Listener Feedback #7

It is that time again. Time for our Listener Feedback Show!  David, Scott and Jim read and listen to what you have sent in to us and then we give your our comments and observations.  We have a great bunch of listeners who have been sending some very insightful comments to us.  You can send your comments to us at, on our Facebook page, or by calling the voicemail number 1-260-577-2428(Chat).  We hope you enjoy hearing from us as much as we do from you.

Rate this book

1 comment

  1. In response to your thoughts about my comment on “Paul of Dune” being a betrayal of Frank Herbert’s work:

    First of all, thanks for the kind words about my bad review of the book. I’m certainly not above just blindly lashing out at a book/movie/etc., and have done so plenty of times in the past. I’ll probably continue to do it, too. (As well as the more positive version, that being the expression of blind love for things I enjoy.) But there’s a time for thoughtless expression of opinion, and there’s a time to go a little deeper; and I knew that if I was going to say anything about “Paul of Dune” to you guys — who, by doing a podcast, are exemplifying going deeper — then I had to at least have a clear argument.

    I don’t have much to add here, except to disagree with something said by . . . oh, I think it was David, but I’m not positive about that. Anyways, the implication was made that maybe in “Dune,” the written excerpts from Irulan’s work could be seen as being fictitious whereas everything else could be seen as the objective truth. Therefore, since the bit about Paul never leaving Caladan until he traveled to Arrakis appeared in one of these Irulan sections, that means it might not be truth.

    I would ask you to take a moment to consider whether there is any evidence — any whatsoever — that Frank Herbert intended that to be the case. I think you will find that there is none. What’s more, given how intensely philosophical Herbert tended to be, and given that those epigraphs were used to express so much of the core philosophies that underlie the novels, I think it’d be possible to make a case arguing that the epigraphs actually represent Herbert himself more strongly than the rest of the novel does.

    In other words, all signs point to Herbert himself intending those epigraphs to be taken as “the truth” in terms of what they are saying about the story and characters. Unless there is some hard and compelling evidence somewhere within the texts saying otherwise, then that’s the only way to read them as far as I can tell. I’m open to being proven wrong; I’m certainly not immune from getting things wrong.

    I don’t think I’m wrong about this, though. So, if I’m not, then at best, “Paul of Dune” offers contradictions. At worst, it offers a refutation of the original text, and I just can’t support that.

    I mean no offense, of course. Every reader makes his own decisions about such things, and if somebody really wants to, I guess they could pretend these novels are all sequels to “The Godfather.” I don’t know why anyone would do that, but they’d be well within their rights to do so.

    For me, though, I think it’s always important when dealing with licensed spinoffs like this to keep in mind the intent of the original creator of the world. To some extent, if “Star Trek” isn’t honoring and furthering what Gene Roddenberry was all about, then it’s not living up to the name “Star Trek.” The same goes for “Dune,” and in claiming that Paul left Caladan many, many times before traveling to Arrakis, I don’t believe Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson were honoring and furthering what Frank Herbert was all about.

    That’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it.

    As always, thanks for the podcasts!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.