Talk:Destination: Void

The third paragraph talks about "brains" and "brain" alternately, leading to confusion. 72.199.225.63 11:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't like this when I came to edit it; anyway have now clarifed to OMC for consistency Lessthanideal 23:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What changes went into the 1978 revision?

For my edits I've referred to the 1966 original version of the book. I've corrected some inaccuracies comparing against that text and hopefully clarified some things. If this is now wrong compared to the 1978 later version, or if that version is significantly different anyway, perhaps another section summarising the changes would be useful. (I looked for but wasn't able to find a description of exactly how it was revised.)

I also removed details that only become apparent in the later books in the series, e.g. the full name of the clone being "Raja Lon Flattery". It seems to me that the first book is distinct from the later volumes and was not originally written as the start of a series, and that therefore these details would be more appropriately added to the The Jesus Incident page. (If they're worth it - surely this middle name fact is not very important and can be left out, unless it has some significance I've missed?)

I've no evidence that Herbert didn't always plan a series, but I think treating the first book as just part of the series gives a false impression given that

. This book is a complete story, while the later three hang together as a three part story.

. The other three have a different style of writing similar to other later work of Herbert's, e.g. separate chapters starting with quotes.

. Presumably he revised it in 1978 because he decided then to add to the series. (Can anyone verify or refute this?)

Lessthanideal 23:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The middle name Lon means that the individual is a clone, so Raja Lon Flattery would be a clone of the original Raja Flattery. A main plot point in "Jesus" is that the bad guy's self-esteem and claim to legitimacy hinges on being an original, and then (SPOILER) this lady discovers that Lon is his middle name. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:DD79:F766:567C:FB98 (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I would agree that a section summarizing changes would be justified. I just finished reading the 1966 version, but it's been a while since I read the 1978 version. There were some big differences, but I wouldn't be able to catalog all of them.

--98.247.142.237 (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A = A

Destination: Void (1966) is the first science fiction novel set in the Destination: Void universe

Recursive much, Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.16.176 (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, It may seem like it's recursive and an obvious sentence. 

But since Destination: Void (the novel) and Destination: Void (the series) are two different things, t hat happen to have the same name, there's no other way to say it. Like you would say Dune book set in the Dune universe.

How is that recursive? People who want to use big words should make sure they know what these big words mean! Destination:Void the novel and Destination: Void the universe are obviously two different things.

--98.247.142.237 (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but the logical puzzle posed by OP really does exist: the DV universe would be whatever is described as such in the first DV book (so the definition of the universe depends on that of the book), and the first DV book would be whatever book was the first to be set in the DV universe (so the definition of the book depends on that of the universe). This circularity is real! However, the book is an actual thing defined contingently by other means ("there once was this guy Frank Herbert and he wrote this book...") whereas the universe is a fictional thing wholly defined by whatever this particular book describes it to be.

So the resolution of the puzzle comes down to "X is the Y set in Z" which has the pattern of a definitional phrase, when it is merely the statement of a contingent fact. You could have a real debate about whether articles should open on sentences of this type (it does not bother me, but I can see why OP thought it was strange). 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:DD79:F766:567C:FB98 (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)