This is in my opinion a bit missleading, because on it's surface it sounds like you're agreeing with us, but really you're just saying that they're not on par with "legends". This is a common thing to say. Even Byron knows they are bad writers, but can't say it, so he says "of course it's not as good as FH".redbugpest wrote:Yes, I think that the new books are entertaining on their own. I have eclectic tastes when it comes to reading. Not everything I read needs to be in the same class as Herbert, Asmov, Heinline, Niven, Clark and other Sci-Fi legends.merkin muffley wrote:Isn't it your position that there's something good about the new Dune books?redbugpest wrote: But what is "genuinely interesting" to you may not be "genuinely interesting" to me.
That's why I stopped reading in the middle of Paul of Dune, and threw it against the wall. This is also why I'm going to stay out of this debate. I'm still waiting for it to get going, though, and move beyond this debate about whether or not the debate should take place.redbugpest wrote: If I found it to be lame, I wouldn't waste my time on it...
I promise that I will stay out of a serious discussion.
Nobody expects them to be on par with FH, but we expect them to be at least half-decent at writing, and they're not. Even when comparing them with something like Dragon Lance (notoriosly bad writing and pulpy) they fall utterly flat when it comes to character building, basic consistancy, dialogue, you name it.
I also don't need everything I read to be on that level, but I do need it to be better than terrible.