Dune "fans" vs Dune learners

[Egeides]

[i just lost everything I had written because I'm on a public comp... so sorry if I lost the will to re-write extensively:]

Pre-scriptum: This text doesn't consider "being a fan" as a bad thing but simply as a part of the path to betterment (experiencing, loving soemthing, etc.). Read the whole text to get the whole picture ;)

The term "fan" etimologically comes from "fanatic". Is it really "true" to look at things in such a way? Is a "fan" looking at the object of his passion as the object he adores really is? Would the fan, knowing that the object he looks at is different, prefer to look it exactly how it is?

Fans, I believe, are those who try to bring the object of their "fanism" (or should I say fanatism?) everywhere around them and in them to bring what this object brings to them (happiness, feeling energic...) everywhere in them. I guess it isn't necessarily wrong: it may be a defense mecanism (a way to find better than the outside world) or simply sheer curiosity towards something unknown and potentially good.

But personally, I do not wish to take the stance of a fan. I learned alot from Dune, just as I learned from George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. I try to see what I can personally retrieve from this. This, in itself, in greatness and beauty. What I got from Dune is stupendous, for a novel. The concepts I got from Dune are incredible, should it be explicitely called "Atreides", "Piter", "Fear littany" or should it implicitly be in Dune (nature of history, gender differenciation, drugs vs Man...). When someone says "Atreides" to me, I have a concept in my head and I can figure out a bunch of caracteristics. I may not agree with everything in the books, but I got alot from there, and it was also a catalyst. All this is to get as much as possible from Dune, with as little "magnifying lense" effect as possible.

I think that seeing alot of things into a novel and getting attached to it is just as a human getting attached to his family/country: he may look at some aspects in an idealized way. Through our path to get closer to perfection, we can try to get closer and closer to see everything reality is and get stronger in front of its undesirable effects. This is reality with all its great aspect that are seen through novels. Novels as Dune are in fact simply showing some aspects of reality. Sardaukars are a type of soldier than can exist (read "Spartans" as another expression of the concept, or whattever they may be in the future) while Atreides are also an existing concept and the dunish problematics also exist in reality. My goal is to approach perfection in an asymptotic way (and getting into and through reality more and more is part of it). I wish to go from particularity (Dune) to universality (the whole, thus reality). And while I'm not bad at conceptualizing it as I do here, I'm pretty far from this goal, as usual...

[me=Egeides]yawns after this public computer that wont give him back what he had written and presses ctrl-a + c before posting[/me]

[TMA_1]

though you have a lot of good points, I really think this is all just semantics.

Though your terms are correct, most "fans" dont look at themselves as fanatics. They just use the term fan because over the years the vernaculer term "fan" has evolved from its original meaning, see what I am getting at?

I think frank herbert is right (and I have problems with this at imes) that Dune shouldnt be taken too seriously. He was just a traveling minstrel of sorts, trying to bring happiness to the masses with his good storytelling.

[SpiceGuid]

If one thinks Dune has a political or religious usage, then he is a Dune fanatic.

Otherwise, i agree with TMA, you are a Dune fan and you feel better with a different appellation that adds a little cachet.

The problem though with serious terms such as "Dune Historian" is they ressemble fanatism.

[Egeides]

If one thinks Dune has a political or religious usage, then he is a Dune fanatic.

Otherwise, i agree with TMA, you are a Dune fan and you feel better with a different appellation that adds a little cachet.

The problem though with serious terms such as "Dune Historian" is they ressemble fanatism.

I am not really discussing the etimology of the word "fan" here, but instead I was puting out what I see as the difference between the "fan" being defined as romantically inclined perception, and "fan" (or whattever other word) in a very different but subtle way. It is only the the first part that I consider as somethign to be careful with. Besides, as TMA mentioned, Herbert said himself seemed to make a difference.

Seconly, I don't see why seeing Dune as a book having political and religious relevance into reality would make anyone fanatic: it's just like 1984 or Brave New World.

Lastly, I think that the cachet can go to the garbage and we still can have a problem considering ourselves part of the "groupish" and romantic aspect of the word.

[nemafakei]

I find myself drawn to things precisely because of the educational content - Dune, 1984, and Brave New World being prime examples of books full of insight.

But if I had the choice between a new copy of Dune and an original copy, I couldn't care either way. This, I think, is one way of deciding whether or not inerest is fanatical.

[SpiceGuid]

Lastly, I think that the cachet can go to the garbage and we still can have a problem considering ourselves part of the "groupish" and romantic aspect of the word.

Does "the faithfuls" precisely designate this fan group?

[Egeides]

I am not sure about what you mean as "the faithful". If you mean someone believing in something by thinking that it is showing itself as true and perfect without any need of arguments, then I think we are talking of the same aspect.

But I insist: It isn't "bad" in itself. It's just one way to get further, to get to better, as anything else. But I think we have to constantly try to get better.

[SpiceGuid]

actually it's rather a good think, i think Dune without "long live the fighters" would be like Star Wars without "use the force Luke".

we need any fan, even simple minded ones bragging about their kill counts.

want i don't completely understand is why you want a specific category for people investigating the novels, it seems a bit elitist to me.

[Egeides]

Whatta...? Please, quote me saying that I "want a specific category for people investigating the novels". I do not see where what I wrote implied this.

[SpiceGuid]

Lastly, I think that the cachet can go to the garbage and we still can have a problem considering ourselves part of the "groupish" and romantic aspect of the word.

either this means being identified as a "Dune fan" is not satisfying to you, and your problem is solved by "Dune learners", a new category that identifies you better, otherwise i am not native english and i do over-interpretation (then let me apologize).

EDIT: many Dune fans explicit their allegiance, being Atriedes-fans, Harkonnen-fans, Fremen-fans, Sardaukar-fans, Alia-fans or LetoII-haters. thus being on the more neutral side of "history" already makes you and me somewhat special, i assume no specific name is needed for that.

[Egeides]

I did not really spoke about my psychological state towards Dune and the ethimology of "fan". I even tried to limit the discussion to the different ways to perceive Dune and lurn from it INSTEAD of getting stuck in whether the word "fan" should be attached to this or that definition. It could be called "bobetten" and it would still be the same concept that I would talk about.

I do not think that to believe that a certain view is wrong necessarily means I declare myself superior. I can disagree with someone without making him inferior, and I shouldn't have to say 6 times that he's not inferior to get the right to discuss the issue. Also, I was not discussing about my psychological state but about the following issue: How can Dune be perceived and what are the consequences? It is possible to disagree with someone without being because of a psychological problem. And even if I would discuss the issue because of an Oedipe complex, it is irrelevant to the debate.

For some reason, when I discuss certain things, some are supposing that it NECESSARILY means I think this or that. Thus, certain things can't be discussed without bowing three times and making excuses in advance to reasure everyone that you do not imply what some think you necessarily imply.

HECK!!! Don't wonder why I get mixed up about how human relations work after that :O

Anyway, now for (ironic but hopefully understandable) formalities:

The author of this text does not believe that acting in a lr having different opinions makes someone inferior, and does not imply so. If any ideas are provocative by implying that someone else may be wrong, please accept his sincere apologies. For more details, contact my attorney which accepts more easily to pass all his time on form instead of content.

Did I pass my message? I do not see why I couldn't disagree with what I consider being a romantic perception of Dune. There are many nuances to the problematic (most not seen I guess), and THIS was what I wished to debate.

Cheers!!!

The very controversial Egeides, in hope to be understood correctly

PS: How come Frank H. was able to say the same thing without being lynched??

[SpiceGuid]

Please accept my sincere apologies, i have misunderstood you from the start.

I hope i am on-topic now.

Personnally i have some impossibility to separate the romantism and the learning. I mean Dune is grounded in memory, thus i can't distinct the learning and the perception. The fact that the perception is not direct, but though FH words, adds a reconstruction level, the feelings i remember are not mine but FH feelings, thus simulating a "second memory" effect.

The reason why Paul becomes Muadib is not because he learns about the desert, it is more because he forgets about Caladan. He values the absence (of Caladan/water), he is a romantic. If you are not a romantic then you value only the presence. Then what counts is the most important presence. Important people. Drugs. Gods. Would the fremens forget about spice/messiah/god-worm they would be liberated.

Certainly the CoD miniseries put too much emphasis on ecology, whereas the main topic should be self-disempowerment. Yet, i think the CoD miniseries are still excellent, Dune can't really be separated from the environment. Later in the novels FH has a really good idea: he replaces Dune with space, another sort of desert, Dune novels could not make sense in a world of abundance.

You can't learn Dune, you have to experience it. Then, only later can you make the lesson independant of the experience. The experience is the main part. Whatever is more than the experience is just the essence of the experience. A sort of experience compression. You consider your experience as an object and you invent a prototype for this object. And this prototype becomes a new object that you experience. This is abstract, elegant and gratifying. Nevertheless i feel it's the same Dune-fetish, whatever i love i can't escape the fetish.

[Egeides]

Np, It's not the first time I am misunderstood like this anyway :P

[i'll answer more in dertail later: exams and tight schedule coming]

[Caid Ivik]

I can honestly say I am only a fan of Dune. It is a perfect fiction book, with elements you can think of and some which simply force you to love it. Such books are rare things and I think it is rather daring to analyse it why. There are more such perfect books, ie Neuromancer or Father Goriot, where you feel the story on your skin. Of course these books are made by literal giants, who show you their wise spirit on every page. However, learning is also a form of entertainment, and it was written primarily to entertain us.

Books, which want to teach us, don't have to use sci-fi stories. I wasn't reading Dune for it, tough it could have some such influence as side effect. If I want to learn, I rather take Schopenhauer or Eckhard...

I would leave to fiction only entertaiment like you have here ;)

[hide]The Anti-hero - It goes without saying that you are generally misunderstood. Though it may be said that you sometimes have trouble understanding yourself. You have your own reasons for doing what you do, your own views of what is wrong and what is right. However, you somehow manage to help those around you more than you realize. You're such a "bad ass", but people love you for it![/hide]

[SpiceGuid]

@caid

I also have mixed feelings. Sometimes i feel Dune is indeed the perfect fiction book and delivers all and everything. But sometimes i feel Frank Herbert is like Muadib, he is trapped in his own vision. The reader wants more Dune, may be more than Herbert can deliver, the result is a sort of meta-circularity syndrome, the Dune world is closed and is only capable of self-reference, the Dune-fetish predates the fiction. The hyper-conscious fails to create an hyper-signifiant. Or may be i am just over-exposed and need a relapse. The greatest SF of all times anyway...

[Caid Ivik]

Dune is a whole universe. It is natural for human, such sehnsucht to explore it. Genius of Herbert was that he could create an interesting universe and yet put a great story and thoughts on it. To create a universe isn't hard, however to put logic and culture into it is. Star Wars, Battletech or Foundation universes are also comparable to Dune in complexity, however when you read a story based on it, it usually has many flaws, as it seems the universe and story were made autonomously. They look artificial. Dune is living.

However, many perfect sci-fi books need no such definition of universe. For example Lem. And you see, without Dune, Lem would be best with anyone of his books.

[SpiceGuid]

I have to admit however, i have read no other SF than Dune, not even Foundation :-[

Usually i consider SF as a background for video games like StarCraft, but Dune is apart.

[Caid Ivik]

Take it from the better side: enjoyment of discovering still awaits you  ;D