I did the reading I decided I had to do today. Then I dipped into my term paper reading and read two things that I won't use. I know what I plan to read next for my term paper, but I will not read it now. I have about a half-hour to kill before catching my bus so that I supervise the lab exams for two hours. I don't know what I plan to do with my time when I get back. Mainly, I'm updating this to kill some time.
Currently, I have Dune set aside for reading while at home. On the second reading I've learned a few things about it. For one, I still don't like it. For another, Herbert foreshadows more later events and happenings that I could have caught before. However, the layering does not compensate (to me) for the fact that he takes quite a while to get where he seems to want to go. He does a large amount of set-up and background, and I grant that one must do such things to effectively world-build. It does not mean that I like it. I don't usually like universes where everyone and his brother would get classed by most role-players as twinks or munchkins. Herbert offers such a universe. Many of Roger Zelazny's novels contain such characters, but I find that he makes it work by not focusing on the power levels of the characters. To me, Zelazny explores the clash of extremely powerful beings, and since their powers often equal, the conflict can't happen on a purely muscular level. When both you and your opponent can destroy the planet you fight on, fighting outright can't bring a satisfactory resolution. You have to get sneaky, deceptive, manipulative.
On the other hand, Herbert offers a universe which I see as falling to the problem of "capping." Capping refers to a common intellectual game of the 18th century (and persisting to now, really) where someone mentions an obscure phrase and someone else in the conversation has to bring up an even more obscure phrase until finally no one knows what anyone else is talking about. In the Dune universe, we start out with extremely sneaky, cunning, manipulative, and powerful individuals. Yet we have Paul who outpowers them all. By the time I got to God Emperor of Dune and Paul's kid had turned himself into a giant sandworm and made Arrakis green, I just couldn't take it. Too much power and way too much self-importance. (by the way, no I'm sorry about the spoiler, it's been made into a mini-series on SciFi by now for Eris's sake)
so, why do I continue to reread Dune? Maybe due to the game since one character decided to draw on it for his paradigm. Therefore, I have to know how to pick it apart to expand the paradigm past its limited range. Also, I like to know why I dislike something, and Dune is the only one out of the series I think I could reread. The next few just get out of hand.
Currently, I have Dune set aside for reading while at home. On the second reading I've learned a few things about it. For one, I still don't like it. For another, Herbert foreshadows more later events and happenings that I could have caught before. However, the layering does not compensate (to me) for the fact that he takes quite a while to get where he seems to want to go. He does a large amount of set-up and background, and I grant that one must do such things to effectively world-build. It does not mean that I like it. I don't usually like universes where everyone and his brother would get classed by most role-players as twinks or munchkins. Herbert offers such a universe. Many of Roger Zelazny's novels contain such characters, but I find that he makes it work by not focusing on the power levels of the characters. To me, Zelazny explores the clash of extremely powerful beings, and since their powers often equal, the conflict can't happen on a purely muscular level. When both you and your opponent can destroy the planet you fight on, fighting outright can't bring a satisfactory resolution. You have to get sneaky, deceptive, manipulative.
On the other hand, Herbert offers a universe which I see as falling to the problem of "capping." Capping refers to a common intellectual game of the 18th century (and persisting to now, really) where someone mentions an obscure phrase and someone else in the conversation has to bring up an even more obscure phrase until finally no one knows what anyone else is talking about. In the Dune universe, we start out with extremely sneaky, cunning, manipulative, and powerful individuals. Yet we have Paul who outpowers them all. By the time I got to God Emperor of Dune and Paul's kid had turned himself into a giant sandworm and made Arrakis green, I just couldn't take it. Too much power and way too much self-importance. (by the way, no I'm sorry about the spoiler, it's been made into a mini-series on SciFi by now for Eris's sake)
so, why do I continue to reread Dune? Maybe due to the game since one character decided to draw on it for his paradigm. Therefore, I have to know how to pick it apart to expand the paradigm past its limited range. Also, I like to know why I dislike something, and Dune is the only one out of the series I think I could reread. The next few just get out of hand.