Page 10 of 13

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 13 May 2010 16:06
by MrFlibble
A Little Galach wrote:You are correct. However I am referring to the speculation I quoted above by the GHM about the Futars and masters. Idle speculation, admittedly, but it certainly indicates that it was a possibility.
Oh, sorry, I overlooked your post with the quote. I remembered that it was mentioned that Futars were immune to sex bonding by HMs and supposed that this meant complete immunity to such kind of thing.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 21 May 2010 09:30
by A Little Galach
I am sure this has been mentioned before, but as I am into my second reading of Chapterhouse I feel compelled to state it on my own:

Anyone that reads Dune: Chaperhouse and comes to the conclusion that the two old people in Duncan's vision could be anything but Face Dancers is mistaken and intentionally looking for an "out" rather than looking at the preponderance of evidence. Anyone that reads it and comes away thinking robots!, or feels that Frank Herbert was thinking robots!, is retarded. There's just no other way to intrepret it reasonably. In order to be convinced otherwise I need to see the notes and a photograph of FH with that specific page in plain view to prove authenticity.

And seriously, how would robots get into the mind of a BT-created Duncan Idaho if they were as bumblingly human-ignorant as KJA's robotic cartoon villains? It's so obviously twisted to fit a pre-determined quota of book production that only mouth-breathing Star Wars I-III fans would not see through it and/or not care. In other words, people that should be sterilized.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 21 May 2010 10:10
by Freakzilla
A Little Galach wrote:Dune: Chaperhouse
You mean Chapterhouse: Dune? :P

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 22 May 2010 10:10
by MrFlibble
A Little Galach wrote:It's so obviously twisted to fit a pre-determined quota of book production that only mouth-breathing Star Wars I-III fans would not see through it and/or not care. In other words, people that should be sterilized.
Although I fully agree with your conclusions, I do not approve of the last sentence, even if it was intended to be a joke.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 25 May 2010 12:55
by A Little Galach
MrFlibble wrote:
A Little Galach wrote:It's so obviously twisted to fit a pre-determined quota of book production that only mouth-breathing Star Wars I-III fans would not see through it and/or not care. In other words, people that should be sterilized.
Although I fully agree with your conclusions, I do not approve of the last sentence, even if it was intended to be a joke.
Perhaps we can make it more of a Logan's Run-type arrangement, substituting a culture test for age? However you may be in danger of failing with that attitude. Be ready to turn in your futuristic singlet.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 25 May 2010 13:41
by TheDukester
MrFlibble wrote:
A Little Galach wrote:... I do not approve of the last sentence, even if it was intended to be a joke.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 26 May 2010 08:19
by lotek
MrFlibble wrote:
A Little Galach wrote:It's so obviously twisted to fit a pre-determined quota of book production that only mouth-breathing Star Wars I-III fans would not see through it and/or not care. In other words, people that should be sterilized.
Although I fully agree with your conclusions, I do not approve of the last sentence, even if it was intended to be a joke.

what about they should not be allowed to reproduce?
:mrgreen:

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 26 May 2010 10:04
by merkin muffley
lotek wrote:
MrFlibble wrote:
A Little Galach wrote:It's so obviously twisted to fit a pre-determined quota of book production that only mouth-breathing Star Wars I-III fans would not see through it and/or not care. In other words, people that should be sterilized.
Although I fully agree with your conclusions, I do not approve of the last sentence, even if it was intended to be a joke.

what about they should not be allowed to reproduce?
:mrgreen:
How about they should go have sex exclusively with themselves

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 26 May 2010 13:19
by A Little Galach
If they can only have sex with each other, then there are that many more stupid people running around. Hence, sterilization.

If you are proposing to limit such people to masturbation, then I approve. Preeks are probably largely limited to this activity already.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 26 May 2010 13:25
by Freakzilla
:lol:

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 26 May 2010 13:41
by merkin muffley
Yeah, I think they should be allowed to masturbate.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 26 May 2010 14:00
by Freakzilla
merkin muffley wrote:Yeah, I think they should be allowed to masturbate.
I wouldn't want to be the one to try and stop them. :(

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 26 May 2010 14:41
by Tleszer
Freakzilla wrote:
merkin muffley wrote:Yeah, I think they should be allowed to masturbate.
I wouldn't want to be the one to try and stop them. :(
[DELETED BY THE ALMIGHTY MODERATOR]

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 26 May 2010 15:34
by Omphalos
Tleszer wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:
merkin muffley wrote:Yeah, I think they should be allowed to masturbate.
I wouldn't want to be the one to try and stop them. :(
[DELETED BY THE ALMIGHTY MODERATOR]

Stop that, you.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 26 May 2010 15:40
by Tleszer
Well, I felt that I was hard-pressed into saying that it would be a sticky situation.

And then I thought better of it. :lol:

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 26 May 2010 17:01
by SandChigger
I suppose it would be inopportune of me to observe that you never know what might come from something like that? :?

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 03 Jun 2010 22:16
by A Little Galach
Having finished my re-read of Chapterhouse, I have to say that the number one inconsistency of all time in any series of books is the Face Dancer-Robot conflict. The last chapter could be condensed to say the following:

"Hey! You reading the book! Yeah you! Surprise! We're Dace Dancers! No, not robots, Transformers or anything else from a large-budget summer blockbuster sequel, we're new and improved Face Dancers. Frankie was laying on the hints pretty thick along the way, but in case you didn't figure it out: We're MOTHERFUCKING FACE DANCERS!"

Have the ambiguously gay duo said that CH was written by Erasmus or some other BS to explain this away? Now I'm really mad I got banned from DN, I can't believe how upset I am right now.

Let's say Romeo and Juliet II was written by Shakespeare's estranged and retarded son while under the spell of an apothecary of ill-repute. If he brought those crazy lovestruck kids back to life with stem cells and radiation therapy and changed their characters to an asian and black couple travelling with the carnival while driving a Ford Taurus with a Flux Capacitor, it would still be less offensive than the HLP change.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 03 Jun 2010 22:42
by Superdog
A Little Galach wrote:Having finished my re-read of Chapterhouse, I have to say that the number one inconsistency of all time in any series of books is the Face Dancer-Robot conflict. The last chapter could be condensed to say the following:

"Hey! You reading the book! Yeah you! Surprise! We're Dace Dancers! No, not robots, Transformers or anything else from a large-budget summer blockbuster sequel, we're new and improved Face Dancers. Frankie was laying on the hints pretty thick along the way, but in case you didn't figure it out: We're MOTHERFUCKING FACE DANCERS!"

Have the ambiguously gay duo said that CH was written by Erasmus or some other BS to explain this away? Now I'm really mad I got banned from DN, I can't believe how upset I am right now.

Let's say Romeo and Juliet II was written by Shakespeare's estranged and retarded son while under the spell of an apothecary of ill-repute. If he brought those crazy lovestruck kids back to life with stem cells and radiation therapy and changed their characters to an asian and black couple travelling with the carnival while driving a Ford Taurus with a Flux Capacitor, it would still be less offensive than the HLP change.
The only way it makes sense is if Erasmus and Omnius refer to themselves as Face Dancers in a conversation that no one else is watching or participating in. Like how me and my twin brother sit around and casually discuss what it's like to be overweight elderly Asian women.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 03 Jun 2010 23:34
by Hunchback Jack
Hmm. You're clearly using the word "sense" in a way I'm not familiar with. :)

HBJ

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 04 Jun 2010 01:01
by Thodol
I assume pulse swords are defacto lightsabres? And Ginaz swordsmen Jedi? :puke:

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 04 Jun 2010 02:11
by SandChigger
Now you're getting it! :P

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 04 Jun 2010 07:38
by Serkanner
Superdog wrote: Like how me and my twin brother sit around and casually discuss what it's like to be overweight elderly Asian women.
:shock:

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 04 Jun 2010 08:42
by A Little Galach
SandChigger wrote:Now you're getting it! :P

Oh, I already had it. It's as if I had a common cold before reading the books again. Now I have Malaria.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 20 Jun 2010 03:05
by Entik
Another inconsistency about Gurney's back story that wasn't mentionned here: in Dune, when Gurney and Paul reunite in the desert, Gurney compares Paul' expression to that of the Old Duke... I interpret it as Gurney having first hand experience of the Old Duke... (I only have a French edition so maybe it's just the translation, someone should check it out)... so that would mean that both Jessica and Gurney have actually known the Old Duke before his death...

and for the record, I think that all of Gurney's backstory in the sequels is completely unbelievable...

That's the only one I can think of so far that you didn't mention already... but I have all the series fresh in my mind (the 14 books (excluding PoD and others more recent) so maybe something else will come out...

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 20 Jun 2010 05:03
by lotek
Entik wrote:Another inconsistency about Gurney's back story that wasn't mentionned here: in Dune, when Gurney and Paul reunite in the desert, Gurney compares Paul' expression to that of the Old Duke... I interpret it as Gurney having first hand experience of the Old Duke..
.
A smile touched Paul's mouth, but there was a hardness in the expression
that reminded Gurney of the Old Duke, Paul's grandfather.