 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Bad
editthis is a very bad article, little more than a bad summary of the novel
- Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --fvw* 04:32, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
I'll second the badness of this article. The book is much more interesting than this article makes it sound. I think the article should be deleted until a better one comes along. I would write it myself, but I read this book over twenty years ago. I'm ordering another copy now, so a review may be forthcoming.
And I will third it. The person who wrote this article sounds like they read a summary of the book written by a tabloid newspaper. Some of the articles content clearly misses the point, some of it is just POV and some of it is just not true. For example it mentions nowhere in the book that the Priests on Amel - which is how it is spelt in the English version, not sure about American - created Lewis Orne at all, infact it describes his family history in much detail, with nothing to do with priests. Anyway had my rant now. I am deleting this article until someone writes something that gives it justice.
I revised the summary, bringing it more in line with what was actually in the book. It is still very short, but given the length of the book (221 pgs. in my copy), it didn't seem to justify a longer summary. I also deleted the "Reception" part, since that quote was nonsense. I think a section relating this book to other works by Frank Herbert would be entirely justified, and would also be a great way for fans of Herbert to begin exploring his non-Dune books.