Jay Emmerich > Recent Status Updates

There's these little lines that reference this dense lore with the Bene Gesserit and it fascinates me. I'm sure this book doesn't go into it at all but like, I'm so curious what it could mean. We've finally gotten to Zendaya being here though.

We're still at a slow point but I'm sure we're building to something. Having all the characters be separate works for me after the action of the attack on the Atredies

Slow, but not bad. I feel like this is a bit that got truncated a lot in the two films and I understand why.

We're getting small moments as the narrative takes a breather after all the action, but it's still interesting. The movie is such an interesting adaptation I can't wait to be done and watch it with new eyes.

Actual science in the science fiction is weird but I enjoy it. Can't tell you if I fully comprehend the why behind what I just read but like nothing is poorly written and I kinda hate that about it.

After writing a 90 page script for a class, I can't help but come back to this with more appreciation for Herbert's writing style. There's so much on every page which makes everything feel so big. The balance between narrative and dialogue and everything is so interesting to look at. I hope I can finish it before Dune 3 comes out

There's entire subplots that got cut from the film so I feel like I'm both treading familiar ground but also have no idea where it's going. It's good and I'm just bad at reading anything quickly.

Getting more context on the "fear is the mind killer" quote is cool. The way the focus is now more on Paul and how he has to react to the events of the narrative makes it feel more interesting because as prepared as he has been, this is different, this is reality and not a simulation.

Just waiting for Zendaya to show up now... it should be pretty soon

The structure of this still kinda fascinated me in the way that there's no chapters (the table of contents just shows three 200 page "parts," when there are smaller breaks just with no numbers,) but there's always these quotes from other sources that are in universe texts. I don't know the why of it though. It's very unique and keeps making me think.

I have finally (I believe) gotten to the point when the first film ends. It's a big turning point, and I realize now why the break happens. Especially because there's a narrative twist that I don't think ever really comes up in the film. So I'm vibing. It's good. There's still way too many fake terms here

Apparently all my complaints about Paul have been heard by Frank Herbert 60 years ago because like he's actually getting interesting now? I'm loving the texture of the world. It's pretty good. Feels like we're at a lull in terms of action but like Paul has to finally step up and I'm here for it.

I don't know if I've ever read a book that transitions point of views without page breaks like this does. It makes it feel dynamic but it's hard to follow sometimes.

Poor Dr. Yueh man, even in death you're a cooler character than Timothée Chalamet.

I find it so funny how often I am reading and go "I don't remember this from the movie" only to read and realize that it's just more texture then the film could put into scenes. We still end up getting to the beats I remember there's just more stuff in between. And it's all solid stuff.

This is literally the event that I've been waiting for, maybe for a hundred pages at this point. I'm surprised as to how much I enjoy every character more than Paul Atredies. Maybe I'll actually read this quicker? Idk school is busy

Getting far enough into the narrative to realize that the movie choosing to have Paul be the main character is odd, because I feel that the book has spent more time with the mother. She feels like a stronger character.

I think this entire "chapter" isn't in the movie so I'm confused a bit about the progression through the narrative but I'm still enjoying it

Taking me way too long to get through this but I just need to get back into the groove of things. There's an exchange here about how facts can become myths and I really liked it.

Brings up that all the case studies we've looked at in this book all exist on a spectrum of social identity, where one group wants to remove any connection, and the other end has people constructing their own based on a shared content world. It's interesting to some degree.

Again, this is just repeating the flaws of each to bring together a more cohesive, and arguably, more productive style of organization. It's got good points.

We get to the last chapter (despite the fact that everything says 100 pages left) and it asks the question: What counts as being political? Which is interesting. It breaks down some of the problems every group up to this point have faced and how they could overcome it, or how some hybrid of the organization structures could be the best. We'll see how much longer it takes for me to finish this.

Talking about a shift between "dutiful citizenship" (performing an act because you should) and "actualizing citizenship" (performing to reach an attainable goal) is a really interesting thing we touch on here. There's been a widespread shift away from doing things because your supposed to, and I think that's indicative of multiple things going on in the world. This was written pre-covid and it shows.

The libertarian idea (at least, this text posits it as libertarian) of de-emphasizing traditional politics due to it being too big and too old fashioned is interesting, but I question if we ever have enough people who enter into the system wanting to make change at the same time, as if it's a handful dispersed over years, I fear that they will never amount to much, given the slow process the system is shown to work.

Here I am, over halfway through the book and realizing that they have been talking about two different kinds of politics, participatory and institutionalized, and the distinction between the two. Participatory is local elections, institutionalized is like congress. It's interesting to note that distinction because the two are vastly different, and thinking that they are the same is probably part of the problem.

It is interesting how they describe libertarianism, as (I think I've mentioned previously) it's been used as a dirty word. The mentions of Ayn Rand and other theory based creatives reminded me where some of that connection has come from. But, like the person is quoted in saying, she's not the saint of Libertarianism. There's more to it then that.

Giving more context than I'm used to related to the term "libertarianism," this chapter is interesting to me because I haven't really dug into it at all. I'm used to it being a bad word more or less.

Another chapter done. This new one, about the growing libertarian movement, feels like it's off to a good start. I am actually excited to keep reading.