Page 7 of 13
Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 04 May 2010 08:46
by A Little Galach
SandChigger wrote:Leto reigned for 3,500 years.
Heretics begins 1,500 years after his death. That's a total of 5,000 years from the beginning of his reign until the beginning of
Heretics.
Leto began keeping his journals in the first year of his reign. At some point he learned of the Ixian development of no-tech or they approached him with it as a gift or product for purchase. It could be that the Harkonnens were commissioned the development and he learned of it, or the Harkonnens got wind of the new development and approached the Ixians and Leto allowed the Ixians to sell it to the Harkonnens as well, in order to drain their resources and keep them occupied.
However it played out, Leto had a no-globe/complex built on Arrakis at Dar-es-Balat, "The House of Tiles", and concealed his "Hidden Journals" there, with the Ixian machinery that recorded his thoughts. Above the door to the complex was an inscription saluting the future discoverer thereof as the first person to see his chronicles for four thousand years.
Now, I read this as meaning that the four thousand years refers to the age of the Dar-es-Balat complex. This means the four thousand years fits inside the five-thousand–year period I mentioned at the beginning, with one thousand years leeway which has to be divided between the periods before and after.
We know that Dar-es-Balat is discovered before the beginning of
Heretics because the Bene Gesserit know of it and have incorporated some of the contents of the Hidden Journals into their traditions. This would no doubt require a couple hundred years or more. I've never been able to find anything in the texts that would help to pinpoint the exact dates, so I generally just think of Dar-es-Balat as having been built around 500 years into Leto's reign (it would have taken time for the Ixians to develop the no-tech and telepathic recording equipment) and as having been rediscovered about 500 years before the beginning of
Heretics (giving the BG time to absorb and integrate the contents).
Just my interpretations and speculations offered as one possibility.
(In
Winds the Ixians are already selling methods simulating telepathy [because KJA has to preempt FH with every kewl techy thang he can ... the House books no-tech being the prime example], so no doubt they're going to have Leto building the complex very early in his reign, if not immediately after he ascends to the throne.

)
I'll take that as a yes.
Man, you're thorough.
Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 04 May 2010 10:01
by SandRider
oh bullshit, he's a bitter old balding hater who only logs on here to spread his bile and
slander tehKJA; he doesn't give a flying fuck about Dune, he's just gets hard spreading
lies about the greatest SyFy writer since L. Ron ..... he's never even actually read Dune,
he copied that from one of the academic papers in the archive @ T(A)U ....
Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 04 May 2010 10:31
by SandChigger
A Little Galach wrote:Man, you're thorough.
Nah, it's just a question I had myself and wanted an answer to.
(There isn't one in the texts that I've found yet. So I'm sure KJA will regard that as another "gap" that needs his "special attention"...
Drillin' & Fillin' — ass-raping Dune the KJA way! 
)
Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 04 May 2010 10:35
by SandChigger
SandRider wrote:he's never even actually read Dune
EGAD!!! My most damaging secret, found out and exposed before ALL THE WORLD!!! I feel positively naked!!!
Speaking of which ...
I'VE GOT NEW PIX!!!
he copied that from one of the academic papers in the archive @ T(A)U ....
Oh, I'm sorry, you must have me confused with that
other DUNE PLAGIARIST = whoever is posting at
DuneNovels on Twitter.
But seriously, has someone written something about it? I don't pretend to have been through everything at T(A)U yet.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 04 May 2010 15:49
by Freakzilla
Unlike KJA, if he hadn't actually read Dune, he wouldn't know what's NOT in it.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 05 May 2010 09:28
by SandChigger
A Little Galach on DN:
http://forum.dunenovels.com/phpBB2/view ... 0945#70945" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nice!
A few questions:
Why was the no-chamber's origin changed? Or rather how was the difference explained away?
...
Did KJA just want a "cloaking device" and decided to call it a "no-____" in order to fit into the Duniverse?
Just a little heads-up, about what to expect if NoBalls doesn't just delete the whole thing outright: IIRC KJA has said that the no-tech in the House Preludes is "different" from that in the (later) original books; might even be in the old FAQ stuff, as a matter of fact. So don't be surprised if ByrByr just regurgitates something like that at you.
That last bit may be very, very close to the truth.
(The middle part that I didn't include here will probably be over Byron's head. It might be fun — in a rather dismal sense of the word — if arnoldo gives it a go.

)
Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 05 May 2010 10:45
by SandRider
entire ensuing episode copypasta to "posts deleted DN" &etc, plz, for IP-banned ?
thankee !
Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 05 May 2010 11:03
by Freakzilla
Allizkaerf wrote:A Little Galach wrote:A few questions:
Why was the no-chamber's origin changed? Or rather how was the difference explained away?
They are the copyright holders.
If you assume the Baron did build a No-Chamber: Why would the Baron need a chamber to shield something from prescience before Muad'dib and the Tyrant? I believe only Navigators were presient before Paul evolved on Dune and theirs was a comparitively weak ability next to Leto and Paul.
No-ships are also invisible to the naked eye.
How would this Ixian know how to build something to shield against an ability that was narrowly used by a secretive organization and not really understood by anyone oiutside of it?
He read all Irulan's Dune books.
Did KJA just want a "cloaking device" and decided to call it a "no-____" in order to fit into the Duniverse?
What goes on in his mind is God's own private mystery.
Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 05 May 2010 22:15
by Superdog
SandChigger wrote:
Did KJA just want a "cloaking device" and decided to call it a "no-____" in order to fit into the Duniverse?
Just a little heads-up, about what to expect if NoBalls doesn't just delete the whole thing outright: IIRC KJA has said that the no-tech in the House Preludes is "different" from that in the (later) original books; might even be in the old FAQ stuff, as a matter of fact. So don't be surprised if ByrByr just regurgitates something like that at you.
That is literally the worst possible explanation he could have come up with. It would even be better to say that "Yeah it's the same one." He even describes the no-room in the House trilogy as being similar to the one in Hod, i.e. perverted clock fixtures and various dead bodies suspended behind a transparent wall. The Harkonnens built a completely seperate but identical no room 3,500 years before the technology was invented!?! I mean seriously wtf?
Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 05 May 2010 23:28
by SandChigger
Actually, to be fair, I believe that "not the same" explanation was given in answer to the Harkonnen no-tech ships that attack on that Highliner, not in reference to the Gammu no-globe.
Let me see if I can find the FAQ stuff....
Edit:
Actually, it wasn't in their FAQ (
http://old.dunenovels.com/FAQ.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), it was in his answers to our email "interview" questions:
Tleilax Master B wrote:Q. There is only a single line in the original series that indicates the possibility that No-technology results in invisibility to the naked eye (For brief moments when they disgorged troops, no-ships were visible and vulnerable. [Chapterhouse]), yet there are numerous lines that indicate the ships are visible to the naked eye, perhaps the most prominent being
The no-ship sat there creaking, a glistening steely ball whose presence could be detected by the eyes and ears but not by any prescient or long-range instrument. Teg’s doubled vision made him confident that no unwanted eyes saw his arrival
in HERETICS. Why was the decision made in the Prequels to present all no-technology as truly invisible to the naked eye? (re: the secret attack in the Guildship made to look like an Atreides attack)
KJA, blathering and bluffing, wrote:The technology developed by the Richesian inventor Chobyn in the HOUSE books took place thousands of years before no-field technology was introduced to the reader in HERETICS. Chobyn was killed and all records of his work were destroyed, and the technology was lost. There is nothing to suggest that these two are the exactly same technologies.
Obviously he wasn't even thinking of the Harkonnen no-globe, just the ships.
I think this shows quite well, again, that KJA doesn't understand shit about Dune and the real chronology.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 05 May 2010 23:39
by Superdog
SandChigger wrote:Actually, to be fair, I believe that "not the same" explanation was given in answer to the Harkonnen no-tech ships that attack on that Highliner, not in reference to the Gammu no-globe.
Let me see if I can find the FAQ stuff....
The absurd part of all of this is that the no-globe in the House trilogy serves absolutely no function in the plot.
Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 05 May 2010 23:48
by SandChigger
Not in the BOOK plot.
But it is obviously part of KJA's ongoing plot to preempt Frank Herbert in the introduction of all the "kewl ideas and gagdets, dude!"
(Ah, that last reminded me of something....)
Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 06 May 2010 09:26
by A Little Galach
I just want to see if there's a real explanation to the difference. My guess is that there is not, but I want to see their answers.
Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 06 May 2010 11:13
by Ampoliros
The real explanation is that KJA is a BESTSELLING AUTHOR and YOU ARE NOT. Thats why none of our "facts" and "arguments" amount to anything more than Talifan saber rattling in his eyes.
Secretly, behind the door marked KJA's self confidence, he's crying his jacketed little heart out cause he knows we're right.
Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 06 May 2010 12:44
by Frybread
Awesome. My job and travel take me away from this Web site for months at a time, but I'm glad to see this thread in particular is still going strong. God Emperor bless you guys for showing true Dune fans how much bullshit fills the pages of McDune and how much of an asshole, shit-for-brains hack Kevin J. Anderson is.
Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 07 May 2010 00:34
by Hunchback Jack
KJA's response was such a bullshit answer."There's nothing to suggest ...."??? He's the goddamn *author* for the love of Mike. He can say whether he meant for them to be the same or not with absolute certainty.
(Answer: he did mean for them to be the same, but fucked it up).
HBJ
Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 07 May 2010 08:27
by MrFlibble
Hunchback Jack wrote:KJA's response was such a bullshit answer."There's nothing to suggest ...."??? He's the goddamn *author* for the love of Mike. He can say whether he meant for them to be the same or not with absolute certainty.
I think KJA here is playing the "it's for real" (or "Let's take a look from the in-universe standpoint") game as a form of fanservice or something.
Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 07 May 2010 11:14
by SandChigger
I see Freak has been slumming again and arguing no-tech with that dumbfuck arnoldo.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 07 May 2010 11:53
by Freakzilla
SandChigger wrote:I see Freak has been slumming again and arguing no-tech with that dumbfuck arnoldo.

I don't think he understands the meaning of the word "certainly".
Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 07 May 2010 20:37
by SandChigger
I don't think he understands the meaning of a lot of things all that well. His reading level seems to be on a par with Byron's, though.
Which is cool for him, since English doesn't seem to be his first language.
And sad for Byron, seeing how it is his!

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 07 May 2010 21:08
by Freakzilla
ZING!

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 09 May 2010 09:56
by SandChigger
So, I see that arnoldo has suggested on DN that the Harkonnen cave no-chamber in
House Atreides is not the same one used by Teg et al. in
Heretics. How interesting! What an original, CREATIVE, KJA-cyberfellator-worthy idea!
Don't you all feel your time and effort spent on the discussion over there has been worthwhile?

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 09 May 2010 10:05
by Freakzilla
SandChigger wrote:So, I see that arnoldo has suggested on DN that the Harkonnen cave no-chamber in
House Atreides is not the same one used by Teg et al. in
Heretics. How interesting! What an original, CREATIVE, KJA-cyberfellator-worthy idea!
Don't you all feel your time and effort spent on the discussion over there has been worthwhile?

I'd forgotten how pointless it is to argue with him...

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 09 May 2010 16:01
by Eru
Don't know whether this has been mentioned in this thread, but I'm not sifting through 12 pages to find out, and I never recall it being mentioned when I frequented the old boards:
The new books depict Hasamir Fenring as having a speech impediment, but in Dune his "hmmm's" & "ah's" are clearly part of a secret humming language he uses to speak with his wife. I came across several passages upon my last re-reading of Dune (which I can't find right now, so I can't quote) which have Fenring speaking to his wife or the Emperor clearly and without any idiosyncrasies to his speech. Been wanting to discuss this one for a while.
Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance
Posted: 09 May 2010 16:18
by Ampoliros
I always considered it to just be an eccentric speech pattern that he used. It could be considered a psychological speech impediment IF it is compulsive but I really wouldn't call it that.