SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Dune is pretty much my favourite series ever. It does go a bit weird around God Emperor (which I really didn't enjoy on first reading) but it has everything I want in a world: political machinations, ecology and culture, believably flawed characters... I could go on all day but I won't. I'd suggest getting it out of the library and reading the first couple of chapters. You'll either love it or you won't, pretty quickly.

Rachel

I read Dune when it was first serialized in Analog, but I don't remember being blown away by it one way or the other. Probably just not my thing--science fiction has an awfully lot of sub-genres.

I liked Dune but can easily see how it isn't everyone's cup of tea. You'll know by the end whether you have any desire to read any of the other books in the series to find out what happened next. If you're like me, you'll regard the recent B Herbert/Anderson works as rather ridiculous pastiche work.

Kevin wrote: "A lot of people I know could not get pass how complex the first few pages were."

Sounds like a really good barometer for whether you should continue to know those people ...

I couldn't believe that they would find it complex myself. What were they reading, only cartoons? LOL

Don't diss the cartoons. I've read graphic novels more complex than Dune. ;)

I meant cartoons, cartoons, as in the Sundays. Otherwise, I would have called them graphic novels. Yep, there is a difference.

Ah, I see. You mean the funnies.

(Of course, I also still think "graphic novels" is just a pretentious way of saying comics - but I do understand wanting to differentiate.)

I also purposely did not use the word "comics" since that is a more general term. I should have used the word "funnies" instead of "cartoons", but it was a split second thinking. You judge for yourself, but here is a link to the terminologies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_v...

Comics:
"The plural of comic is typically used as a singular (as "politics" is) to refer to the entire medium or industry. Hence "comics industry" or "comics creators." This is usually employed to avoid the unintentional consequences of using the adjective "comic," which implies comedic content. (For example, "the comic industry" might be misinterpreted as meaning "an industry that is funny," while "the comics industry" can mean only "the industry that creates comic books.")"[1]

Graphic novel ("GN"), OGN
The term "Graphic novel" (simply put a novel conveyed in pictures) is:
"Used to describe the specific format of a comic book that has greater production values and longer narrative."[7]
The term became popularised when titles such as Dark Knight Returns, Maus and Watchmen began to break into the (non-comics) "mainstream," and from that point forwards has been more-or-less conflated and confused (erroneously) with trade paperback.
For that reason, the qualifying "Original" (hence "OGN") is often added to the front of the term when describing a story told through the medium of comics which debuts in the higher-production-values (increasingly as a hardback, almost-always with a spine) format:
"The graphic novel is more like a traditional novel, in that it is published on an independent schedule. It is longer in format than a periodical and typically contains a complete story unto itself. Graphic novels usually have higher production values than the typical stanpled comic book; they may be squarebound, for example, with cardstock covers. Some may be hardcover volumes. Although a graphic novel usually stands on its own as a complete story, it is possible to have an ongoing series or limited series of graphic novels telling a single story or series of related stories. A typical abbreviation in the industry for graphic novel is "GN," usually used as part of a title to indicate to a reader or browser that the title in question is not a periodical."[7]
The term OGN is "[a]n abbreviation for original graphic novel, often used to differentiate a graphic novel that contains a wholly new story from a trade paperback."[6]

For cartoon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon

stormhawk wrote: "Kevin wrote: "A lot of people I know could not get pass how complex the first few pages were."

Sounds like a really good barometer for whether you should continue to know those people ..."

Can't judge someone like that.

Funnily enough, I'm actually able to get to wikipedia on my own, and have already perused all of the articles relating to the issue, being as I read 'graphic novels' myself. And while I'm familiar with the history and rationale of the term, this has not really changed my opinion that it generally sounds pretentious and that it's, by-and-large, used to refer to comic books by people who don't want to be associated with the stigma of reading comic books.

But, since using wiki-links is so much easier than formualting our own responses, perhaps reading the Criticism of the Term under the article for graphic novel will give you a better understanding of where I'm coming from.

Sherri, why not?

I prefer the term "graphic novel" to differentiate the form of comics that is longer and has an in depth story to it, since there are so many form of comics. Just because some gather a collection of comics and bound them together doesn't take away the fact that the term does help to identify the type.

Sherri wrote: "Now there's a question that might seem simple -- should you read a book just to find out your reaction to it? Not to enjoy it or hate it or be changed by it (unless, of course, you are) but just to see what it does? "

Sure. I've read a few books just out of curiosity - mostly books that I wouldn't have picked up on my own that get talked about a lot, so I just want to see what I think of it after reading it.

But I think there has to be that level of curiosity. I wouldn't recommend someone read something just because other people think you should if you don't have that little glimmer of curiosity in the back of your head. Otherwise it'll feel like a chore - and I've suffered through enough of those to know I don't want to do it again.

Aloha wrote: "I prefer the term "graphic novel" to differentiate the form of comics that is longer and has an in depth story to it, since there are so many form of comics. Just because some gather a collection ..."

Fair enough. As I said: "...I do understand wanting to differentiate."

Sherri, that is a personal choice whether one wants to read a book only to find out one's reaction. I read The Bighead because it received so many strong reactions, whether it's of absolute disgust or so disgusting it's funny. I'm glad I read it because it was a memorable book. And I was one of those who find it so disgusting that it was funny.

Sherri, is there even a criteria when it comes to people's personal reading choices? Personal criterias differ with individuals, hence it's a personal choice. As far as using criterias for judging people's reading choices, nobody should care about what others think about what they're reading. Unless it's for a class, reading should be for personal reasons, whether it's for enjoyment, other's recommendations, or pure curiosity.

Sherri, are you talking about research into people's personal criterias. I'm sure research must have been conducted into people's reading choices.

Sigh. I'm in the very, VERY small "I don't like Dune" camp. I think there are about four of us in this group. Heh. To me it was too much like reading a history book. It never caught my attention... never enthralled me. I felt like I was reading dry descriptions of events that happened ages ago, and while that can be interesting if it's referring to events that happened in the real world, in a sci-fi or fantasy setting it just doesn't do it for me.

John wrote: "Sigh. I'm in the very, VERY small "I don't like Dune" camp. I think there are about four of us in this group. Heh. To me it was too much like reading a history book. It never caught my attention......"

I felt the same way about it, although I was about 15 when I read it. Especially the history-book part. It seems like a book that you have to pay close attention to or you'll get confused, and I definitely got confused. I think I'll wait a few more years then try again, since 17 isn't really much of a difference hah.

I was 16 when i first read it and i loved it. So it depends on the person.

I have a mental block against it. I want to have read it, but every time I try to do the actual reading, it shuts me down. I tried again last month after a gap of ten years or so, but I still couldn't get past the first couple of chapters. Maybe I'll try again in another ten years.

I had the same trouble with the first few chapters. Then I took the book to read while I was waiting to see my doctor. The receptionist told me how much she and her husband had loved it, my doctor told me how much he loved it, as did the bus driver. Not only is it the best way I've ever found to spot the hidden sci fi fans out there, but I've kept reading it, and I'm really enjoying it!

John wrote: "Sigh. I'm in the very, VERY small "I don't like Dune" camp. I think there are about four of us in this group. Heh. To me it was too much like reading a history book. It never caught my attention......"

I understand about the history book aspect. Though that's one of the things I found appealing. A quote introducing the chapter, with a retrospective view, followed by live action.

History and sci-fi in one book for me is excellent. But it's definitely a personal taste.

Definitely.

I just reread the original trilogy a couple years ago and was thrilled to find it just as engrossing as when I first read it in my teens. The clarity and hallucinatory brilliance of Herbert's vision is almost without compare. Just wonderful.

One of the problems a new reader might have coming to Dune for the first time is that the book has influenced so many sci-fi stories - and movies (without Dune, there would be no Star Wars) - that some of the ideas might seem like cliches, when in fact the book was the originator of those sci-fi tropes that have since become cliches.

Having said that, Dune Messiah, the second of the Dune Trilogy is my secret favorite. I can't really justify it. The original/first Dune is, by far, the better book, but something about the intrigue and the political disintegration in Dune Messiah really hits my sweet spot.

I loved book two as well. Though the original Dune goes on my list of all time great books, I found Messiah fascinating. For me, I think it was the situation with Duncan that really gripped me. It still stands out in my memory, at least. . . its been awhile. ;-)
~Frances

Yes, Frances! And Alia's becoming a powerful, dangerous, fascinating character. And Paul's disintegration. So many great elements - like a Greek tragedy!

Dune is one of 'those' classics that should be read by anyone that really is interested in Science Fiction & Fantasy. You don't have to read the entire series (although you would be missing out big time!), Dune is a great book with a LOT of depth and a rich environment.
True, it DOES get somewhat pendantic at times, but it's well worth it to plow through and read it all.

I came in contact wiht Dune through the computer games 1st. Then I saw the movie. Loved it!!!

But for some misterious reason I never got around to reading the book.

It's been on my "to-read" list for eons but it keeps getting bypassed by others.

That does it. I just jolted myself to make Dune my next purchase.

Muad'dib!!! (wrecks the computer screen) Oooops.

P.S.: I love the way the word "melange" rolls off the tonge. Melange. C'mon say it. Melange.

Melange, yeah it does sound cool, kind of french.

Melange. Sounds good. I prefer the words "Bene Gesserit". I think I was hooked on Dune because of those witches.

Just dound out there is a new dune book coming out, The Sisterhood of Dune, not really thinking that it is going to be any good, just look at the last few books.

I'm still stuck on the 2nd book. Can't...get...past...it...

Yes!!!

Yes. Read Dune. Do yourself a huge favor and take your time with it, enjoy the nuances of character and plot, the complexities of language and imaginative cultural constructs. It's like wine or a good scotch, sometimes it's bitter or burns, but after a while, there's nothing that can take its place.

Funny, I think Dune is more like a nice gourmet meal at a 5 star restaurant.

@ Aloha - A better analogy. I meant simply that Dune is layered, complex and sophisticated (like a good scotch). But yes, it's best enjoyed over several courses...

On the other hand, Eric, your analogy is better. Dune does go to your head after a few sips.

Yes, do read it, the first one at least. It's incredible and complex, the universe it's created in is vivid and original.

Hey, Marisella! You're here? Now you know where I've disappeared to.

Just avoid the books written recently by his son Jason Herbert and Kevin Anderson (in my opinion).

Noted, Eric. That seems to be the general opinion here.

Its Brian first, so true, the Dune books are just fine the way they are, most of their book are a waste of time that does not need, if Frank wanted that much he would have written it.

I remember reading DUne as a teenager and then passing it on to my younger brothers and sisters...they were probably too young for it but appreciated it anyway.
When the new series by his son came out I did read the first one. My feeling was it was no Dune, but the factual outline, being a prequel to Dune, was very interesting to me. I dont think I went on to the 2nd one though.

Kevin wrote: "Its Brian first, so true, the Dune books are just fine the way they are, most of their book are a waste of time that does not need, if Frank wanted that much he would have written it."

Except for that minor issue he had with....dying.

Chris wrote: "Kevin wrote: "Its Brian first, so true, the Dune books are just fine the way they are, most of their book are a waste of time that does not need, if Frank wanted that much he would have written it...."

Huh, come again?

Just saying that death might have slowed his plans down a bit.

O_o

lol, Chris...

And now I feel dirty for laughing.