Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

fantomas wrote:

billnye wrote:"Auggh I've found an inconsistency‽"

"Either we did it on purpose or its just a book and you shouldn't worry"

Are you the Science Guy?

Or the Bullshite Guy

inhuien wrote:Or the Bullshite Guy

I think he was being cynical.

SandChigger wrote:"Of course it's just a book and not a matter of life or death. But why would you intentionally include something that contradicts what was written before?"

Being a fan of Douglas Adams this just doesn't bother me. Not one of his version of the hitchhiker's guide is consistent with another.

You mean the different versions he did of it over the years, right? (Books, radio plays, TV versions, etc.)

Slightly different situation, though, no?

Anyway, if you're not bothered by the inconsistencies (or don't see them), well, then you're simply not bothered. Good for you!

(But in that case you really don't have a stake in the argument, do you? So why butt in in the first place?)

billnye wrote: Being a fan of Douglas Adams this just doesn't bother me. Not one of his version of the hitchhiker's guide is consistent with another.

Apples and oranges IMO. DA didn't write hard sci fi where things have to add up in order to be credible. He never attempted to create a "universe".

He is a great author, but not in the same genre as Herbert. You can enjoy either one for different reasons.

HoosierDaddy wrote:

billnye wrote: Being a fan of Douglas Adams this just doesn't bother me. Not one of his version of the hitchhiker's guide is consistent with another.

Apples and oranges IMO. DA didn't write hard sci fi where things have to add up in order to be credible. He never attempted to create a "universe".

He is a great author, but not in the same genre as Herbert. You can enjoy either one for different reasons.

Well, I think that he did try to do some world-building there, but not much. Rather, part of the charm of those books was the way that he would change facts as he went though the series. It kept readers on their toes and gave them something more to laugh about.

I have an immediate problem with the term "new canon", as that is in and of itself a contradiction in terms.

Spicelon wrote:I have an immediate problem with the term "new canon", as that is in and of itself a contradiction in terms.

That's my whole point in using it. If they insist because they have the rights to the Dune name that all the crap they write is "canon", and it contradicts Frank's work, then I love the term "new canon" as a contradiction in and of itself.

billnye wrote:

SandChigger wrote:"Of course it's just a book and not a matter of life or death. But why would you intentionally include something that contradicts what was written before?"

Being a fan of Douglas Adams this just doesn't bother me. Not one of his version of the hitchhiker's guide is consistent with another.

They are comedies. That makes them funny. Thus the reason there are four books in the "trilogy."

These books are supposed to be serious.

Spicelon wrote:I have an immediate problem with the term "new canon", as that is in and of itself a contradiction in terms.

You can take that one up with the guys who approved the New Testament.

Yea, those guys were jerks.

I find myself wondering why KJA and BH always get asked: Why didn't you use info from the Dune Encyclopedia? Why do your stories contradict the Dune Encyclopedia? To which they happily reply: "non-canon blah blah blah". Yet, there is never a question about contradicting with the originals. WHY? Obvious. The interviewers asked them about the contradictions with the originals - they said "off limits, ask us why we contadicted the Encyclopedia instead" thinking that draws the focus of the reader away from certain well known issues between the real and spinoff Dune universes.

I haven't got a copy of the Dune Encyclopedia, but I've read quite a bit of it online, and it honestly seems like that IS where they got their ideas from. Right down to the Butlerian Jihad being named after a person involved in starting the war. Freak pointed out over at DN that Butlerian was actually a reference to an old author Samuel Butler and his writing about Darwin in the Machines.

I know we've been over this... I just can't make it go away. The authors blatantly ignore all contradictions except a few on the DN FAQ. Most of the problems adressed in there are smaller inconsistancies that they actually spew some half decent BS to cover up their lack of research, but one is an all out unexplainable train-wreck of an inconsistancy. And they answered that one with complete nonsense.
Q:

In THE BUTLERIAN JIHAD, when Holtzman and Norma are testing the las-gun/shield interaction for the first time, only the shield generator explodes. In previous books both las-gun and shield were destroyed. Can you explain this?

A:

Norma herself has certain untapped powers of prescient manipulation -- she's not even aware of them yet in THE BUTLERIAN JIHAD. In all other instances, lasgun and shield both explode

This is what happens when I get bored, leads to reading interviews, leads to anger, leads to redundant (but emotionally satisfying) rants.

Omphalos wrote:

Spicelon wrote:I have an immediate problem with the term "new canon", as that is in and of itself a contradiction in terms.

You can take that one up with the guys who approved the New Testament.

Nonfiction doesn't follow the same rules.

And, while you may not believe the Bible to be the word of god, its pretty damn historically accurate.

Thing of Eternity: I fucking hate that one. One of the worst retcons in all of the new dune. Along with where Paul was born. Sorry, but its not enough to just state that your contradiction is actually not inaccurate because of some ridiculous rationalization. Those guys suck

I say we just ignore them from now on.

And what a rediculous rationalization it is too. "powers of prescient manipulation"... WTF? Do they honestly think that their own readers don't know the difference between prescience and telekinetic powers and won't call bullshit on them(let alone Frank's readers)??? Or do they themselves not know the difference?

I was just posting about this over at DN right before it bit the dust.

Paul himself said the future isn't written. So did Duncan, IN ONE OF THEIR OWN BOOKS. So ya, I call bullshit.

Again though, not one part of their books isn't. At least the newer ones. I liked the house books for some of the background they gave on older characters, despite the flaws.

Even if that was what they meant what the hell does prescience have to do with stopping a lasgun from from exploding. NOTHING.

You could prevent it, but not stop it, if that makes sense.

A Thing of Eternity wrote: Q:

In THE BUTLERIAN JIHAD, when Holtzman and Norma are testing the las-gun/shield interaction for the first time, only the shield generator explodes. In previous books both las-gun and shield were destroyed. Can you explain this?

A:

Norma herself has certain untapped powers of prescient manipulation* -- she's not even aware of them yet in THE BUTLERIAN JIHAD. In all other instances, lasgun and shield both explode

*Read: A wizard did it!



I lost several hours of my life yesterday to that abominable site.

Pardot Kynes wrote:You could prevent it, but not stop it, if that makes since.

Prevent it how? If there was tech that would prevent it that tech would be in place in the Duniverse.

If you are prescient, chances are you know which events lead to which outcome, or at least can make a good guess. So we can assume that it could be prevented until it was set in motion, at which time it was unstoppable.

Pardot Kynes wrote:You could prevent it, but not stop it, if that makes since.

Pardot, are you originally from Texas, or from somewhere farther north and east?

(The reason I ask is because you made a typo there of the sort I have to watch myself for ALL the time. )

BACK ON TOPIC:

Prescient manipulation: you foresee sump'n RILL BAYUD 'bout to happen and use your latent telekinetic powers ("better latent then never!") to prevent it.

That's the only thing it could possibly mean, right?

IT'S SUCH KJA BULLSHIT THAT I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY EXPECT PEOPLE TO BELIEVE IT! AAAAAAAAAGH!!!

Nah, I was born and raised here. Fixed the typo though

(Hmmm. Do you say the two words the same way?)