something, but after a while you build a standard, and you instinctively know whether or not something is worth your time within a couple minutes, sometimes even just a few seconds of cracking it open. So, no. I'm doing the exact opposite of reading in a daze. I pay attention to what I'm reading, so when it's bad I really notice.
anon this is poor dialogue structure and i was going to make fun of you for it but i want you to do better so i'll explain it
in such a case as these we two have ideas, views on the world, and they differ from one another. given this situation the norm is applied that we should speak of it and converse, but modern people often mis interperate what a dialogue is meant to do.
the ideal platonic form of a dialogue is a conversation entered with two goals,
1)to understand
and
2)to be understood
in these aim,when debating we only speak of what we believe to be the points of contention between our two beliefs, as outside of those points, we generally recognize that everything is worn ground, and that explaining your though conviction toward the system of gravity isn't going to help someone understand why you think aliens are real.
this differs from the modern standard, corrupted by the influence of idealouges and politically speakers into a form of conversation where one side wins, and the other loses, the modern arguement. this mostly entails useless meandering about the same beaten tracks, and what not
lets look at what you said >You ever read poetry before? After you've read a couple good poems, I just can't see why anyone would want to read a novel instead (if the prose is bad). Maybe you're relatively new to reading or something, but after a while you build a standard, and you instinctively know whether or not something is worth your time within a couple minutes, sometimes even just a few seconds of cracking it open. So, no. I'm doing the exact opposite of reading in a daze. I pay attention to what I'm reading, so when it's bad I really notice.
the line of logic this seems to follow is >the enemy claims i'm not paying attention >i infact am, as i know when a book is good, and when it is bad >*writes reply*
the issue here is obvious: i would have to be a moron to contest that you like the books you're reading
seriously think about what the reply is trying to tell
if i am a moron, why bother?
and if(as) i am not a moron, shouldn't you have looked closer for a more lucid point in my post before sending a reply?
this post is not built wiht any intention of understanding me, and next to none of being understood (given the treading of safe ground) so why type it at all?
to up your place on an envisioned internet leader board? to save the board from the horrorific banality of unknowing?
in my post i wrote > > >
look at the key words
"daze" "meaning" "understanding" "just ... pretty words" it is not only clear but the only coherent explaination for my words that i was claiming a focus on prose was a tactile pleasure, and that reading could, and should be more intellectually involved, not that you dont pay attention to the prose, or that you read bad books,
i am aware that it was an exaggeration to imply you read solely the prose and drift aimlessly from word to word, sentence to sentence, but an exaggeration of my real point:(1/2)
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You ever read poetry before? After you've read a couple good poems, I just can't see why anyone would want to read a novel instead (if the prose is bad). Maybe you're relatively new to reading or something, but after a while you build a standard, and you instinctively know whether or not something is worth your time within a couple minutes, sometimes even just a few seconds of cracking it open. So, no. I'm doing the exact opposite of reading in a daze. I pay attention to what I'm reading, so when it's bad I really notice.
(2/2)
that there is signifigant value in a book outside the prose
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
[...]
(2/2)
that there is signifigant value in a book outside the prose
Good grief, I think you might actually be autistic. Nice job. Either way, it looks like English isn't your first language, so maybe that's why you didn't understand what I said.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
good luck anon, i hope you get very high on the scoreboard you made for yourself
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Based moron
You guys have to be fricking with me. Do you seriously not understand what I said? I'm surprised that this is even a (seemingly) controversial opinion on IQfy of all places. The defining method by which information is delivered to the reader in a novel is through text, is it not? And in film is it not the camera which plays the most important role in delivering the picture? So, of course it should stand to reason that the better these two vehicles are "driven", the better the delivery of the information core to either format, regardless of topic? I'll clarify my first two posts: An ugly book isn't worth reading, and an ugly film isn't worth watching, because neither are playing to their respective medium's strengths well. If I had no interest in the content of what I was reading or watching, then I wouldn't care about how it was delivered either. You're coming at this from an angle assuming the vehicles in which information is conveyed are somehow not direly important, when they're in fact vital not only to experience and comprehension, but if they were absent, the information would not be conveyed at all; there would be no novel without the written word and no film without the camera. Both might exist in someone's mouth or mind, but neither would exist as a novel or a film. So, no: I don't think there is any significant value in a book per se outside of its prose, since a book is its prose; all information extracted from a book and colored by your perception is no longer of the author or the book, but of you and your own mind.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Your main mistake here is you're assuming IQfy actually reads. They just think "huh, the YouTube lore videos on dunes political system is pretty cool, Herbert's the greatest author of all time." Why should they care about prose at that point
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
dunes lore was by far the least interesting part
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I still fail to see what is so bad about the prose in Dune.
Maybe there is better prose, however you define it.
But the text in Dune is delivering meaning fairly smoothly and clearly. Nothing particularly "ugly" in it. Trying to be fancy can make text much "uglier".
And reading just for the medium is akin to eating food with empty calories and no real nutrition.
Story is the main human vehicle for sharing. If you take that away and leave only pretty words - I have bad news for you.
A captivating story written in a poor way will always be better than pretty prose not conveying a story that the reader cares about.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Maybe there is better prose, however you define it.
Nta but I think I get it now, you've only read genre fiction, so to you complaints about its prose seem unfounded. I hope you get to read true literature someday
there is very little poetry that makes the reader look at the same thing as the poet (Coleridge and Rilke come to mind)
most of poetry is just a stinky dick begging to be sucked
I've tried reading this book once and listening to it on audio twice. I don't have a problem with boring stuff, I listen to some boring ass books at work. the problem with dune is that the beginning of the book annoys the hell out of me and I always switch to something else before getting very far.
Asimov was a gay nerd atheist who believed in egghead utopia and Herbert understood the only way to really change the world and upset an established order, even if in a terrible way, is jihad. Which makes him based,
which just proves that Asimov's world is included in Heinlein's (who btw said publicly and recorded on video that was a mistake for USA to get involved in WW2) and Frank Herbert is included as a colony in Asimov's world
The world
it becomes a feature, I much prefer this over schizo prose like PKD
The prose and dialogue are extremely autistic yeh.
Kys
PKD has absolutely no prose.
World building. That's it. It's really a terrible story poorly told, but the setting is compelling, even after Star Wars and everyone else ripped it off.
Star Wars doesn't have the sandworms, and is a film. I really liked the parts where Herbert would stop and describe the horizon/landscape, and I know SW has amazing landscape shots too, but in my head they're different.
>Star Wars doesn't have the sandworms, and is a film.
so what?
Two important differences, that's all rart.
it's still a ripoff even if it doesn't contain an element
star wars has that scene with the astroid worms
Heavily inspired doesn't equate to plagiarism.
okay warsie
I'm not a big fan of Star Wars, to be clear –,–
It does have the sandworms. They're just on asteroids now for some reason.
Yeah it's insane to me that so many of the scifi "greats" had such mediocre prose. Kind of gives me hope as a shitty writer
Keep hearing about this, but I don't see the connection between them besides
>secretive order of space wizards/witches
>melee combat in the future (except only the space wizards do that in star wars)
>space emperor (except it's a completely different political system)
>big desert planet
And I'm sure dune wasn't the first to use that stuff
You forgot
>anachronistic quasi-Shakespearean plot contrivances
They all have mid prose. If anything its a feature of the genre (although most genre fiction is like that as a whole). At best a sci-fi writer will be an actual IRL STEMgay, but many are just readers of other science-fiction and thus never exposed to good prose.
The story
The story is kind of dogshit though.
whats wrong with the story?
People like the world. It's both familiar and strange, like an alternate reality.
The story and character development. It's a pretty good science fiction summer read.
>But I don't like them
Ok.
gays into lawyers cycle
Name better sci-fi fantasy books
Philip K. Dick's corpus.
thats a low bar even Verne surpasses it
and I know because I tried it (and abandoned the trial) recently
Heinlein & Asimov are orbits above Herbie
yet I still hope and wish, from the bottom of my heart, that somebody knowledgeable and dedicated condense ALL the Dune stuff into a 365 page book that still contains ALL the cool stuff
now that's a challenge :3
Heinlein and Asimov are above Herbert? I'm no Herbert dickrider but that is such an abysmal take.
ehem
I literally just completed the trilogy a week ago and I couldn't agree less. Foundation while great and full of interesting ideas ends up making less sense the closer you look at it. Dune is in many ways a response to what Herbert sees as Foundation's shortcomings and unlike Foundation actually attempts to create answers for many of the questions that the Foundation trilogy leaves quite vague.
Foundation promises to jog the mind and delivers on its promise, that's why it's loved by many (people usually read it as kids... also the "working class")
Dune doesn't deliver on its promises... or it does, if we consider that it only promised to make $$$$$$$$$ for the author
I wish I knew what Mr. Herbert invested all that money in so I could have real appreciation for his all-encompassing culture, solid intuition, and a flair for life-changing adventures... and I ain't even saying that sarcastically
What promises does Dune not deliver on?
what kind of moron are you that you think "the foundation" is some obscure, hidden work in asimovs catalog, one which you needed to smugly point out?
I'm not talking about the plot / mythology / drama / whatever but the prose itself
if Asimov is like having a meat and potatoes in a diner in some stereotypical city, Frank Herbert is like chewing cardboard spiced with the finest spices of the world... sure the spice is nice... but yeah... cardboard
Foundation and I, robot are really great and super influental but Asimov is really shitty writer compared to Herbert
Also, K. Dick is the goat of scifi
I have no idea what you mean.
Seriously, not enough clever descriptions of sand rolling around? Or clever descriptions of Jessica's lips? Or clever comparisons between male character and hunting animals?
What makes it dull prose?
It's not dull, it's moronic.
Nothing of the sorts.
You are moronic.
there are too many books out there, and too little reading to be done, to warrant this book any more attention.
https://nerdist.com/article/everything-star-wars-borrowed-from-dune/
Plot
I really don't understand why people read books with bad prose. It's like watching an anime with bad animation or a film with bad cinematography.
are you people reading in a daze?
the words floating by your eyes with no meaning or understanding?
have you seriously just been treating books as collections of pretty words your entire life?
You ever read poetry before? After you've read a couple good poems, I just can't see why anyone would want to read a novel instead (if the prose is bad). Maybe you're relatively new to reading or something, but after a while you build a standard, and you instinctively know whether or not something is worth your time within a couple minutes, sometimes even just a few seconds of cracking it open. So, no. I'm doing the exact opposite of reading in a daze. I pay attention to what I'm reading, so when it's bad I really notice.
anon this is poor dialogue structure and i was going to make fun of you for it but i want you to do better so i'll explain it
in such a case as these we two have ideas, views on the world, and they differ from one another. given this situation the norm is applied that we should speak of it and converse, but modern people often mis interperate what a dialogue is meant to do.
the ideal platonic form of a dialogue is a conversation entered with two goals,
1)to understand
and
2)to be understood
in these aim,when debating we only speak of what we believe to be the points of contention between our two beliefs, as outside of those points, we generally recognize that everything is worn ground, and that explaining your though conviction toward the system of gravity isn't going to help someone understand why you think aliens are real.
this differs from the modern standard, corrupted by the influence of idealouges and politically speakers into a form of conversation where one side wins, and the other loses, the modern arguement. this mostly entails useless meandering about the same beaten tracks, and what not
lets look at what you said
>You ever read poetry before? After you've read a couple good poems, I just can't see why anyone would want to read a novel instead (if the prose is bad). Maybe you're relatively new to reading or something, but after a while you build a standard, and you instinctively know whether or not something is worth your time within a couple minutes, sometimes even just a few seconds of cracking it open. So, no. I'm doing the exact opposite of reading in a daze. I pay attention to what I'm reading, so when it's bad I really notice.
the line of logic this seems to follow is
>the enemy claims i'm not paying attention
>i infact am, as i know when a book is good, and when it is bad
>*writes reply*
the issue here is obvious: i would have to be a moron to contest that you like the books you're reading
seriously think about what the reply is trying to tell
if i am a moron, why bother?
and if(as) i am not a moron, shouldn't you have looked closer for a more lucid point in my post before sending a reply?
this post is not built wiht any intention of understanding me, and next to none of being understood (given the treading of safe ground) so why type it at all?
to up your place on an envisioned internet leader board? to save the board from the horrorific banality of unknowing?
in my post i wrote
>
>
>
look at the key words
"daze" "meaning" "understanding" "just ... pretty words" it is not only clear but the only coherent explaination for my words that i was claiming a focus on prose was a tactile pleasure, and that reading could, and should be more intellectually involved, not that you dont pay attention to the prose, or that you read bad books,
i am aware that it was an exaggeration to imply you read solely the prose and drift aimlessly from word to word, sentence to sentence, but an exaggeration of my real point:(1/2)
(2/2)
that there is signifigant value in a book outside the prose
Good grief, I think you might actually be autistic. Nice job. Either way, it looks like English isn't your first language, so maybe that's why you didn't understand what I said.
good luck anon, i hope you get very high on the scoreboard you made for yourself
You guys have to be fricking with me. Do you seriously not understand what I said? I'm surprised that this is even a (seemingly) controversial opinion on IQfy of all places. The defining method by which information is delivered to the reader in a novel is through text, is it not? And in film is it not the camera which plays the most important role in delivering the picture? So, of course it should stand to reason that the better these two vehicles are "driven", the better the delivery of the information core to either format, regardless of topic? I'll clarify my first two posts: An ugly book isn't worth reading, and an ugly film isn't worth watching, because neither are playing to their respective medium's strengths well. If I had no interest in the content of what I was reading or watching, then I wouldn't care about how it was delivered either. You're coming at this from an angle assuming the vehicles in which information is conveyed are somehow not direly important, when they're in fact vital not only to experience and comprehension, but if they were absent, the information would not be conveyed at all; there would be no novel without the written word and no film without the camera. Both might exist in someone's mouth or mind, but neither would exist as a novel or a film. So, no: I don't think there is any significant value in a book per se outside of its prose, since a book is its prose; all information extracted from a book and colored by your perception is no longer of the author or the book, but of you and your own mind.
Your main mistake here is you're assuming IQfy actually reads. They just think "huh, the YouTube lore videos on dunes political system is pretty cool, Herbert's the greatest author of all time." Why should they care about prose at that point
dunes lore was by far the least interesting part
I still fail to see what is so bad about the prose in Dune.
Maybe there is better prose, however you define it.
But the text in Dune is delivering meaning fairly smoothly and clearly. Nothing particularly "ugly" in it. Trying to be fancy can make text much "uglier".
And reading just for the medium is akin to eating food with empty calories and no real nutrition.
Story is the main human vehicle for sharing. If you take that away and leave only pretty words - I have bad news for you.
A captivating story written in a poor way will always be better than pretty prose not conveying a story that the reader cares about.
>Maybe there is better prose, however you define it.
Nta but I think I get it now, you've only read genre fiction, so to you complaints about its prose seem unfounded. I hope you get to read true literature someday
Based moron
there is very little poetry that makes the reader look at the same thing as the poet (Coleridge and Rilke come to mind)
most of poetry is just a stinky dick begging to be sucked
I've tried reading this book once and listening to it on audio twice. I don't have a problem with boring stuff, I listen to some boring ass books at work. the problem with dune is that the beginning of the book annoys the hell out of me and I always switch to something else before getting very far.
Asimov was a gay nerd atheist who believed in egghead utopia and Herbert understood the only way to really change the world and upset an established order, even if in a terrible way, is jihad. Which makes him based,
which just proves that Asimov's world is included in Heinlein's (who btw said publicly and recorded on video that was a mistake for USA to get involved in WW2) and Frank Herbert is included as a colony in Asimov's world
Did anyone else think princess Irulan was a fricking smug ass self aggrandizing b***h?
Irulan did nothing wrong
kys
no one gives a shit really about the books, the entire internet keeps pushing shit like Sanderson and only books released in the last few years