Talk:Hunters of Dune/Archive 1

Archive 1

From Dune 7

Personally, I think this page should deal with ideas about the seventh book that Frank Herbert intended to write, instead on dealing about the books that Brain Herbert and Kevin Anderson are plannig to write. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.81.99.242 (talk • contribs) August 15, 2005.

Very little if anything is known about FH's intention. And unless BH will release FH's notes together with his product nothing will change. Pavel Vozenilek 21:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

But we would be remiss in not mentioning the serious doubt about the authenticity, extent, and even existence of such detailed notes. It's no great stretch to say that the materials presented have devioated signficantly from the ideas and theme Frank Herbert's original works. While some of these are minor and no different that Frank Herbert made, others are quite significant. Enough to warrant a serious questioning of how much of it is really Frank Herbert's and how much is their own creation. AM2783 17:16, 6 April 2006

If we do cover it, we'll have to link to the terrible duo's blog, since in a couple places they have discussed the fans' doubts and show pictures of the putative discs containing the notes. --maru (talk) contribs 01:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions of the authenticity of Frank Herberts's notes should definitely be included on this page. I just finished it and at least two major revelations (including who FH's myserious "Enemy" is) three characters and numerous minor points come directly from the second trilogy of prequels written by Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson (Butlerian Jihad, Machine Crusade and Battle of Corrino), which have no direct references in the original six books. It would be vaguely acceptable if they used some of the concepts they created in the prequels to tie them in, but this goes way beyond that. They haven't, as far as I know, claimed that the plot and character from the second prequel trilogy came from these notes. In fact, the end of the book would make no sense to someone who didn't read the prequels. There is little question in my mind that the notes are a fraud and, therefore, this should be included on this page. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by MatthewBrooklyn (talk • contribs) 05:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Without a citation to a reliable source it cannot be included. Your reasoning of "there is little question in my mind...therefore it should be included" is a blatant neutral point of view violation. Now, if you can find a reliable source that doubts the notes then we might be able to include, otherwise it is unverifiable. Konman72 21:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Brian Herbert/Kevin Anderson have indeed said that, knowing what Frank Herbert intended for the end of his saga (from his notes), they "seeded" their books with clues and references that would set up these future situations (like who the Unknown Enemy is and how that's possible). I'm looking for a source for this quote, but Brian touches on this in the Afterward of Dune: House Atreides. Both authors also refer to the discovery of Frank's notes and Dune 7 outline (before they started writing any of their prequels) in various interviews: Kevin says that Brian "found all these boxes that had "Dune Notes" on the side. And we used a lot of them for our House books." [1] and then spells it out further here [2]. They indicate in another interview that the notes affected their writing: "We had already started work on HOUSE ATREIDES ... then we found the outlines and notes. (This necessitated some changes, of course.)" and say of Dune 7 clues: "We’ve put all sorts of hints in our last four DUNE books! You just have to look for them." [3] I know many people think they just invented these notes and all, but come on! TAnthony 00:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read the entire series and all the prequels there is at least a genuine question regarding the authenticity of the notes. Frank Herbert was an incredibly detailed writer. The major revealations in the fifth and sixth books can all be traced to hints in the earlier books. If you read Hunters without having read the prequels, the end would literally make no sense. Several characters that only previously appeared in the prequels (two throughout the book ("the Oracle of time" and Serena Butler) and several characters whose identities are revealed at the end of the book) are either simply in the book or revealed without any explanation of who they are. If this was genuinely Herbert's vision, would it assume people read the prequels to understand who these characters are? Does this not present a genuine issue for discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewBrooklyn (talk • contribs)

I've made my case about the outline/notes below, but I did want to acknowledge that you have a good point: some of the details don't seem to have been set up in Heretics or Chapterhouse. I agree, for example, that perhaps Frank Herbert wouldn't have featured the Oracle of Time as a character in the book. But without giving away any spoiler info here, I'll ask you to go to the Wikipedia article on that character's original identity; there's a quote from God Emperor where Leto II talks about this character by name, which BH/KJA obviously used as a starting point in their work. Since FH (at the end of Chapetrhouse) obviously dangled the possibility of Paul/Jessica gholas etc. being used in the "final battle," it's a logical leap that he could have intended to somehow incorporate the Oracle, or at least that BH/KJA would think it appropriate to flesh out the story. I mean, people need to remember, Frank Herbert can't write anything else! I think we're lucky to have a resolution to his saga and other related novels that are even remotely based on his actual ideas!! OK, I'm rambling, Staecker is right, it's an encyclopedia, not a discussion board! TAnthony 17:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Where does the Oracle of Time appear in GEoD? I grepped my etext and nothing showed up. Similarly, Oracle of Time only mentions the non-FH books as sources. Are you sure you are not confusing the general term 'oracle' (often used in FH's books' discussions of prescience) for a specific character named "The Oracle of Time"? While I'm writing here, I must say it bugs me that Hunters is inconsistent with GEoD, which all but flat out states that the threat to humanity from machines was not because of some revenant from the Butlerian Jihad but from machines descended from ones created by the Ixians. --Gwern (contribs) 19:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being purposely vague to avoid a spoiler. Leto doesn't mention the Oracle, but he mentions the person who the Oracle once was, if you catch my drift! Look up that person's article and you'll see the quote to which I'm referring. TAnthony 01:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Even that is a good example of inconsistency. The quote presents Cenva as a total unknown to anyone in his empire: "Who has ever heard of Norma Cenva?" But really, if she founded the Guild as the first Navigator, invented the psychic blasts and all the other stuff Holtzman didn't take credit for, then it seems a little hard to believe that no-one, not even the BG historians or Ixians would have heard of her. And there is the small matter that her husband is implied to be a scientist, not some fabulously wealthy industrialist. Two inconsistencies in such a brief passage... --Gwern (contribs) 05:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, my opinion on the Ixian/Arafel matter is not original research; it's borrowed from one of the better studies of Herbert's work, William F. Touponce's Frank Herbert (Touponce, William F. (1988), Frank Herbert, Boston, Massachusetts: Twayne Publishers imprint, G. K. Hall & Co, ISBN 0-8057-7514-5; PS3558.E63Z89 ), who writes in (just for example):

Less than an hour later Moneo brings Hwi. Letos tells her of the danger of the Ixians. They once contemplated making a weapon - a type of hunter-seeker, self-propelled death with a machine mind. It was designed as a self-improving thing that would seek out life and reduce it to inorganic matter. The Ixians do not recognize that machine-makers always run the risk of turning themelves into machines. In Leto's view this is the ultimate sterility. He points out that machines always fail, given time. When the machines fail, nothing will be left, no life at all. We may infer, and it seems certain from dialogues later in the novel (342/348) where Leto is sensitizing Siona to the demands of the Golden Path, that this is the terrible path of racial extinction Leto has forseen in his visions.

or:

In the first draft of the God Emperor, at CSF, Siona tells Duncan that arafel means "the cloud darkness out of which the ten commandments were uttered," and indeed arafel is the regular biblical Hebrew word for "cloud," used in the book of Exodus. By saying that the Ixians cannot create arafel, he may mean just the capacity to hide from predators, as God hides in the dark cloud on Mount Sinari. But the idea of a commanding voice is also present here, as is the power of infinity.

--Gwern (contribs) 22:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is an issue for discussion. But Wikipedia is not a discussion board- it's an encyclopedia of objective verifiable content. That doesn't include speculation about the contents or existence of the notes. If can provide citations to notable published sources that discuss such speculation, which would make for a fine addition. Your own speculation would violate WP:NOR. Staecker 14:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There could be a citation to the book's official site that says according to the authors it is based on the notes of Frank Herbert found in a safety deposit box many years after his death and after the authors had already collaborated on two Dune prequels (House Atreides and House Harkonen), but the authors have thus far not released these notes for verification. There are numerous online review of the book (Amazon.com) doubting the authenticity of the notes, as well. This could be used to support the fact there are fans of the original series who believe the notes are fraudelent. Does that work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewBrooklyn (talk • contribs)

Amazon reviews from Joe Reader are not really good sources, since the reviewers are usually just as uninformed as you or me. Reviews by notable book reviewers (which you might find at amazon) could work, though. (By the way, you can sign your comments with ~~~~ at the end of your message.) Staecker 16:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What about mentioning in the article that the authors have not released the notes, which can be verified by their own site? Meanwhile I will look for a more scholarly citation for calling the notes authenticity into question. Matthew Brooklyn 12:35 EST 18 October 2006

The very first part of the Hunters of Dune article states that the book was based on Frank Herbert's notes, and that's the only verifiable fact. Even mentioning that the notes have not been "released for verification" makes the suggestion that they are disputed, which is speculative and therefore inappropriate here. If you can find a "real" review from Publisher's Weekly or something that doubts the notes, please reference it, it'll end this debate! But if I may nitpick, the notes on Dune 7 and other general "Dune notes" were found before BH/KJA finished House Atreides, the first of their prequels (see the interviews I've cited a couple of paragraphs above), and KJA specifically says they used them for the prequels. Anyway, the whole issue of verifying the outline/notes seems a bit stupid to me. I mean, even if Frank Herbert wrote, "The reanimated zombie of Shaddam IV returns with an army of Fenring gholas, chasing the Honored Matres and intent on destroying the Known Universe," and perhaps broke that storyline out using a sentence for each chapter, BM/KJA would still have had to actually expand on it. So the canon-obsessed wouldn't be satisfied anyway. TAnthony 17:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Changing the identity of the primary antagonist, adding in huge previously unmentioned or hinted at new characters(say, the Oracle of Time, leader of all spicy fish people) is a bit different than specific, point-by-point accuracy and a good deal more important. I disagree though, that they faked the discovery of the notes. It seems more like they decided to add their own ideas, and that perhaps Frank Herbert's notes were insufficient for them to create the novel as FH would want it.. (134.215.203.61 (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

Synopsis

So, who wants to start? SandChigger 14:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"A beginning is the time for taking the most delicate care..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.112.26.170 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't it just get released?Hadoren 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Nvm. My synopsis has major parts from the middle and end of the story missing. I only was able to read the beginning and parts of the end in a bookstore. Hadoren 08:42, 28 August 2006.

Shouldn't there be a part that warns about spoilers? I haven´t read the book yet, I started to read this page, but stopped because it seemed to be a spoiler...Jfmarchini 13:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no offense, but the synopsis needs a MAJOR overhaul. I've still only finished half the book and will give editing a go once I have, but if anyone's feeling bold in the meantime, why not jump on it? (Will Smith in MIB, looking around at the farmhouse decor: "I mean...DAMN.") SandChigger 06:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This synopsis needs a major, major overhaul. Someone please start by fixing all grammatical errors. There are a number of statements that seem erroneous as well. For example, "...in Chapterhouse, which is the home of the only known melange left in the universe other than in the no-ship" is not correct, there are other stockpiles, these are the only places that melange is being naturally generated by worms. I don't think I have access to editing the article; don't even know how to do it quite frankly......TMB

OK, I'm making a few attempts today at some general edits. Next, there are definitely some important details that should be added. I'm not sure how far the details need to go in general, but I imagine the group will ultimately come to a consensus. TAnthony 17:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In the course of my edits, it does occur to me that there may be a bit too much detail here at some points; I've added what I feel is important but am obviously reluctant to cut anything added by someone else. I didn't put in anything about the Matres attempted attack on Chapterhouse etc. because certain events seem sort of incidental. TAnthony 15:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

My Sept. 13 2006 / 23:03 Edit: I was making this edit during/after the Wikipedia update today. While I did in fact do a lot of rewriting and moving around of material, in the history it looks like I practically rewrote the entire thing from scratch! This is not the case, so please don't think I've just 'scrapped' old contributions in favor of my own. Hopefully, however, my changes are acceptable. TAnthony 23:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey TAnthony, AWESOME rewrite -- the flow and the language are really great. Of course, this being Wikipedia I'm sure 100 other people will "tweak" it for you! 206.13.74.249 15:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Publishers Weekly summary

Now that the book is out, I think perhaps this summary/review is just taking up space (and as somewhat of a review, probably inappropriate). The book jacket summary itself may still be of some value as an introduction and overview, since it is presumably written by the authors and has no real POV beyond a promotional tone. TAnthony 23:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

How about initially moving the section to the bottom of the page, then begin phasing out with links to the originals, then ... ??? It's probably time to start conforming to the other Dune novel pages. Just my 2 yens worth. SandChigger 18:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll get working on it, hopefully this weekend; if not then in 2 weeks. And thanks for updating my summary; I knew it was bad. But geez, some people who complained here didn't edit the summary themselves. Hadoren 05:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems like they're talking about the book jacket and Publishers Wk review (both already cut) and you're talking about the synopsis. FYI, somebody did a bang-up job of updating the synopsis already. 206.13.74.249 15:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if this sounds a stupid question - is this actually the plot of dune 7 - it's read like fanfiction? Are editors just adding what they'd like to see in this book? --Charlesknight 09:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Dune 7 is actually coming out as two books, Hunters of Dune and Sandworms of Dune. Hunters has been released so the synopsis in this article is taken from the actual book. Dune 7 was the working title Frank Herbert used in his notes but I think everyone agrees he was eventually going to come up with a "real" title. TAnthony 14:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hunters-related material from the Chapterhouse article

The following material has now been removed from the article on Chapterhouse: Dune because it seems more relevant in connection with Hunters of Dune than with the former book. I am moving it here in case anyone working on the Hunters article would like to incorporate any of it into the description of the new book.

Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson (have?) since worked on finishing two sequels to Chapterhouse which would answer all, or most of these questions. The first volume, named Hunters of Dune was released in August 2006. The second, named Sandworms of Dune, is scheduled for release in 2007. Both are based on detailed notes written by Frank Herbert himself (and discovered in a safe-deposit box a decade after his death) for a final book in the saga, which he referred to as Dune 7.

The enemy that drove the Honored Matres back to the Old Empire was the remnant of the Thinking Machines. In Dune: The Butlerian Jihad, an evermind overseeing Giedi Prime sends 5000 deep-space probes, equipped with copies of the evermind, as seeds for new Synchronized Worlds. Shortly thereafter, human forces arrive and retake the planet, destroying the evermind copy before it was backed-up, thus removing any and all knowledge of the probe/seeds. One of the probes lands on Arrakis and is promptly swallowed by a sandworm attracted by the vibrations caused by its internal factories. In Battle of Corrin, the last evermind sends a copy of itself into deep space where it hopes to be able to rebuild the machine empire, and wait for the humans to arrive. This copy combines itself with a surviving probe of the Omnius. Hunters of Dune reflects the efforts of the humans to prepare for its invasion and ends with the attack of the Thinking Machines beginning.

Daniel and Marty are the elderly couple whom Duncan 'sees' in the net and manages to evade them by dumping the memory banks of the no-ship. They are incarnations of the Thinking Machines Omnius (Daniel) and Erasmus (Marty). When Omnius sent out its last blast of information before The Battle of Corrin it contacted one of the probes shot out of Giedi Prime several years earlier, uploading versions of Erasmus and Omnius, and this was the enemy that the Honored Matres were finally driven out by and what Leto Atreides II (the God Emperor) saw in his visions as the thing that would wipe out humanity.

N.B. The parts in the last paragraph about uploading versions of O&E to the probe (misleading description of what really happened?) and Leto II seeing the machines as the enemy (not supported by anything in Hunters or elsewhere?) should be considered carefully before any inclusion. --SandChigger 17:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually... Leto did see the machines as the enemy that would cause Arafel. That was quite explicitly stated in GEoD when Leto tested Siona. Thing is, Leto also explicitly said that the machines would be devised by Ixians, and so far as I know, Omnius was not built by the Ixians. And besides, wasn't the Golden Path supposed to obviate any attempt at Kralizec? --Gwern (contribs) 18:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the Golden Path was meant to ensure the survival of the human species...come Kralizec, Hell, or high water (with or without advanced sandworms in the latter!). : ) In his dying words Leto II says "Do not fear the lxians. ... They can make the machines, but they no longer can make arafel. I know. I was there." Please note what I wrote above, though: Leto II seeing the machines as the enemy, not Leto II seeing any machines as such, by which I meant Omnius & Erasmus/the "old" machines, which is what is stated by the part of the moved material I was referring to. (Before the publication of Hunters there was also the possibility that thinking machines could have been created in The Scattering, completely unrelated to those destroyed during the Butlerian Jihad or anything created on Ix.) SandChigger 22:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro rewrite

I rewrote (rearranged) the text of the intro, because the way it was, with "along with Sandworms" at the end of the first sentence, just didn't make sense.

I also added that they claim the books are based on FH's notes. IMHO this is the most factual way to represent the situation because no evidence of its veracity has ever been provided (or appears to be forthcoming). --SandChigger (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

But it seems to me that using the word "claim" casts doubt on the statement. This is especially clear when you prefer it above "state", which is undeniably factual, and makes no connotation of inaccuracy. We don't need evidence of whether or not FH's D7 notes were used (or even exist). Of course they haven't provided proof- why should they have to? Christopher Tolkien hasn't needed to "prove" his books. If you want to say that people doubt their claims, then cite a reliable source that makes a decent case. Most of what I see along those lines is "these books are teh suxx0rz and FH never would've written them like that so BH is lying about his dead father's notes." That's not a decent case, though I mostly agree about the "suxx0rz" bit. Staecker (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is an unfair comparison, as the notes left behind by JRR Tolkien have been independently verified by others (such as the novelist Guy Gavriel Kay, who worked with Christopher Tolkien on The Silmarillion). In addition, many of the notes were actually donated to an American university by Tolkien himself and are available for viewing. A lot of the other notes are reproduced, some of them photographically, in the actual History of Middle-earth series. Finally and most importantly, Christopher Tolkien has said that the HoME notes are early versions of the text 'finalised' in The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, and as such are not canonical, and these notes were not used to create new fiction which is being claimed as canon, as is the case with the Dune novels.--Werthead (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're unfairly maligning their case. People have pointed out numerous examples where they've made up stuff or been inconsistent with the originals - haven't they even admitted Erasmus was their invention? That would seem to cast doubt that the old man and woman were really Omnius and Erasmus, for example. --Gwern (contribs) 18:01 24 November 2007 (GMT)

OK, so let's put in a cited source about it- I'm really not opposed to the inclusion of criticism (though maybe I sounded like it above), I just don't want OR in there. Staecker (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't matter in the slightest. "Based on" could mean anything from "100% of the story was based completely on notes, we merely had to fill in tiny bits" to "there was one note that said something about Duncan being important". Both of these examples fall under the category of "based on" because it does not give any indication of quantity. It is like when a commercial says you can get "up to 75% off", which means anything from 0%-75%. As for using "claim", it is a weasel word and is not to be used for the obvious reason that it immediately casts doubt upon what is being said. While I think "stated" is still a weasel word I think it is a fair compromise as it casts little doubt. Konman72 (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, they have said a little more than "based on" -- the claim of BH, KJA, and the publisher of the book is that Dune 7 is based on a "comprehensive outline" and "notes". They have also put images of the disks with labels saying "Dune 7 Outline" and "Dune 7 Notes" on their website. Due to the seriousness of the accusation that BH, KJA, the editor, and the publisher all fabricated these notes to make money, I think we need a lot more than just "many fans don't like the books and think there are contradictions". (Outlines often have flat characters, contradictions, and such, which are worked out by the author as they write the actual book. All these people who are saying things like "FH obviously didn't intend the Enemy to be thinking machines" are just expressing their frustration that the new Dune books are not as good as they hoped them to be. They actually have no idea what FH intended or didn't intend.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.45.200 (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

FH characterizes the Enemy as super Face Dancers so strongly in CH:D that the Terrible Duo had to write in lines where Omnius and Erasmus go 'OK enough of being super Face Dancers lol let's go back to being machines'! --Gwern (contribs) 17:53 2 February 2010 (GMT)

Staecker, if someone had a source then this debate (and its subsequent edit warring, constant reversions and such) would not have been going on for the last year. If anyone can find a reliable, citable and verifiable source for all of this then I would literally jump for joy as I would not have to go through 8 articles every time a new person comes along who thinks they should at the would "claim" to every instance of "the books are based on notes". As for Mr. Anonymous, it doesn't matter what they claim elsewhere as we are not claiming that here. It says "the books were based on notes" that could mean anything from a restaurant napkin saying that Paul might be revived as a ghola to what they have claimed and more. As long as we stick to the truth we can not go wrong and what we have here is the truth (though saying that they "stated" that they are based on notes is an obvious bias, but I've spent a year getting rid of all of the bias in the Dune articles and am getting tired of it) Konman72 (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Differences between Dune 7 and the rest of the serries

To be honest there are very large differences betwen Sandworms of Dune (SoD) and Hunters of Dune (HoD) and the original serries. Even if Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson (BH and KJA) took some clues (or lost data) from Frank Herbert (FH) diffirences in style are more than painfull. In original serries most (or almost all) characters are deep, very good explained and inteligent (or at least they behive according to its motives. Also BH is a bit of a visionary he predicts some future tehnology, explaines some science/phisical phenomenoms (Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality, Holtzman_effect, ecology, sociology etc...
In Dune 7 (and books about Butlerian Jihad, hower not dune prequel they are probably more hevily written on notes by BH??) there is no nottion of that. Main addvesary is a stupid (and arrogant) egomaniac machine, which rellies mostly on quantity of its forces, which has very limited abbility to learn (in books this is shown as a "not understanding humans") although its minions can learn and fight human battle tactics very easilly. Obvious difference in writing is as Frank Herbert hevily investigated things of which he wrote his succesors didn't. No mention of inteligence in machines (or some learning, decission making alghorithms, probability chances, gambiling, combinathorics). Just stupid part of stell which got an accidental chance of being in a positon which it was (a nice alegory of Frank Herbert succesors).
Second "bad boy" (Erasmus) is a little bit more interesting as he portret machine which tries to comprehend humans. Hower he also shares some flaws with overmind (basic not understandance of AI by authors). In Buttlerian Jihad serries there is also a question of Ovemind use of humans or wish to expand to non-machine controled planets. In movie Matrix main purpose of humans to machine were as batteries. There is no any similar explanation in those books.
If looking for unnecesery twists in this and sequel book, one can not to ask itslef could that two bee just one book or new writers divided them just to make some extra dolars?
Also, scattering happened in multiversum, and infinity of planets. Golden path is that survival of humans no matter of what because they live in many universises. Scientific teories about multiversum changed from FH time (that strange universe in wich ship got lost is one of the rare good points), but that do not aproves change of original texts, and squirming squatering to some finite nummber of planets.
More, there is no word of what it means to be human and usage of its inteligence (probably by the low standards of authors:) as overmind does not have its own (hower he has some genocide minds which pop up when he declares himself a good). No explanation of what is overminds net (no analogy to the internet, hologramic theories of our univers, branes of M-theories... nada). Just two persons which wants to be writters. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OMG

I've participated in a few discussions here and on other talk pages about whether or not FH envisioned the Jihad as a Terminator-like war against killer robots. In my opinion, the evidence within the books of the original series suggests that it was just a religious rejection of AI, which in my mind obviously contradicted the primary plotline of the Legends of Dune trilogy, and by extension the Dune 7 sequels. Dune nerd that I am, I've been listening to the original series audiobooks on the elliptical at the gym. Imagine my shock when I heard this quote from GEoD, when Siona shares Leto's vision of the future:

He knew this experience, but could not change the smallest part of it. No ancestral presences would remain in her consciousness, but she would carry with her forever afterward the clear sights and sounds and smells. The seeking machines would be there, the smell of blood and entrails, the cowering humans in their burrows aware only that they could not escape . . . while all the time the mechanical movement approached, nearer and nearer and nearer ...louder...louder! Everywhere she searched, it would be the same. No escape anywhere.

To me, this meant that, no matter how passive the Jihad may have been, the extinction of mankind that Leto was trying to prevent was indeed at the hands of predator robots! Unbelievable! And I checked: Touponce agrees on page 85 of Frank Herbert. I've added this info (with the Touponce ref) to the Thinking machines (Dune) article. Not to say that Hunters and Sandworms were executed how Frank himself may have wrote them, this certainly makes me look at them in a slightly different light.— TAnthony^Talk 05:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Butlerian Jihad#OMG. --Gwern (contribs) 13:57 27 October 2010 (GMT)

Note with regard to DuneNovels.com URLs

The blog post referenced in the first note can now be found here:

http://old.dunenovels.com/dune7blog/page21.html

Apparently all the old website material is still there, you just have to change the subdomain from "www" to "old". :) --SandChigger (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hunters of Dune. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.scifidimensions.com/Aug07/sandwormsofdune.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. — TAnthony^Talk 00:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)