the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
Frank Herbert has two problems working against him though, one is his own son systematically sabotaging the ideals of his works for a human lifetime, the second is how many of his actually kinda shitty beliefs are in Dune.
I only know the bare basics about Dune. What beliefs are those?
He was a lib idealist with zero historical materialism, so his 15000 years of human history are unavoidably carricatural. Also had this iritating manner, especially in last two books of being circular in most thoughts, where nearly no question or problem is ever asked straight and never answered straight, just with more circular non-answers to appear deep.
You know the good narration method of "show, do not tell" which a lot of authors violate by telling and not showing? Herbert neither show nor tell (but was good in that).
"Show, don't tell" in its correct form is about pacing economy and the use of scenery and practical effects in theater: it's better to literally, physically show a visual detail than to try to have actors take the time to mention it so you know that it's a stormy night or whatever. "Show, don't tell" as it's taught to authors is vapid nonsense about obfuscating and dancing around messaging instead of being blunt. It's this idea that meaning is a special clever good boy treat as a reward for readers educated enough to get the references you're using as allegory, instead of something integral to the purpose of a work which needs to be clear and make its point in an unambiguous fashion.
In fact, I'd almost say a proper interpretation of the original meaning of "show, don't tell" to writing is nearly the opposite of its literal original use: you need to think about pacing economy in what gets a full "showing" treatment vs what's simply "told" about as a passing detail, since strictly speaking everything a novelist is doing is "telling" in prose form and you have to prioritize what gets talked about the most.
I think that's mixed problem. Sure it's partially true but recent rereading of Heretics, Chapterhouse, Hunters and Sandworms make me believe Brian seemingly ridiculous stories at least somewhat. I would say Heretics and Chapterhouse are more consistent with Brian works than with previous 4 books.