Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

loremaster wrote:I half agree, preek ive encountered thus far do find it hard to separate "i like it" from "its good, and scientifically accurate". However, to use "i like it" as your motivation for trying to justify what are clearly errors and inconsistencies is wrong.

Well, using "I like it" to *deny* there are errors and inconsistencies is definitely wrong. But if you like a book, you're more likely to look for ways to explain the text so there *aren't* any inconsistencies. I think there's a greyer area there than "the text is right" or "the text is wrong".

I guess I'm starting to understand why a lot of the preeks think we get hung up on the details, and nitpick what *they* think are good books that they enjoy. To me, whether the book is well written and consistent with Dune (and itself) *determines* whether I think the book is good. So talking about the inconsistencies explains why I don't like the book (among many, many other reasons). For them, they seem to like the books for other reasons, and then either ignore or try to explain the inconsistencies and bad writing.

Dunno what I'm trying to say here. Maybe that there's always *some* interpretation of the text required, and that how much leeway you're willing to give the author depends on how you feel about the book generally.

The new Dune books still suck though. Just to be clear.

HBJ

Harry potter is a classic example.... all the wizard and fantasy cliches of the last 100 years wrapped up into a poor plot for YA. Plot holes? Enormous. Consistency in the books? Absent

Writing quality? Average imo.

But do i occasionally find a guilty pleasure tapping things and saying "alo hamora"?

(in truth i go through bouts of liking HP for what it is, and hating it intensely)

However, to focus on these issues detracts from the good points in it (it is kinda cute, and appeals to the child in me).

In truth, not every book has to be a deep philosophical masterpiece. Heck, i've read classics, i read hackwork and some of my favourite is Games Workshop literature. I like the world built by GW. Its hacky, its inconsistent. They use a lot of prefixes like mega, plasma, ultra etc, to make things bigger, but i enjoy it nontheless.

But then no-one claims them to be high art, or as good as any precursors. KJA does. It's one thing to hack in a world written by hacks (yourself or another) anyway, quite another to do it a world as complex as dune.

There is also a difference between GW stuff, which i percieve to be good hackwork, and KJA, which i percieve to be bad, even for hackwork.

Don't feel guilty for liking things that are entertaining. Good entertainment for the sake of good entertainment is a fine preference. The problem is most entertainment (like KJA books) is utter shite, even more so than the amount of bad art compared to the amount of good art. So even enjoying well-made entertainment has become a guilty pleasure. Iron Man and Pirates of the Caribbean COTBP were both cliched-ridden movies, but they were smart about reinventing their well-worn tales in a different form of delivery. As a result, they are both perfectly enjoyable pieces of entertainment, even if they make for poor art. If you want to look at it from a Rowling-centric point of view (not my preference, but bear with me), everyone has their own version of Harry Potter. Everyone enjoys some book, movie or album that people would roll their eyes at because it's pretty shallow entertainment even at it's best. Mine would most definitely be Macross

Think of pure entertainment products as cheese: delicious and worthwhile to have on occasion, but eat too much and you become a fat bloated warthog

What's this thread about, someone trying tp pretend that Sandworms was anything other than a comprehensively appalling heap of shite?

Are you going to debate, or not?

I may continue to forward my views on the questions that you have raised as my time permits.

Ok, hopefully you'll find a way to shift some of the time you spend baiting and insulting (and being insulted in turn I admit) towards debating.

You should come up with something that we need to "take into account" - as it stands these threads are entirely one-sided.

redbugpest wrote:I may continue to forward my views on the questions that you have raised as my time permits.

So you don't even have time for just one sentence of those arguments that might shed some light about how these inconsistencies may be taken in a new light? Please. You're fucked on these arguments, just admit it.

Nekhrun wrote:

redbugpest wrote:I may continue to forward my views on the questions that you have raised as my time permits.

So you don't even have time for just one sentence of those arguments that might shed some light about how these inconsistencies may be taken in a new light? Please. You're fucked on these arguments, just admit it.

I do not beleive I could make any kind of informed remark on the issues raised in "just one sentance".

I will respond in a more apporpriate manner as my time permits.

redbugpest wrote:

Nekhrun wrote:

redbugpest wrote:I may continue to forward my views on the questions that you have raised as my time permits.

So you don't even have time for just one sentence of those arguments that might shed some light about how these inconsistencies may be taken in a new light? Please. You're fucked on these arguments, just admit it.

I do not beleive I could make any kind of informed remark on the issues raised in "just one sentance".

I will respond in a more apporpriate manner as my time permits.

Why are you still here again?

Never mind. The question was rhetorical.

Omphalos wrote:

redbugpest wrote:

Nekhrun wrote:

redbugpest wrote:I may continue to forward my views on the questions that you have raised as my time permits.

So you don't even have time for just one sentence of those arguments that might shed some light about how these inconsistencies may be taken in a new light? Please. You're fucked on these arguments, just admit it.

I do not beleive I could make any kind of informed remark on the issues raised in "just one sentance".

I will respond in a more apporpriate manner as my time permits.

Why are you still here again?

Never mind. The question was rhetorical.

Are you talking to me?

redbug: if you're justifications are going to take more than one "sentance" then you're in more trouble than you thought.

Nekhrun wrote:

Omphalos wrote:

redbugpest wrote:

Nekhrun wrote:

redbugpest wrote:I may continue to forward my views on the questions that you have raised as my time permits.

So you don't even have time for just one sentence of those arguments that might shed some light about how these inconsistencies may be taken in a new light? Please. You're fucked on these arguments, just admit it.

I do not beleive I could make any kind of informed remark on the issues raised in "just one sentance".

I will respond in a more apporpriate manner as my time permits.

Why are you still here again?

Never mind. The question was rhetorical.

Are you talking to me?

redbug: if you're justifications are going to take more than one "sentance" then you're in more trouble than you thought.

It must be some sort of "seance." Frank's gonna help him craft an appropriate answer, but only when Frank can find the time.

And no, I'm not talking to you. I think Ive been clear that if I have to talk to you one more time its bannsville for you, Rorschach boy.

Omphalos wrote:

Nekhrun wrote:

Omphalos wrote:

redbugpest wrote:

Nekhrun wrote:

redbugpest wrote:I may continue to forward my views on the questions that you have raised as my time permits.

So you don't even have time for just one sentence of those arguments that might shed some light about how these inconsistencies may be taken in a new light? Please. You're fucked on these arguments, just admit it.

I do not beleive I could make any kind of informed remark on the issues raised in "just one sentance".

I will respond in a more apporpriate manner as my time permits.

Why are you still here again?

Never mind. The question was rhetorical.

Are you talking to me?

redbug: if you're justifications are going to take more than one "sentance" then you're in more trouble than you thought.

It must be some sort of "seance." Frank's gonna help him craft an appropriate answer, but only when Frank can find the time.

And no, I'm not talking to you. I think Ive been clear that if I have to talk to you one more time its bannsville for you, Rorschach boy.

Just checking to see if you're still doing the literalist thing.

Oh gawud, when isn't he?

redbugpest wrote:

Nekhrun wrote:

redbugpest wrote:I may continue to forward my views on the questions that you have raised as my time permits.

So you don't even have time for just one sentence of those arguments that might shed some light about how these inconsistencies may be taken in a new light? Please. You're fucked on these arguments, just admit it.

I do not beleive I could make any kind of informed remark on the issues raised in "just one sentance".

I will respond in a more apporpriate manner as my time permits.

You still so very very busy doing ... nothing?

I award you no points and may god have mercy on what's left of your soul (considering that you sold out a direct relative's legacy for money).

give him a break, he's been busy trying to unravel what "Other Memory" means ...

SandRider wrote:give him a break, he's been busy trying to unravel what "Other Memory" means ...

I hope he does compile a list of OM references as he suggested he was going to in the other thread. Hopefully that will be an eye opener.

Lighten up on Red' y'all, it seems like he's trying to me. It's going to take a while to undo the harm Bobo and McJacket have done.

I can just say two things.

First, In partial defense of KJA, I do not think that the way he writes books as he does, with the machine-like production of them, that keeping straight the word of Frank Herbert, and his universe is any easy task, at all. When you are writing inside of someone else's universe, if it is a simple universe, then the machine-method works. But for Dune, you have to be educated beyond educated. Frank spent his entire life researching some of this ecological, religious, cultural, and technological can-do's, and can't do's. I don't think it could be kept straight by any ONE person. I don't think that Kevin spends enough time, despite what he thinks, on Dune. You have two guys, one who knows Frank better than the other, and they cannot keep it straight. Frank WAS Dune. And you cannot recreate everything. I honestly doubt, that without a community like this, that anyone could truly write as Kevin writes, and keep Dune straight. Too much of ultra-other-space-adventures was mixed in. Kevin is involved too much with other Universes, and I wish he would just write one thing at a time. If I was to write a novel, and clear it out of my head, then it's okay. But he writes like 3 at a time, finishes two chapters in a morning, and then does heavier stuff in the afternoon? That's not fair to Dune, even if you have two people collaborating.

Second, the inconsistencies... wow, that is something. I know personally I really am trying to make my own story seem plausible. It's a very big story, and many tell me my timeline for this stuff is crazy. I am a big fan of bad 80s SciFi or Horror flicks, and creating this 70s/80s bad dystopian world is something I kind of like. But it has to make sense to people who know about it, and to people who are casual about it. So, personally this a lesson learned for me, a 23-year-old aspiring writer.

If I do get it written, trust me, I want a community like this to Critique it.

you are right in saying that KJA writes too much, he is like a production line for stories, standardized and mounted like a car production, with bits and bobs taken from other models...
Dune WAS Frank Herbert, that's true, but it doesn't mean that someone with the right attitude couldn't write anything more, it's just that is a tad to blatant that they don't give a fuck about anything else but having their name and "Dune" on a book cover(who cares what's inside anyway )

His attitude to the questions adressed by the gaps in Dune show what kind of mind he has:
this compulsive need to explain and fill where FH left it empty for good reasons(which I do not pretend to always understand), but I like when I don't get all the answers:
It allows my imagination to roam free

It seems to be a more of our times, dumbing down people and getting them used to that by systematically explaining everythin, wether it be movies, books or even art...
makes it easier to build a model you know will work/sell so that you can reproduce it ad nauseam

E. LeGuille wrote:I can just say two things.

First, In partial defense of KJA, I do not think that the way he writes books as he does, with the machine-like production of them, that keeping straight the word of Frank Herbert, and his universe is any easy task, at all. When you are writing inside of someone else's universe, if it is a simple universe, then the machine-method works. But for Dune, you have to be educated beyond educated. Frank spent his entire life researching some of this ecological, religious, cultural, and technological can-do's, and can't do's. I don't think it could be kept straight by any ONE person. I don't think that Kevin spends enough time, despite what he thinks, on Dune. You have two guys, one who knows Frank better than the other, and they cannot keep it straight. Frank WAS Dune. And you cannot recreate everything. I honestly doubt, that without a community like this, that anyone could truly write as Kevin writes, and keep Dune straight. Too much of ultra-other-space-adventures was mixed in. Kevin is involved too much with other Universes, and I wish he would just write one thing at a time. If I was to write a novel, and clear it out of my head, then it's okay. But he writes like 3 at a time, finishes two chapters in a morning, and then does heavier stuff in the afternoon? That's not fair to Dune, even if you have two people collaborating.

Second, the inconsistencies... wow, that is something. I know personally I really am trying to make my own story seem plausible. It's a very big story, and many tell me my timeline for this stuff is crazy. I am a big fan of bad 80s SciFi or Horror flicks, and creating this 70s/80s bad dystopian world is something I kind of like. But it has to make sense to people who know about it, and to people who are casual about it. So, personally this a lesson learned for me, a 23-year-old aspiring writer.

If I do get it written, trust me, I want a community like this to Critique it.

It's funny how you started out with the intent of giving KJA "partial defense", but in the end all you did was give reasons why he's dishonoured Dune.

E. LeGuille wrote:I can just say two things.

First, In partial defense of KJA, I do not think that the way he writes books as he does, with the machine-like production of them, that keeping straight the word of Frank Herbert, and his universe is any easy task, at all. When you are writing inside of someone else's universe, if it is a simple universe, then the machine-method works. But for Dune, you have to be educated beyond educated. Frank spent his entire life researching some of this ecological, religious, cultural, and technological can-do's, and can't do's. I don't think it could be kept straight by any ONE person. I don't think that Kevin spends enough time, despite what he thinks, on Dune. You have two guys, one who knows Frank better than the other, and they cannot keep it straight. Frank WAS Dune. And you cannot recreate everything. I honestly doubt, that without a community like this, that anyone could truly write as Kevin writes, and keep Dune straight. Too much of ultra-other-space-adventures was mixed in. Kevin is involved too much with other Universes, and I wish he would just write one thing at a time. If I was to write a novel, and clear it out of my head, then it's okay. But he writes like 3 at a time, finishes two chapters in a morning, and then does heavier stuff in the afternoon? That's not fair to Dune, even if you have two people collaborating.

Second, the inconsistencies... wow, that is something. I know personally I really am trying to make my own story seem plausible. It's a very big story, and many tell me my timeline for this stuff is crazy. I am a big fan of bad 80s SciFi or Horror flicks, and creating this 70s/80s bad dystopian world is something I kind of like. But it has to make sense to people who know about it, and to people who are casual about it. So, personally this a lesson learned for me, a 23-year-old aspiring writer.

If I do get it written, trust me, I want a community like this to Critique it.

That's probably a fair analysis, though I'd personally go a little deeper. Honestly, I believe KJA's method of mass production is but one of several factors why he shouldn't be writing anything like Dune. To say KJA shouldn't be writing anything like Dune I don't mean just Dune itself, but any kind of literature that requires more knowledge than that gained by watching Nick at Nite. I think KJA's other major failings are a lack of understanding Dune and his lack of any research (or what research he does do is woefully insufficient). Dune is a work that must be understood on multiple levels, be written methodically with care and requires one to research. Those three things are not in KJA's skill set.

I still think that if Bill Ransom had been given the task of finishing Dune there would be a maximum of 1 person complaining about the product.