If you change "spice" to "oil" and then try to figure out who is being represented by the different political factions, it makes it a bit more interesting.
I know. I've only heard positive things about the books and why they don't translate well to movies (and that much I get, so much internal thought processes that the only real solution would be excessive narration).
Thing is, I think the story is actually quite good, especially for science fiction. We can disagree which is fine, but I think besides the story/plot there's really good character development as Paul realizes his role in all this (I have only read the first book mind you, so this is only about that book). In my view, it's got everything a good novel should have, in addition to all the political/etc observations.
I guess I should ask, what parts of the story don't hold up to scrutiny?
Keep in mind, I'm saying it's a good story that's talked about like it's great... like a 7/10 instead of a 9-10/10.
What it ultimately comes down to is that people talk about it as science fiction, where it's much better described as a fantasy story set in a futuristic civilization. The big one I mentioned already was that the interstellar civilization only survives because of spice, spice can only be obtained on Arakis, but they can't get to it without the spice, which itself doesn't hurt the plot, but it's small details that I hesitate to try and cite specifics because, as a fantasy, the 'rules' are generally more flexible.
Also, the way they are treated as a series, but aside from the first two the stories are really only connected in the sense that they are set in the same 'universe'. I should have stopped at the first book.
The political intrigue and internal monologs are the only good parts of the books.
The overall story is good, but only if you don't really scrutinize much of any of it.
If you change "spice" to "oil" and then try to figure out who is being represented by the different political factions, it makes it a bit more interesting.
That's your opinion, and one that is definitely against the wind in terms of Dune's quality.
No one should ever be afraid to field an opinion that goes against the wind,
I was trying to be tactful about my opinion of his opinion.
No shit, it’s his opinion. That’s why he said it.
Glad you're still around, Bill.
Smoochies, buddy
I know. I've only heard positive things about the books and why they don't translate well to movies (and that much I get, so much internal thought processes that the only real solution would be excessive narration).
Thing is, I think the story is actually quite good, especially for science fiction. We can disagree which is fine, but I think besides the story/plot there's really good character development as Paul realizes his role in all this (I have only read the first book mind you, so this is only about that book). In my view, it's got everything a good novel should have, in addition to all the political/etc observations.
I guess I should ask, what parts of the story don't hold up to scrutiny?
Keep in mind, I'm saying it's a good story that's talked about like it's great... like a 7/10 instead of a 9-10/10.
What it ultimately comes down to is that people talk about it as science fiction, where it's much better described as a fantasy story set in a futuristic civilization. The big one I mentioned already was that the interstellar civilization only survives because of spice, spice can only be obtained on Arakis, but they can't get to it without the spice, which itself doesn't hurt the plot, but it's small details that I hesitate to try and cite specifics because, as a fantasy, the 'rules' are generally more flexible.
Also, the way they are treated as a series, but aside from the first two the stories are really only connected in the sense that they are set in the same 'universe'. I should have stopped at the first book.