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.
If that's your hang-up, I guess I would call it more sci-fi than fantasy, the latter in my mind being stuff like Hobbit/Rings etc, mystical lands/creatures like elves, orcs, what have you.
As for the spice, while I haven't ever given the matter much thought, it's not necessarily a contradiction, in that they may well have developed interstellar travel by means of computer before they were banned, then phased them out so only the Navigators can do it.
Which is an interesting line to think about - eliminating computers is mentioned almost in passing, and you think kind of like "probably for a good reason" (maybe it's explained more and I forgot, but either way)(good reason like everyone tracked or something) when in reality it may well have been done to shut down the proles having the power of them - including travel. Basically this one move would easily concentrate abilities for the elites.
Imagine if we didn't have the internet for communication right now...or gas cars....
Actually, it was after the 4th book where I felt like I was looking forward to the series end. You may have a point, and I don't expect I'll read it again.
Star Wars was one that I loved when they came out, it wasn't until I pushed my wife to watch the series with me, where I realized the movies really aren't good. There are so many things that you just have to 'take for granted' and I wound up explaining to my wife. Battle Star: Galactica, for comparison, is sci-fi, with some fantastical elements, but my wife was engaged with the people, the stories, the battles.
Huh. I've wondered about this. I've only read the first one because of a) the fact he intended it originally and for many years to stand on its own and b) mixed reports after it. So 1/3 make a full story without knowing what goes on in 2?
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.
If that's your hang-up, I guess I would call it more sci-fi than fantasy, the latter in my mind being stuff like Hobbit/Rings etc, mystical lands/creatures like elves, orcs, what have you.
As for the spice, while I haven't ever given the matter much thought, it's not necessarily a contradiction, in that they may well have developed interstellar travel by means of computer before they were banned, then phased them out so only the Navigators can do it.
Which is an interesting line to think about - eliminating computers is mentioned almost in passing, and you think kind of like "probably for a good reason" (maybe it's explained more and I forgot, but either way)(good reason like everyone tracked or something) when in reality it may well have been done to shut down the proles having the power of them - including travel. Basically this one move would easily concentrate abilities for the elites.
Imagine if we didn't have the internet for communication right now...or gas cars....
The first and third books are excellent. They make a complete story. If you liked the first one, by all means pick up the third one.
George Lucas said that Dune had an influence on the original Star Wars, and I can see that.
Actually, it was after the 4th book where I felt like I was looking forward to the series end. You may have a point, and I don't expect I'll read it again.
Star Wars was one that I loved when they came out, it wasn't until I pushed my wife to watch the series with me, where I realized the movies really aren't good. There are so many things that you just have to 'take for granted' and I wound up explaining to my wife. Battle Star: Galactica, for comparison, is sci-fi, with some fantastical elements, but my wife was engaged with the people, the stories, the battles.
Huh. I've wondered about this. I've only read the first one because of a) the fact he intended it originally and for many years to stand on its own and b) mixed reports after it. So 1/3 make a full story without knowing what goes on in 2?