Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

SandChigger wrote:

reverendmotherQ. wrote:This is about the same kid who supposedly skipped a grade in highschool.

Oh, no no no! That story always gets turned around, confuses a lot of people!

He spent a grade in highschool skipping.

WIN
That would explain so much.

I always though the DE was canon for us Orthodox Herbitans

You can take it or leave it. Even though it wasn't written by FH he approved of it. He also held reservations on some of it but didn't say what. So, it is like, semi-canon.

Well its up to the induvidual what he/she deems canon is personally to themself, but I supose the only real "canon" is what FH himself wrote. That McDune crap certainly isn't cannon

Freakzilla wrote:You can take it or leave it. Even though it wasn't written by FH he approved of it. He also held reservations on some of it but didn't say what. So, it is like, semi-canon.

As someone mentioned before, DE is an example of how to properly write in the Duniverse.

I don't think the "canon" issue is really important for Dune, where the ideas have as much (and often even more) weight as the storyline. "Canon" refers to "what really happened" in the fictional world, so that all events and their chronology are consistent. In this respect, even if the new books contained no factual contradictions, it would matter very little if they were as shallow as they are. So instead of the notion of "canon" it would be better, in my opinion, to just mention whether FH or another author is behind this or that particular concept.

Dune canon is simple:

Canon = six books by FH;

Entertaining, but unofficial = DE;

Everything else (including movies) = fuck off on out of here.

HBJ

What progress has been made on the Orthodox Herbetarian Dune Encyclopedia? Is there a blog available featuring whatever entries have been completed?

No progress or centralized blog that we've heard of, although someone keeps floating around the book title, The Unauthorized Dune Encyclopedia...

Huge urge to say as many Dune words I can think of...

Feel free to ask, anytime we're using an abbreviation or term that isn't familiar or seems odd given the usual meaning of a word, etc.

We tend to get carried away and just assume that everyone knows what we're talking about.

Very weird, when I try to enter page I get for shitty prompt re security certificates needing updated, but nada on page 5, hmmm, where's me tinfoil hat...

What what what?

(And where?!)

oops, too much KKKKoffee. Page 4. This thread.

Why not turn this into a wiki?

Laziness, life, distraction. Perhaps?

If its something that we want to pursue as a group, I'm happy to help get it going. I don't want to take other people's content here and do things with it without permission or at-least some consensus.

Hi,
you may want to include content from the latter books which was left out of the Dune Encyclopedia. e.g. honored matres, tleilaxu religion & the truth about axlotl tanks, soostones, pilingitam wood, scanlyzer, T-probe, etc.

as for the canon argument, the Dune Encyclopedia is semi-canon.

xcalibur wrote:Hi,


as for the canon argument, the Dune Encyclopedia is semi-canon.

Repeating a false statement doesn't make it true. The DE is not canon, get over it.

Serkanner wrote:

xcalibur wrote:Hi,


as for the canon argument, the Dune Encyclopedia is semi-canon.

Repeating a false statement doesn't make it true. The DE is not canon, get over it.

can you elaborate on this?

Frank Herbert gave his stamp of approval to the DE, while reserving the right to ignore or overwrite it in the novels. what better confirmation is there than a statement from the author? based on these known facts, it's semi-canon, in other words: a reliable source that is second to the books, but can't be dismissed outright.

If no part of the Dune Encyclopedia was written by Frank Herbert or based on exclusive material by him (and it wasn't, apart from discussions with McNelly), if Frank Herbert never used any ideas introduced in the Dune Encyclopedia (and I am not aware of any examples where he did), and if Frank Herbert contradicted it without a moment's pause (and on several minor points where he easily could have followed it, e.g. the heraldic sign of the Harkonnens, he chose to ignore it), why should we feel compelled to accept anything in it?

FH's endorsement essentially amounts to "here's an amusing book for fans, but don't take anything in it too seriously". It's an authorized collection of fan fiction. You may choose to "believe" it if you like, but others are equally justified in "dismissing it outright". Therefore it is not canon.

xcalibur wrote:

Serkanner wrote:

xcalibur wrote:Hi,


as for the canon argument, the Dune Encyclopedia is semi-canon.

Repeating a false statement doesn't make it true. The DE is not canon, get over it.

can you elaborate on this?

Frank Herbert gave his stamp of approval to the DE, while reserving the right to ignore or overwrite it in the novels. what better confirmation is there than a statement from the author? based on these known facts, it's semi-canon, in other words: a reliable source that is second to the books, but can't be dismissed outright.

No. Not a single word was written by Frank, so it is not canon. Period. It is good fan-fiction, that is all.

Cpt. Aramsham wrote:If no part of the Dune Encyclopedia was written by Frank Herbert or based on exclusive material by him (and it wasn't, apart from discussions with McNelly), if Frank Herbert never used any ideas introduced in the Dune Encyclopedia (and I am not aware of any examples where he did), and if Frank Herbert contradicted it without a moment's pause (and on several minor points where he easily could have followed it, e.g. the heraldic sign of the Harkonnens, he chose to ignore it), why should we feel compelled to accept anything in it?

FH's endorsement essentially amounts to "here's an amusing book for fans, but don't take anything in it too seriously". It's an authorized collection of fan fiction. You may choose to "believe" it if you like, but others are equally justified in "dismissing it outright". Therefore it is not canon.

it's important to keep in mind that the encyclopedia was compiled after god emperor and before heretics/chapterhouse. FH naturally didn't want to limit himself to what was put down in the encyclopedia, he wanted free rein to create. and so, where there are contradictions, official canon takes precedence, but that doesn't necessarily refute the encyclopedia. in fact, for Frank Herbert to strictly stay within the guidelines of numerous articles by various authors would've been a bit much.

I will quote from the DE itself:

Here is a rich background (and foreground) for the Dune Chronicles, including scholarly bypaths and amusing sidelights. Some of the contributions are sure to arouse controversy, based as they are on questionable sources. Others round out long speculation. Specialists have had their field day here with problems geological, biological, astronomical, and mystical, with pronounciations, major biographies, histories and accounts of little-known figures. The range of topics is catholic: cf. from games for amusement to games of life and death (Cheops or Pyramid Chess to "The Assassins' Handbook").
The history of the Financial Synod which spawned CHOAM gets its first airing in these pages. In fact, many secrets hidden in the Dune Chronicles are answered here.
How did Irulan first gain and then arouse the displeasure of Ghanima? Who was Jehanne Butler and why does the Butlerian Jihad carry her name? What are the hidden origins of the Spacing Guild? Where did spice-trance navigational techniques develop? What was Leto II's private opinion of Holy Sister Quintinius Violet Chenoeh? Does Cheops have something in common with the three-body problem?
I must confess that I found it fascinating to re-enter here some of the sources on which the Chronicles are built. As the first ' Dune fan,'' I give this encyclopedia my delighted approval, although I hold my own counsel on some of the issues still to be explored as the Chronicles unfold.
Frank Herbert Port Townsend, WA November, 1983

I think this, especially the bolded parts, give some degree of legitimacy to the DE. I agree that it's not fully canon, but it's a better source than the "museum dune" books by that pair of hacks. therefore I consider it semi-canon for lack of a better term. I could call it quasi-canon if that suits you better.

xcalibur wrote:it's important to keep in mind that the encyclopedia was compiled after god emperor and before heretics/chapterhouse. FH naturally didn't want to limit himself to what was put down in the encyclopedia, he wanted free rein to create. and so, where there are contradictions, official canon takes precedence, but that doesn't necessarily refute the encyclopedia. in fact, for Frank Herbert to strictly stay within the guidelines of numerous articles by various authors would've been a bit much.

Yes, those are probably the reasons why FH made sure to point out that he was not committed to what it said, and hence why it is not canon. I note that even in the preface to the book, he carefully avoids actually endorsing anything it says, just saying he gives the encyclopedia "his delighted approval" – a key distinction.

Can you point to any instances where FH seems to have been inspired by, or decided to incorporate some original idea or detail from the Dune Encyclopedia into his books? Because as long as all we have are contradictions, I think it does refute the Encyclopedia as a whole.

xcalibur wrote:I agree that it's not fully canon, but it's a better source than the "museum dune" books by that pair of hacks. therefore I consider it semi-canon for lack of a better term. I could call it quasi-canon if that suits you better.

If by "canon" we mean the set of texts fans are compelled to accept as authoritative, then the Dune Encyclopedia is not canon, because Frank Herbert is the only undisputed authority on Dune, and there's no indication he felt committed to any of the information in the DE.

I don't think "semi-canon" or "quasi-canon" are meaningful terms (if we extend the metaphor that gave us the term, it should be either "deuterocanonical" or "apocryphal"). If you just mean to say that it's a text that adds to the other books, and that fans can choose to treat it as true where it doesn't contradict Frank Herbert, then sure. But you could say the same thing about the BH&KJA books. I don't think you've offered any particularly compelling argument that we ought to.

Cpt. Aramsham wrote:

xcalibur wrote:it's important to keep in mind that the encyclopedia was compiled after god emperor and before heretics/chapterhouse. FH naturally didn't want to limit himself to what was put down in the encyclopedia, he wanted free rein to create. and so, where there are contradictions, official canon takes precedence, but that doesn't necessarily refute the encyclopedia. in fact, for Frank Herbert to strictly stay within the guidelines of numerous articles by various authors would've been a bit much.

Yes, those are probably the reasons why FH made sure to point out that he was not committed to what it said, and hence why it is not canon. I note that even in the preface to the book, he carefully avoids actually endorsing anything it says, just saying he gives the encyclopedia "his delighted approval" – a key distinction.

Can you point to any instances where FH seems to have been inspired by, or decided to incorporate some original idea or detail from the Dune Encyclopedia into his books? Because as long as all we have are contradictions, I think it does refute the Encyclopedia as a whole.

I think there were a few details like planet names that were borrowed from the DE and used in heretics/chapterhouse, but I'm not sure. actually, here it is: viewtopic.php?f=32&t=3117&p=119243" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

xcalibur wrote:I agree that it's not fully canon, but it's a better source than the "museum dune" books by that pair of hacks. therefore I consider it semi-canon for lack of a better term. I could call it quasi-canon if that suits you better.

If by "canon" we mean the set of texts fans are compelled to accept as authoritative, then the Dune Encyclopedia is not canon, because Frank Herbert is the only undisputed authority on Dune, and there's no indication he felt committed to any of the information in the DE.

I don't think "semi-canon" or "quasi-canon" are meaningful terms (if we extend the metaphor that gave us the term, it should be either "deuterocanonical" or "apocryphal"). If you just mean to say that it's a text that adds to the other books, and that fans can choose to treat it as true where it doesn't contradict Frank Herbert, then sure. But you could say the same thing about the BH&KJA books. I don't think you've offered any particularly compelling argument that we ought to.

deuterocanonical/apocryphal are much better terms.

it's not canon, and it is a collection of fan fiction. it may not be endorsed by Frank Herbert, but it has his approval, which is more than can be said for Brian & Kevin.

It is a more reliable source than anything by Brian & Kevin while not being canon. it's an apocryphal work which you're not compelled to accept, but is a worthwhile contribution for the most part. Some articles are quite good, while others are questionable.

the original 6 are canon, Brian & Kevin are non-canon and should be rejected (except for the Dune 7 outline & notes, but we have no way of verifying that content). the Dune Encyclopedia is somewhere in between - you can accept or reject it as you like but it should be taken into consideration. At the very least it should not be placed on the same level as B&K.