Jump to content

Butlers, Harkonnens, and Corrino's: That's a huge mistake (spoiler for BoC)


Mahdi

Recommended Posts

At the end of the Battle of Corrin Faykan Butler assumes the name Corrino.

In Dune it is stated that, yes, the Emperor did take his families name from the battle.

The Butlers are actually Harkonnens who adopted the Butler name

In Dune it is expressley stated that the Harkonnens came to power through wealth and tyranny, and that they had absolutely no blood ties to the throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recieved an answer to this post from Brian Herbert himself. This is exactly how it reads...

________________________

Well, you see in the timeline of Dune, history was muddled and distorted. So really everything frank wrote was either mistaken or purposely incorrect! That is why the inconsistancies are there. I always use backdoors to fill up the dappled series of the books me and kevin created.

Now with my next trick, I will attempt pull more unchecked words out of my ass!!

~~Brian Herbert

________________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, I don't mind inconsistencies, they are going to happen no matter what.  Easily forgiven.  Herbert Sr. made more than a few in the original novels (within the same novel itself often) but, it's the "explanations" given at the very end of the book are what discourage me.  The fact that they had to spend two cahpters jsut trying to explain away those differences means they knew what they were doing was wrong, but did it anyway, and then tried to explain them away half-assedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well you can feel that way about inconsistancies Mahdi, but there comes a point in time when the inconsistancies actually distract you from enjoying a book. Not only this but you are also right about explanations as well as creations.

as I have said many times before, just look at the Cymeks... I mean if you want to make Dune into every other carbon copy sci fi book, then you are going the right direction making a silly creation like that. Just my opinion, but still I cant help but say that.

I dont even need to mention other things that gripe me like House Vernius...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

________________________

Well, you see in the timeline of Dune, history was muddled and distorted. So really everything frank wrote was either mistaken or purposely incorrect! That is why the inconsistancies are there. I always use backdoors to fill up the dappled series of the books me and kevin created.

Now with my next trick, I will attempt pull more unchecked words out of my ass!!

~~Brian Herbert

________________________

I always use backdoors to fill up the dappled series of the books me and kevin created.

the books me and kevin created.

me and kevin

Holy mother of green smelly poo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first trio of prequels are pretty good, but from what I read of the butlerian jihad books, it has just gone too far. That is what my silly (probably stupid) joke was all about. Brian and Kevin really dont listen to fans. I am not trying to be a jerk to just attack them. I am just saying that they really have screwed up parts of the dune universe in my opinion. They are entertaining, but if you like the Dune series, than you kinda have to part ways  with the prequels at times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Brian and Kevin really dont listen to fans"

Of course they don't.  They shouldn't.  Imagine how crappy the books would be if they said "Ok you ten million Dune fans, tell us what to write!"  No author, director, producer, muscian, painter, photographer, artist of any kind says to there fans "You tell me what to do, and I'll do it". 

There's a reason why corporate "artistic" projects, be they music, film, TV, or witing, suck.  Twenty people sitting in a boardroom combining all there great idea's into one bland melbatoast product.  Imagine what we'd get with two million people writing the Dune novels.  Convoluted, disjointed crap.

Our great works are usually made by one or two people with a defining vision.  Did Frank Herbert ask people how they wanted his Dune sequels to play out?  No, he wrote them the way he wanted to.  It's the same for any artistic endevour.  Recently a TV writer/producer (who was story editor on the last eleven episodes of Charlie Jade, premiering tonight) posted on this very subject:

A little Python off the top to give you a bit of the idea of the tone I'm going for here. I'm also not going to use any of these damnable smileys well, because I'm not ten, and I just don't like them.

[spoilers for Doctor Who new series below, if you've lived in a cave recently but somehow have cable.]

Okay.

There are threads further down that talk in some Ve-r-r-r-y interesting terms about the powers that BBC having their hands caught in the cookie jar about a decision to announce that Chris Eccleson was moving on after the first Dr Who series. Apparently, they blabbed it. They weren't supposed to - that was their agreement, and they put the blame on him in the process.

Now I can add a peanut butter splash of speculation to this bread, but it's only that. Russel Davies worked with Chris before, on Second Coming. I think in light of these articles one has at least to consider the possiblity that Eccleston (or however you spell his name) signed on only for the one series, and always only for the one series. And that was known from fairly early on, and AGREED TO. I can see people making that deal to restart a franchise that wasn't a sure thing, and to take it in a bold direction. In which case, leaking his leaving to the tabs was pretty much screwing him proper. But that's all speculation.

What isn't speculation is this: as other people in that other thread (The Former Doctor Who) have pointed out, all hell has broken loose in fandom...sigh...again. Chris Eccleson should be getting his first shipment of boiled bunnies any time now.

And this behavior, sadly, *does* reinforce the image of a lot of Sci fi fans as ... looneys. And if I was a certain type of actor I might be... reluctant .. to take on that freight.

Especially since, in the end, it doesn't matter that the fans are almost always wrong.

(Oh Denis, oh snap, you're so evil, I need my smelling salts.)

But let's look at history, shall we? Not the rewritten, rose colored glass kind -- but the real history.

In the real Sci Fi history -- Blade Runner was a flop when it came out. People were violently opposed to Star Trek: The Next Generation. Complained voiciferously about how Patrick Stewart was terrible and no Kirk, how Data was warmed over Spock. The X-Files started out with horribly low ratings. People mocked Buffy the Vampire Slayer and said it would never work as a series; it looked cheap, Sarah Michelle Gellar was bad; the rest of the cast was weak. Babylon 5 was a cheap Star Trek knock off - and depending on who you talked to, either sucked because it was ripping off Star Trek, or DS9 sucked because it ripped off B5. (When in truth, they were both just sci fi shows, and at times, damn good ones. And in the end very different.) Taking this into the present, the BSG remake was going to suck, Edward James Olmos was going to be bad and deserved hate mail. So did Katee Sackhoff, and James Callis was no John Colicos as Baltar. Just for good measure? The Ring was going to suck and not be anywhere as good as Ringu....and on, and on, and on.

What all of these things have in common is that snap judgements that were made by overactive, hyper critical fans turned out to be...piffle. You're going to find very few people today who will admit that they hated Blade Runner when it came out. You'll find very few people who'll say that Patrick Stewart sucks in the Role of Picard. But that doesn't mean that that wasn't a major, major opinion block at the time.

I honestly think that fans of this genre are very quick to judge, and too quick, in fact, to pre-judge. And once they pre-judge, they're deathly slow to ever admit, "hey, you know what? I was wrong! That's actually pretty cool."

It's way easier to sniff at shows that you loved that got sh*t canned maybe before they should have. And rail against "stupid network people" who don't get it.

But on balance, what's to get, when so many self-proclaimed "fans" don't get it themselves? Far from the comforts of history and feeling, like Religious Republicans in the US who manage to control the whole government and still think they're under a state of siege, I think a lot of fans would do well to look at your own series of reactions, pre-reactions, and hasty judgements and ask, if in fact, your line of thinking is the best thing for the genre as a whole. Is it going to get you more shows you like? If you insist on eating your young before they're birthed, then how do really, honestly expect to keep creative, sensitive people putting out for you?

I would point to Katee Sackhoff. I think a plurality of reasonable people think that she's doing a pretty good job, on balance, in the new BSG. But even when you read her statements in the press acknowledging that fans are starting to come around, there's still a lot of scar and hurt there from getting a rough ride before you had any right to judge her for anything.

Years from now, she may have done eight seasons as Starbuck. And it may be a very successful rich experience for her -- but there will always be that part of her that will remember that she was treated cruelly before she ever had a chance to prove herself.

And it's fans that did that. Fans of a genre that like to think that somehow they're unappreciated or discounted.

Now Eccleson's burned in effigy and maybe it wasn't even the poor bloke's fault.

Something to think about, if you have the guts to actually give it a good mulling over.

But don't feel *too* bad (like that's even possible)

Remember that even Anne Rice, bigshot author, had to eat crow after Interview With The Vampire -- going on record in an ugly and public way slamming Cruise for playing Lestat before he played the role, and then voiceferously recanting after she saw his performance.

The difference is: she did it. She admitted it.

But maybe if some weren't quite so ... ugly .. in their criticism at the sight unseen stage, there wouldn't be so much ..."Comic Book Guy Worthy" lunacy to dial yourself back from.

After all -- yes, I hated Jar Jar too. But I also saw the 10 year olds who loved him.

Fan is one thing. Good. Fanatic, another. Bad.

DMc

Ron Moore, who made the new BSG, and Bonnie Hammer said this in a recent interview:

Ron Moore, Exec Producer, Battlestar Galactica and Bonnie Hammer, President, Sci-Fi Channel (USA) interviewed on KCRW's "The Business" - April 12

First part of the interview revealed that SciFi's BSG by their standards consider the show a huge hit. 3 million neighborhood of viewers a week, and better, gold demographics for the station. Plus critical acclaim, and the fact that evidence shows a lot of those viewers are 'drama' fans and not necessarily Sci-Fi fans.

At the end of the interview talk turned to Fans and how much you should listen to them, or follow your own vision.

Ronald Moore:

The lesson you learn is that you can't pay too close attention to it. You listen to them, you interact with them, you try to see what the fans respond to, and what they like or don't like because it's sort of telltale sign in general terms what the broader audience likes and doesn't like, but you never give over the show to them. I mean in the runup to Battlestar Galactica the miniseries coming on the air, you know I spent some time online, communicated with some of the fans, read some of the postings and things but i never allowed any of that to really change what we were doing, if I didn't think it worked. I find it a mistake to try and turn it into a democracy.

Question: Do you have to listen more closely, Bonnie? If you get 500 letters does it mean more to the Sci-fi channel than if 500 people write into CBS or NBC about something?

Bonnie Hammer:

500 letters is a day's worth of sci fi fans being happy or sad about something. We get thousands upon thousands when our fans are dissatisfied. I think what happens in success is when smart producers can hear the concerns, acknowledge the concerns rather than ignore them, but then be smart enough in how they translate whatever the franchise is, whether they make it campier or straighter, more intellectual --whatever -- but they don't either mock what came before, but can enhance what came before. And that's why I think Battlestar Galactica worked.

Question: What's the takeaway? What have you learned?

Ronald Moore:

That risk pays off. there was a lot of naysaying from sort of the some elements of the fan community, and there were doubts along the way, it was an expensive show and there were a lot of risks. But all the risks paid off

Do I think Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson should have done what the fans told them to do?

No.

I may not like the path they took, but had they tried to write a series of books on what the fans told them they wanted it would have been even worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didnt mean it like that mahdi, good grief. sometimes I think you are a bit full of yourself.

Of course brian and kevin shouldnt listen to fans, and I was wrong in how I worded what I said. Brian and Kevin are making mistakes that many of us on Fed2k would never have made, and we arent even writers! I am saying that brian and kevin are good writers, but they dont write like frank herbert. Because of this it is silly to make books that follow the Dune universe because they will be written completely differently, and with new concepts.

I happen to think that the way the prequels are written, and the concepts that are inside of them are more similar to starwars than to Dune.

Yeesh... that make more sense mahdi?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think TMA's saying they need an editor that actually knows the series to tell them "You know boys...this is crap".

Didn't burn it Namp, but I admit I never finished the first book of Butlerian Jihad, though I did the other two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well in my opinion KJA and BH are the TRUE HERITICS OF DUNE.

If I were given the choice to A) crash on a bicycle or B) read a book by those two morons......I think I'd choose A

I'm just happy I didn't read them all - I'd would destroy EVERYTHING Frank planted in my head!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I didnt mean it like that mahdi, good grief. sometimes I think you are a bit full of yourself.

Of course brian and kevin shouldnt listen to fans, and I was wrong in how I worded what I said. Brian and Kevin are making mistakes that many of us on Fed2k would never have made, and we arent even writers! I am saying that brian and kevin are good writers, but they dont write like frank herbert. Because of this it is silly to make books that follow the Dune universe because they will be written completely differently, and with new concepts.

I happen to think that the way the prequels are written, and the concepts that are inside of them are more similar to starwars than to Dune.

Yeesh... that make more sense mahdi?

Brian should never have tried to "write" anything for the Dune Universe.  Sure he's Frank's son, but I don't think genetics alone entitles him to do what he's doing.  If he had TRUE reverence for his father's work, he would have respected it and not tried to add to it.  He should have gone the route Christopher Tolkien (JRR's son obviously) went.  Rather than try to "continue" anything, he released volumes of books containing his father's unpublished writing and notes.  That's why I laugh when people accuse Brian of doing it for "the money".  Can you imagine how much money Brian would have made from publishing a volume of his father's writings and notes for each Dune book?  Maybe I'm seeing it wrong, but I just think that strategy is a lot smarter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Tolkien wrote one coherent thing, a sery of books. Then fanfiction was brought in and some made a job of it too. For daily fantasy fix, some read those.

Well the same happens here, just as the Crusaders had their true poets (and some of those poets now on paper). While some genuinely were trying to recreate and bring to the people the cannons formed by authors such as Troie or "classic" Arthurian legend, some others were troubadours and changed things at will for some job. One might be quite genuine, while another keeps only the major structure (the "brand") and puts anything in. Same structure, different content.

Why am I writing this? Not too sure, as I have the impression I just rehash and that this thing is a dead-end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tolkien wrote one coherent thing, a sery of books. Then fanfiction was brought in and some made a job of it too. For daily fantasy fix, some read those.

Well the same happens here, just as the Crusaders had their true poets (and some of those poets now on paper). While some genuinely were trying to recreate and bring to the people the cannons formed by authors such as Troie or "classic" Arthurian legend, some others were troubadours and changed things at will for some job. One might be quite genuine, while another keeps only the major structure (the "brand") and puts anything in. Same structure, different content.

Why am I writing this? Not too sure, as I have the impression I just rehash and that this thing is a dead-end.

Yeah, I wouldn't be bringing in Arthurian literature in this.  Totally different thing.  And I really wouldn't be calling Cretien "canon".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't know the dune encyclopedy very well so I don't know what they realy stated there and I don't know of al the inconsistensies between this and the prequels. But all in all I think the prequels were pretty good. Admittedly, they did do things I just wouldn't have hoped for. The story style is much like a star wars story instead of a Dune story (for example, Yorek Thurr), the evil man. I didn't realy like Norma and Zufa Cenva's super psychic powers either but it's not a huge miscreation. Perhaps something different than you would have hoped/expected. But then again, it was also difficult for me to get used to the Honored matres and their hugely sexual powers.

What does bother me though is the enormous amount of violence. The writers almost seem sadistic. Describing deaths as gruesome as possible, it is on the brink of rediculousness.

Nonetheless, I do consider the prequels canon. I liked the house trilogy and the legends of dune are pretty nice too. I liked the story of Xavier Harkonnen and Vorian Atreides. Serena was somewhat of an annoying bitch, as was Iblis Ginjo... AND HE'S A MAN!. He seemed such a good person at the start and turns into a gruesome monster, even worse than ajax.

Hecate and her asteroid was more of a creation for Star Trek, but not too bad. Strangely her role was somewhat limited as she was killed rather quickly. I found that kind of remarkable.

Ok, i'm getting of my original subject again. Anyway, I like their books. Not as good as Frank's, but I enjoy them a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am tempted to rage and criticise on the absolute awfulness of the prequels, yet again, but I've done it before and this is neither the time nor the place.

Hecate wasn't remarkable, she was an abused and under-used character, just like all of the cymeks... >:( Sore point there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I understand that the Arthurian litterature does not settle around a central author but tons of ministrels, I think that the example is still pertinent as there were trend setters (like George Lucas, FH...), then some continued with their own thing or an infinite number of "expansion packs" :P

I really don't think so.

There is no one creator in Arthurian literature, there is no George Lucas or Frank Herbert or Gene Rodenberry or Joss Whedon who created there respected universes.

Nor is there any set "canon".

You cannot say Cretien de Troyes' Knight of the Cart is canon, but Culwch and Olwen is not.

Nor can you say Geoffrey of Monmouths HRB is the original and Wace just made "expansion packs".

Or Sir Thomas Malory is the ultimate end of Arthurian literature and Mary Stewart wrote fan fiction.

There are major figures behind the Welsh and European traditions, yes, but no "George Lucas" or "Frank Herbert".  No one person who created the stories.  No one person with control over the story. 

These stories started way before such a thing was possible, came from way too many sources and traditions, and ultimately from some historical occurance (no matter how unhistorical the resultant stories became).

You don't say Jack Higgins wrote The Eagle has Landed so therefore only his world war two books are canon and every other author is simply branching out from them, adding to his "canon".

You say, sure, The Eagle has Landed and Baa Baa Black Sheep (for lack of a better book) both cover the same general story, they both cover the same general event, and you can even go so far as to say that TEHS is the "definitive", ie. best world war two book ever written and all others are measured next to it, but you don't say they are part of the same canon.  You do not say Baa Baa Black Sheep is an expansion of it.

Same thing with Arthurian literature.  HRB and Le Morte D'Arthur both cover the same general story, both cover the same general event, and you can call one or the other the "definitive" ie. best Arthur booka gainst which all others will be compared, but you don't say they are part of the same canon.  Tou do not say Le Morte D'Arthur is an expansion pack to the HRB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.

Now, what I mean is that you have the formation of a cannon, or in this case a wide cannon of "Arthurian legendS". A bit like the "cannon of science fiction", it is necessarily loosely defined, limited softly.

When this cannon is forming, some people around do not really write something from their mind or emotions, they simply are copy-cats, like some games, books, music groups are. And like some make expansions of the original thing as long as it's trendy (there is more demand for "history of USA" than "history of Swatziland" for example, while few actually were trend-setters).

I hope that I get myself understood now... I took a poor example since it originated from many sources and thus would lead to different interpretations.

[me=Egeides]flagelates himself to remember to not say general undefined things[/me]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.