Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Slugger wrote:

redbugpest wrote:So do I, but you seem to want to micro manage it.

What do you mean by that? Please enlighten me on how I "seem to want to micro manage it"? That table-turning argumentative cliche is weak...and something I'd expect my sister. ("I know you are but what am I?")

You are micromanaging it in the sense that you do not believe anyone has the right to imagine anything that you do not approve of.I believe it was Schu, who over at DN (and here?) has stated that the premise of the last book in the most recent series (about the early years of Leto II) is unnecessary - nothing happened in between Childern and GEoD. I find that to be unimaginative. I think there is a lot of potential to talk about the famine times, the scattering, Leto II's transformation, etc, and that no book should be written. The same was said about WoD. Nothing happened between DM and Children. Your argument is that Frank didn't mention it, so it didn't happen, yet Fran himself wanted readers to use their imaginations to fill in the gaps.

Slugger wrote:

redbugpest wrote:I should have said extremist instead, because, yes, the far left is as bad as the far right.

But you didn't and that's the important part. This isn't like live discussion, where words just spew spontaneously from mouths; you can review your words prior to clicking submit in order to exactly declare your intentions.

You are right, but that still will not guarantee that the people reading them will not misunderstand the meaning behind them. It is disingenuous to hold me to a standard that is unattainable by anyone here or anywhere else. I would suggest that you review how communication loops work in society. I as the sender, encode my message (words in this case). I send it via the media I have chosen, and then you (and all the others who browse this forum) interpret the message and respond back based on your independent interpretations. I, in turn then have to asses whether you have understood the message that I sent prior to continuing the conversation. If I find that your response indicates that you did not understand the message as it was intended, then it is up to me to clarify the message. I won't get into how "noise" also can work on distorting the meaning. It is clear that, on seeing that you misunderstood the message I intended, that I clarified it.

Slugger wrote:

redbugpest wrote:In this particular debate, you are representing a more conservative doctrine. The very name "Orthodox Herbertarians" attests to a conservative mindset.

You failed to address my question (wow, and I was thinking that the others were being too harsh on you). Don't attempt to analyze and us against me my writing when you can't clarify and justify yours. In this debate, I put-forth a neutral question; I clearly chose "OH" because it is the name of the group I was contrasting KJA against.

Actually, I did address your question, which was at the bottom of your post, and was specific to my choice of wording, which lead you to believe it was solely an ultra conservative rant. I attached the only question I saw below for clarity's sake (everything else was a statement).

Slugger wrote:I don't want to get in the middle of this epic argument, but...

redbugpest wrote:I suspect that this post will draw a lot of negative comments, but it is the way I feel, and applies in real life. Can you imagine what life would be like if the ultra conservatives ran the world? there would be no real rights and freedoms, and no innovation or original thought. As distasteful as you may find it, there has to be room for us all.

What does that whole "ultra conservative" rant have to do about anything? That in itself is revealing. What about the ultra-liberals? They're saviors? Are you implying that the OH are "ultra conservatives" and that the Hack is a savior to Dune? He's teh SUPER-DOOPER KWISTART HADERACK!!!!!1!

If there was another question, then you failed to convey it to me, and should, after reviewing this restate it in a more clear and concise manor.

redbugpest wrote:

Slugger wrote:

redbugpest wrote:So do I, but you seem to want to micro manage it.

What do you mean by that? Please enlighten me on how I "seem to want to micro manage it"? That table-turning argumentative cliche is weak...and something I'd expect my sister. ("I know you are but what am I?")

You are micromanaging it in the sense that you do not believe anyone has the right to imagine anything that you do not approve of.I believe it was Schu, who over at DN (and here?) has stated that the premise of the last book in the most recent series (about the early years of Leto II) is unnecessary - nothing happened in between Childern and GEoD. I find that to be unimaginative. I think there is a lot of potential to talk about the famine times, the scattering, Leto II's transformation, etc, and that no book should be written. The same was said about WoD. Nothing happened between DM and Children. Your argument is that Frank didn't mention it, so it didn't happen, yet Fran himself wanted readers to use their imaginations to fill in the gaps.

I'm not quite sure which side of the debate you're on? You want KJA to fill in the gaps so you can know "what actually happened" day-by-day? Or do you want readers to form their own opinions and ideas based on what FH wrote?

rbp wrote:

Slugger wrote:I don't want to get in the middle of this epic argument, but...

redbugpest wrote:I suspect that this post will draw a lot of negative comments, but it is the way I feel, and applies in real life. Can you imagine what life would be like if the ultra conservatives ran the world? there would be no real rights and freedoms, and no innovation or original thought. As distasteful as you may find it, there has to be room for us all.

What does that whole "ultra conservative" rant have to do about anything? That in itself is revealing. What about the ultra-liberals? They're saviors? Are you implying that the OH are "ultra conservatives" and that the Hack is a savior to Dune? He's teh SUPER-DOOPER KWISTART HADERACK!!!!!1!

If there was another question, then you failed to convey it to me, and should, after reviewing this restate it in a more clear and concise manor.

Leto says something about this in COD. You need to look at the complete system, not just your corner of it. I can understand it's a bit exciting having an unfolding story in front of you (and the unfolding KJA soap opera that surrounds it), but what is actually better? or more important?

You are micromanaging it in the sense that you do not believe anyone has the right to imagine anything that you do not approve of.

You have completly twisted what Slugger said.
This is what he means and it's quoted straight from the MCNelly interview:

FH: Now, I deliberately did this in “Dune” for that purpose. I want the person to go on and construct for himself all of these marvellous flights of fantasy and imagination. I want him to…you see, you haven’t had the Spacing Guild explained completely…just enough so that you know its existence. Now with lots of people, they’ve got to complete this.

For the record, I said that nothing worthy of being written happens between GEoD and Heretics. How do I know this? Mainly because Frank didn't write anything then, and he would have if he wanted to. How else do I know this? Sure, a bunch of things happened in the duniverse in this time, but they're all boring. Famine times. Who cares? I'm sure NuDune will be able to contrive some shitty story out of it, but, as has been shown time and time again by McDune, it will be contrived as I said, artificial, not even remotely in the spirit of the duniverse, contradictory to its facts, and to people that don't like pyoo pyoo pyoo laser battles, BORING.

Frank dealt with the big concepts, and he felt there weren't enough to be had in thousands of years of time in the famine times that couldn't be covered in the books before and after (and that the reader couldn't fill in with his own mind.

It is clearly McDune who is micromanaging here. As DunefishUK has pointed out, you want us to fill in the blanks with out own mind, but you also want the hack (and Frank's son?) to fill in the blanks for you. You can't use "FH wanted people to fill in the blanks for themselves" as an argument FOR the new books (and FYI, the argument isn't that "if FH didn't write it, it didn't happen", it is "if Frank decided not to write a novel about that time, who cares?"), that is an argument AGAINST them.

As soon as they mentioned KJA writing the new Dune, we won our fight. I highly doubt poor KJA will ever write anything worth remembering for its merits. He's shown us 10 times that he does not have what it takes to write in the Dune Universe. Does that mean no one but Frank does? No. While I recognize that there are some here that would never accept Dune from any other Author, I think at this point just about ANY other author, even Brian on his own, would do a much better job than Kevin Fucktard Hackerson. It's my personal opinion that the relationship between Brian and KFH is beginning to show wear and tear as Brian realizes what he's done to his fathers legacy by allowing KFH the keys.

are the stories entertaining? sure, that is possible. however, the fact that a small percentage of the sci-fi population finds them entertaining does not overshadow the fact that they are more deconstructive rather than constructive, take away more from the universe than they add (by an overwhelming margin) and all in all treat the Dune universe like a crack whore to be played with and discarded out of hand when the Hack can't squeeze any more dollars and recognition from them.

Schu wrote:The first one isn't *real* libertarian ideology - under that, I'd have a perfect right to criticise as much as I like, and you shouldn't even be arguing to even try to make me stop.

OH is hardly ultra-conservative, just because it has the word orthodox in it. If you'll read the political forums, we're a pretty leftist bunch, with a few exceptions. Liberal philosophy doesn't just blindly accept any change or anything new. Recognising something new as crap and not wanting to swallow it hardly makes one conservative.

I agree that you have the right to criticize me, it just the one and tenor of some people that is counter productive.
While your political leanings may be more to the left, when it come to Dune, it is very much to the right, which makes the Orthodox appropriate, IMHO.

DuneFishUK wrote:I'm not quite sure which side of the debate you're on? You want KJA to fill in the gaps so you can know "what actually happened" day-by-day? Or do you want readers to form their own opinions and ideas based on what FH wrote?

KJA/BH (as readers) have their own ideas derived from their imaginations, on what happened, as do you, as do I. I don't "need to be told" anything, but welcome the opportunity to see where their imagination has led them.

DuneFishUK wrote:Leto says something about this in COD. You need to look at the complete system, not just your corner of it. I can understand it's a bit exciting having an unfolding story in front of you (and the unfolding KJA soap opera that surrounds it), but what is actually better? or more important?

I agree about needing to see the "complete system", and I think that Fran Herbert really understood that it is in our nature to want to worry most about "our corner". I deal with these concepts all the time in the real world. I'll give this a bit more thought before responding further, as I want to contemplate how the concept "complete system" applies in this particular scenario

Nekhrun wrote:

redbugpest wrote:

Schu wrote: Stopping calling it dune or canon would stop the pollution and still allow you to keep reading.

It is Dune in so much as it is in the same universe...

Not even close.

.

Here we are faced with a quandary based on different views of the definition of being "in universe"

I would take from this that your definition is that nothing that was written by anyone other than FH is "in universe" While I define it as to be a body of writing that deals with he people, places and things that relate to the Dune Universe in general". Please do not confuse this with issues of canon. I feel that the Dune Universe includes any and all notes or early drafts.

redbugpest wrote:

DuneFishUK wrote:I'm not quite sure which side of the debate you're on? You want KJA to fill in the gaps so you can know "what actually happened" day-by-day? Or do you want readers to form their own opinions and ideas based on what FH wrote?

KJA/BH (as readers) have their own ideas derived from their imaginations, on what happened, as do you, as do I. I don't "need to be told" anything, but welcome the opportunity to see where their imagination has led them.

Fair play... BUT - they say their imaginings are canon - that they are "what actually happened", they say they;re filling in the gaps, and they sell them internationally with "Direct Sequel to Dune" scrawled on the cover.

rbp wrote:

Nekhrun wrote:

redbugpest wrote:

Schu wrote: Stopping calling it dune or canon would stop the pollution and still allow you to keep reading.

It is Dune in so much as it is in the same universe...

Not even close.

.

Here we are faced with a quandary based on different views of the definition of being "in universe"

I would take from this that your definition is that nothing that was written by anyone other than FH is "in universe" While I define it as to be a body of writing that deals with he people, places and things that relate to the Dune Universe in general". Please do not confuse this with issues of canon. I feel that the Dune Universe includes any and all notes or early drafts.

So you consider all the games and the films to be part of the Dune Universe?

The universe that FH created is the Duniverse. There discrepancies and arguing points, but in tone and content it is pretty consistent. - Anything that does not respect it and work within it must be considered derivative.

redbugpest wrote:In this particular debate, you are representing a more conservative doctrine. The very name "Orthodox Herbertarians" attests to a conservative mindset.

redbugpest wrote:While your political leanings may be more to the left, when it come to Dune, it is very much to the right, which makes the Orthodox appropriate, IMHO.

I think this is confusing a couple of issues:

Being "Orthodox X" in no way implies conservatism. Orthodox Jews, for instance, could as easily be left-wing as right... (If this is a rare occurence, it has to do with the content of their beliefs, not whether they cling to an old and static instance of them, or a new and dynamic). Orthodox is a relative term, which is especially clear when it is used as it is in this case: "Orthodox Herbertians". We are not necessarily orthodox, when it comes to anything else than the canonicity of Dune novels.
And we are certainly not necessarily conservative, as a broad term to describe a person (no matter how much you and other NuDuners want to call us all "close minded" while you ignore our arguments). It is worth noting that is not _out of a conservative mindset_ that I form my beliefs about Dune, but one could with some fairness describe my views _on that particular matter_ as conservative.

And political leanings cannot "be right-leaning when it comes to Dune". My belief regarding fiscal policies are not different when I read Dune, or when I consider the economy of that particular fictional world. My beliefs about such, and other political, matters are not changeable with my frame of reference. Nor can you say that my views of the canonicity issue are "right-leaning views". The "politically right way of thinking" has no bearing on issues of canonicity of fiction!

I was going to post a reply, but I became hungry, so let me say that Lundse put it best:

Lundse wrote:Being "Orthodox X" in no way implies conservatism.

Thank you! At least someone understands that words possess multiple-meanings.

redbugpest wrote:I feel that the Dune Universe includes any and all notes or early drafts.

Not if they contradict published canon.

Freakzilla wrote:

redbugpest wrote:I feel that the Dune Universe includes any and all notes or early drafts.

Not if they contradict published canon.

Even BH agrees with this, on p227 of my copy of "the Road to Dune", saying "many details are inconsistent with the published versions, and these scenes should be considered drafts, not "canon" ". Shame that was completely ignored by them when they wrote books.

Good recall on that one.

I'm of the feeling that RtD represents Bobo's last tenuous grip on reality. He's just mailed it in ever since that point: "Yes, sure, Kevin, whatever you want. I'm sure you know best."

It's my pet inconsistency - I am pretty sure I was the first to find that part of RtD and compare it with the DN FAQ (which I think doesn't exist on the new version of the site, but still can be found here, where it says:

Q: In the preludes Jessica is almost forced on Duke Leto. Yet in the DUNE classic, we read that the Duke actually sent buyers to purchase her.

A: The Leto/Jessica meeting scene in HOUSE HARKONNEN was actually written by Frank Herbert himself and found in his notes. The events shown in HOUSE HARKONNEN are consistent with the original notes.

Incredibly sloppy work there. One minute, something that contradicts Frank's published work is not to be considered canon, the next minute, a note is all you need to contradict established, published canon in Dune.

Also, I know everyone's said it already, but I love the sig, Dukester!!

Lundse wrote:

redbugpest wrote:In this particular debate, you are representing a more conservative doctrine. The very name "Orthodox Herbertarians" attests to a conservative mindset.

redbugpest wrote:While your political leanings may be more to the left, when it come to Dune, it is very much to the right, which makes the Orthodox appropriate, IMHO.

I think this is confusing a couple of issues:

Being "Orthodox X" in no way implies conservatism. Orthodox Jews, for instance, could as easily be left-wing as right... (If this is a rare occurence, it has to do with the content of their beliefs, not whether they cling to an old and static instance of them, or a new and dynamic). Orthodox is a relative term, which is especially clear when it is used as it is in this case: "Orthodox Herbertians". We are not necessarily orthodox, when it comes to anything else than the canonicity of Dune novels.
And we are certainly not necessarily conservative, as a broad term to describe a person (no matter how much you and other NuDuners want to call us all "close minded" while you ignore our arguments). It is worth noting that is not _out of a conservative mindset_ that I form my beliefs about Dune, but one could with some fairness describe my views _on that particular matter_ as conservative.

And political leanings cannot "be right-leaning when it comes to Dune". My belief regarding fiscal policies are not different when I read Dune, or when I consider the economy of that particular fictional world. My beliefs about such, and other political, matters are not changeable with my frame of reference. Nor can you say that my views of the canonicity issue are "right-leaning views". The "politically right way of thinking" has no bearing on issues of canonicity of fiction!

Ex-fucking-actly. I feel the need to say again, recognising something new as crap and not wanting to swallow it hardly makes one conservative.

Schu wrote:Also, I know everyone's said it already, but I love the sig, Dukester!!

It's all DuneFish's work. All I did was steal it.

TheDukester wrote:

Schu wrote:Also, I know everyone's said it already, but I love the sig, Dukester!!

It's all DuneFish's work. All I did was steal it.

good steal/work!

lotek wrote:

TheDukester wrote:

Schu wrote:Also, I know everyone's said it already, but I love the sig, Dukester!!

It's all DuneFish's work. All I did was steal it.

good steal/work!

If I'd known Duke would steal it I might have spent more time on it

I know you made it for Chiggie, so I'm trying not to get too attached to it. Chig, if you ever want to use it, just let me know, and it's all yours.

Pew-pew-pew! PEW-PEW!

Hey, I'm just glad someone grabbed it before Pestie's "friend" could start using it ... whoever that might be.