SciFi and Fantasy eBook Club discussion

This was my first re-read of Dune for a couple of decades. I was a little worried because I've always considered it one of the best SciFi books ever, but books don't always hold up well over the years. I'm happy to say I wasn't disappointed. It's still an incredible story. The world building has always been a big plus, and this time around my immersion in Arrakis was enhanced by the fact that I now live in a desert myself. It also says something about the book in that as long as it is, I never felt like it bogged down anywhere. In fact, I would have liked to see the latter part of the book fleshed out a little more, it felt like events started moving at a breakneck pace.

I do remember that I didn't like the succeeding books nearly as much so I'm not planning on reading any more in the series. I'm very glad I revisited Dune, though.

So, has anybody read it recently and is there anyone out there that hasn't read it?

Reading your comment, I think I will have to find time to go back and read it again. It will be more like 3 decades for me, and I credit it with being the book that hooked me on SF in the first place. I'd always loved light/children's SF, but Dune was my first 'grown up' book, and like you, I've hesitated about revisiting in case of disappointment - books have changed so much in writing style these days (I know, I'm an author too!).
Sounds like it will be worth the trip down memory lane, thanks for the encouragement.

I re-read this a couple of months ago and was blown away by how well it stands up. The ecological message is as relevant as ever, of course. The arabic influences fascinated me much more this time around - maybe because more arabic words appear in the news these days compared with way back when? Anyway, I loved it so much I decided despite all the warnings to have a crack at the sequels. I got to the end of 'Children...' and cried "enough!"

Simon wrote: "The arabic influences fascinated me much more this time around..."

Good point. I noticed that too. I don't remember the Arabic influence at all from the first time but I was struck by it too.

I re-read the book this summer after the discussion on one group and I too was impressed by how well it had stood the test of time.

I've never read Dune even though I have friends that have positively raved about it over the years. I've just purchased an ebook edition and intend to start reading it within the next week or so. I'm setting my expectations to 'realistic' and then possibly it might actually blow me away.

I've started my journey in SciFi world with dune :) was very hard to select...i had on my shelf the first book of Dune and the lucky staar series from Asimov...
Is really hard to decide which one of the two is better...but both introduced me in two different kind of SciFi...
I guess dune is a more modern kind of SciFi while Asimov is more classical.

I haven't time to re-read these days but Dune was absolutely enough to knock my socks off way back then. I'd read TLOTR six times by that point. I came to Dune having first read Children of Dune which just intrigued me and made me want to learn more. The original story was far better. Dune Messiah was also good but I'm afraid the series went downhill starting there.
Children of Dune was the first SF book to make the NYT best seller list.

I've read Dune three times, maybe four; most recently about five years ago when I reread the original trilogy. As others have said, the first is the best, the others less so, and parts of the third had me laughing - not at humor, but at it's ridiculousness. I once read book four, but have not been tempted to revisit. As for the author’s son pumping out more and more and more sequels - I guess a good cash cow is a terrible thing to waste but I’m not going down those paths.

An other curious trait about Dune in the current climate is calling the novel more fantasy than science fiction; it mostly the mental “magic” abilities. By today’s standards, the mental powers are bad science, but the book was written in the 60s and the zeitgeist shines through the ages - people did once believe we could rule the universe with our minds. But does that turn the novel into a fantasy. Probably not.

The first time I read it I was in junior high, or perhaps a freshman in high school. I didn't make it through, couldn't handle the density. I picked it up again after college and it blew me out of the water. DUNE imposed a permanent impact on my writing style.

I didn't have enough life experience the first time I read it, I did the second — I wonder how it would impact me now with another two decades of worldly wear hanging upon my soul?

I read this book the first time in junior high or high school and thought it was good but it was a hard read. I think it was definitely something too dense and thematically difficult for even my precious self to really grasp without more life experience.

The 1984 movie came out which I both loved and disliked at the same time. It held so much detail from the story but it went so fast.

I just now finished reading it for the 3rd time - my second as a fully grown adult - and I still love it. I did have to stop about 10% in to watch the movie. The images from the movie kept creeping in and I had to get past them.

I understand the Arabic and Islamic influences on the book much better now than I did when I read it in my 30's, but that's all the past 13 years for ya. It is richer for that I think. Understanding what I did, I feel now there's more I don't understand that due to my lack of knowledge of Bedouin culture ....

I read DUNE and DUNE MESSIAH, back to back, in just about one sitting while I was in junior high school. I remember sitting down with a gigantic bag of peanuts in the shell, to sustain me during the marathon. This is something you only do when you are young.
I remember falling into the books the way you would fall into a well, a totally immersive experience. I was immersed, but I wasn't delighted. And so I have never re-read them.

Brenda wrote: "I read DUNE and DUNE MESSIAH, back to back, in just about one sitting while I was in junior high school. I remember sitting down with a gigantic bag of peanuts in the shell, to sustain me during th..."

I've never read Dune Messiah. If I did, I'd have to re-read Dune, and those two books together would take me months (not a lot of time to read these days). Was MESSIAH worth the time?

Dune Messish isn't the same kind of book as Dune. That is the main thing. The author doesn't portray Paul in the same "heroic" light and that seems to miff a lot of readers: they don't want to read about the billions of genocides on other planets caused by what a Paul does on Dune. I sort of liked it, but I like authors being different with established characters.

You don't ask, but I thought Children of Dune was much weaker. Again, a different kind of book from the first two. My main problem was when Paul's son aquires his "superhuman" abilities and I was going yeah yeah yeah. I've always thought an author shows great weakness when he gives characters great powers. My wag, of course.

I haven't read beyond DUNE MESSIAH (and at this point I remember almost nothing about it), but I am reliably informed that all works following it are less good.

I've read Dune about three times. Last time was probably a dozen years ago or so.

First time was hard but good; I think I had a touch of ADD back in my HS/college days that made concentrating on reading hard.

Second time it was mind blowing.

Third time--some decades later--I have to admit that the work had diminished somewhat in my estimation.

I still loved it but what struck me was that Herbert's writing style was far flightier than I had remembered. He flits around inside the same scene from POV to POV, revealing internal dialog from various characters in the scene. That hadn't bothered me in my first two reads, but in the third it seemed really jarring.

I have a feeling that's a reflection of the times in which it was written and don't think authors could get away with that nowadays without harsh criticism.

I should probably revisit it and see if that perception remains true.

I was just looking at the beginning of the book on amazon's Look Inside.

The example below's not so bad--it flows well--but it shows the kind of head-hopping that Herbert indulged in, shifting between three distinct POV's in the space of 5 short paragraphs:

Damn that Jessica! the Reverand Mother thought. If only she'd borne us a girl as she was ordered to do!
Jessica stopped three paces from the chair, dropped a small curtsy, a gentle flick of left hand along the line of her skirt. Paul gave the short bow his dancing master had taught him--the one used "when in doubt of another's station."
The nuances of Paul's greeting were not lost on the Reverend Mother. She said: "He's a cautions one, Jessica."
Jessica's hand went to Pual's shoulder, tightened there. For a heartbeat, fear pulsed through her palm. Then she had herself under control. "Thus he has been taught, Your Reverence."
What does she fear? Paul wondered.

I always thought the 'Head hopping' was permissible because the plot was so complex, and he was trying to depict complex relationships.

I know there are 'rules' in 'style guides' which say you shouldn't do things, but they're there to be broken :-)

I've never had a problem with internal monologues or head hopping. It's a preference thing. Some readers really hate it. I also think it is less generally accepted now then it was decades ago. Also, some plots require it; I suppose the author could have written a scene where the Rev Mother rails against Jessica's disobedience to an other character through dialogue - but would mean adding a scene.

I never even noticed that. It doesn't bother me at all, in fact, I like getting inside the heads of multiple characters. I think Greg's right--it's reader preference. I enjoy books that switch among POV (James SA Corey's Expanse series comes to mind), but I notice in reviews that a lot of readers don't like that.

Well, like I said, the first two times I read it I didn't even notice. Now, and I think that's because it's become less accepted, it seems to really jump out.

Just a few pages beyond the quote above it got even worse, to the point of making my head spin. One paragraph we're in Paul's head, then we switch to a paragraph talking about the Reverand Mother, which then describes the shape of her face...but...wait...what? Oh, we've swtiched over to her POV and she's noticing the shape of Paul's head.

0_O

On the whole, Herbert handles it better than most, but I think he way over did it. And the problem with it is that the success of Dune was so great that a lot of novice writers mirrored his technique to disasterous result.

I say that admitting that my first attempt at a novel (finished but unworthy of publishing) did exactly that. **blush**

Oh...I'll also point out here that the time in which Dune was written, was one steeped in explorations of mind expansion. As such, it embraced things like surrealism, abstraction, and stream-of-consciousness. Some things from that time simply do not translate into our current time, which is so fixated on instant gratification, highly packaged entertainments.

I think this accounts for a lot of the acceptance of extreme head-hopping back then, and it being frowned upon for the most part now.

It was a really different head space back then, and I think I've changed a bit with the times.

Still a great book, though.

It was certainly a different world Micah, you're absolutely right about that

Maybe age is catching up to me, but the instant gratification schtick does not go over well with me. It's like stepping into a time machine, visiting the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, and running though as fast as can. Slow is also good.

Greg wrote: "Maybe age is catching up to me, but the instant gratification schtick does not go over well with me. It's like stepping into a time machine, visiting the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, and running t..."

Have you ever read Mazirian the Magician by Jack Vance. It's one of the stories in
The Dying Earth

It stands wandering through the garden, there's about a page of description, it's brilliant :-)

While I agree that switching POV 'on the fly' can be really jarring, I've always thought that Herbert pulls it off quite well. It was probably the best way to tell this story.

I first read Dune back around 1970. I was in my teens then as I was really blown away by the depth of the story and the setting. Also, much of the SF I had read to that time was "classic" era hard SF, with the emphasis on the machines and technology of the future. The emphasis in Dune on the mental, spiritual, and even political aspects of the story really excited me. As Micah mentions above, this was during the time of the counterculture movement in America, when the exporation of altered states of conciousness through drugs, meditation, etc. was fairly commonplace. I think in some ways Dune tapped into this contemporary Zeitgeist which helpted it reach so many people.

In the years since, I've reread Dune several times, most recently this past summer. While the times are different, and I certainly am a different person than I was in my teens, I still really enjoyed the book.

As much as I loved Dune itself, I never really cared for any of the sequels written by Frank Herbert. It seemed like each successive novel was more forced and never achieved the power of the original story. Years later I tried reading one of the prequels (The Butlerian Jihad) and found it such a pale immitation of the original story that I never even finished it, let alone either of the other books in the prequel trilogy.

I felt fortunate reading Dune in the mid 70s, to have already been interested in the history of Islam and Christendom. Still dealing with the 73 oil embargo's effects on the West, there was no problem seeing the spice/oil connection. Nor the Bedouin/Fremen.

I was reminded how easily the Bedouin joined Mohamed in jihad because they relished the chance to rape and pillage while spreading the "truth" of Allah. Released in 65, I think Herbert saw what we had to look forward to.

Well it took me a while to get around to reading this - frankly, I'd been putting it off for weeks. I put this down in part to watching the 1984 film of Dune which left me a little lost which now, having read through the book, makes sense. There's a lot to compress into a 2 hour film. I might even try and watch the film again.
In any event I enjoyed the book immensely, especially the Machiavellian machinations in places and the religious overtones that run throughout the book.
One question - are the sequels worth reading?

In a word, no. If you must, just take the next one, I forget the title. All the latter ones are a waste of good tree pulp.

Thanks - I'll skip them all then as I have plenty of other books to read at the moment.

Brenda wrote: "In a word, no. If you must, just take the next one, I forget the title. All the latter ones are a waste of good tree pulp."

And the prequels are worse :-(

Jim wrote: "Brenda wrote: "In a word, no. If you must, just take the next one, I forget the title. All the latter ones are a waste of good tree pulp."

And the prequels are worse :-("

The prequels are utter abominations!!!!

Actually the prequels make the sequels look stellar.

There's something twisted about my personality that makes me want to check out the prequels to see just how abysmal they really are. Clearly I should seek out professional help>.<

I bought the first three of them in a used bookstore before I found out how bad they were. I forced myself to read them all. It was a worse experience than the week I spent trying to force myself to watch/listen to the entire Ring Cycle by Wagner.

My point is that casual curiosity isn't a psychological disorder...but following through with a three book binge read of this stuff seriously is! Masochism of the highest degree.

I 'did' that once....Wagner's Ring Cycle....urrrrgh! Thank you for curing me of my masochistic desires!

Check them out of the library. Then you can return them, and not have them cluttering up your book shelves and reawakening ugly memories.

But if you buy them (used preferably) you get to have the cathartic experience of purging them from your world by (added bonus) reenacting scenes from Fahrenheit 451.

They're bad enough that you really don't want them in your public library where they can poison the minds of innocent readers.

Micah wrote: "But if you buy them (used preferably) you get to have the cathartic experience of purging them from your world by (added bonus) reenacting scenes from Fahrenheit 451.

They're bad enough that you r..."

Now you've got me thinking of O'Reily, Coulter, Hannity, et al....

For the children. :}

I broke down and bought the Kindle version of Dune and am reading it again now.

I haven't found any bad issues with the formatting, but I see some harsh reviews of it. I'm guessing the latest version on amazon has been significantly updated.

Did anyone find it to be as bad as some reported? Looks like most of those bad reviews are older.

I read it on the Kindle and it was fine, I didn't notice any formatting problems.

The previous version of Dune available on Amazon a year or two ago was horrible. Filled with typos and formatting errors typical of a poorly edited OCR scan. It has been revised since then, however, and the current version on Amazon is much better.

That's my experience so far. I'll be sure to make note of that when I post an amazon review. It's disconcerting to see 1-star reviews because of formatting and not see newer reviews addressing that older issue. Makes it seem the errors may still be there.

The only formatting issue in this edition is the drop caps. The font on them is too small and makes them drop too far...looks a bit odd but doesn't pose any serious impediment to reading.

I'm still finding the internal dialog to be too jumpy and too often, but the story itself is holding up far better than I had feared. Quite an intense and dense work. Awesome. Has the solid verisimilitude of Tolkien's best work, I think.

I've never read past the first 3. I remember liking them, but that was enough.

Dune is the type of science-fiction I go for. Not too technical.

Finally finished this again. Aside from the aforementioned internal dialog spamming, the three things that stood out in this read were:

1) There used to be a lot more tolerance for the use of exclamation points! Nowadays you can't get away with that! And actually it looks pretty weird to see some many!

2) I'm amazed at how little detail Herbert used for some very major plot developments. For example, we see Paul finally decide to try the Water of Life...then BOOM, 2 or 3 weeks later. Herbert describes nothing of the actual experience. Same with the whole The Beast Rabban plot line. We hear only secondhand or broad stroke sketches in narration about Rabban's actions and the Fremen counter activity. BOOM, we're at the final battle. Herbert deals more with the character-to-character interactions leading up to, and after the action and leaves most of the actual action scenes in the background.

3) How much my memory of the book has been tainted by Lynch's movie version. There are a lot of "classic" scenes and lines I was expecting and anticipating, only...they weren't actually there ("I will kill him!"). They were inventions (or alterations) found in the movie alone. Interesting.

Still a classic. Reads just a tiny bit dated, but nowhere as dated as, say, Asimov's Foundation series.

Heh heh..

But I love exclamation points!!!!!!

!

Donna wrote: "I never even noticed that. It doesn't bother me at all, in fact, I like getting inside the heads of multiple characters. I think Greg's right--it's reader preference..."

Totally. I love the multiple character views. I don't see it so often now.


♥,
Cat at Galaxy Press

Just read Dune in December for the first time. Being a teen in the 80's I remember thinking the movie sounded boring so never even thought of reading the book. I kept seeing it on classics to read lists here on GR, so when it came up as the month read here, I decided to try it.
I was much more impressed and entertained than I thought I would be. The story was completely different than I expected. I expected more of a war story. The character portrayals were interesting and I liked the jumping from voice to voice of different characters.

I am still thinking that I wouldn't like the movie (and I haven't seen anyone on this thread recommend it.) and based on this discussion, won't waste time on the sequels/prequels.

Definitely glad I took the time to read this one though.

Always struck me that Dune attempted to portray things that a lot of writers don't really touch. Humanity that has been changed and evolved and cultures that are very different.
When you look at a lot of SF (or Fantasy or Historical Novels) the people are just us in funny costumes)