Talk:Dune (novel)

Cultural influence of dune..

is this addition ok? i am not sure if it is appropriate or not? feel free to tell me if it isnt. cheers.Jim_Sniper (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources; I've cleaned the entry up a bit, but I think it works. — TAnthony^Talk 19:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

cool yeh its great! Jim_Sniper (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Dune (2009 Peter Berg Movie)

Why is this redirecting to the novel? Why doesn't it have its own page, as the miniseries does?Drhamad (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I took a look through the revision history of the redirect article, and it looks as if it only had one source to back up the claim (as much as we all know it to be true). So, at the moment the article can't stand alone since it's covered by WP:NFF. If there are reliable sources which can be added, which indicate that shooting is underway then the article could stand on its own. So, I have to agree with the current status for now. Coldmachine^Talk 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The movie has been pushed back to at least 2010 (possibly due to the writer's strike, but couldn't find that out). Another main reason why the article shouldn't exist until the movie is done basic shooting at the very least. 76.116.109.221 (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability

moved from Talk:Dune (2009 film)

Ah, I didn't realize that one of the notability guidelines for future films was that it had to begin shooting before it is allowed to be included into wikipedia. Saket (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

And as it further says: Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines. -- ALLSTARecho 08:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

True, I'd also point out that a cursory glance at some of the later films coming out in the Upcoming Films category have articles, with multiple mainstream media sources, despite the fact that they have not started shooting yet. This is partly why I was/am confused about the notability guideline requirement that upcoming films need to have started shooting. Doesn't seem consistently applied. Saket (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're right. It's not consistently applied. -- ALLSTARecho 21:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

These rules seem pretty strange to me. Rumors aren't fact, but it is fact that rumors are spreading, which in my opinion we should be informed about on wikipedia, even if it would just be to inform people it's just rumors so far and that nothing has been confirmed yet. I had to go back to the redirect page and check out its history in order to find this information. That doesn't seem the right way to find your information on wikipedia! CheesePlease NL (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Refer to WP:NFF. ALLSTARecho 10:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So the movie cannot have an article of its own according to wikipedia rules. Fine. But why is there no information about it in this article then? Why was everything deleted? Please update this article with the information that was in the deleted article. Once shooting starts, the content can be copied into the film's own article...84.135.146.108 (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For future use, the info and sources can be taken from this edit before article was redirected. However, I am still hesitant for it to be mentioned in the article just because it is so nebulous; if there is no script, no pre-production and just a deal with Berg, we all know how directors can change and projects can go away. Even the release year is in question, because if, as the source says, shooting starts in 2009, it probably wouldn't be released until 2010. It really is too much of a tidbit to be worth noting at this point. — TAnthony^Talk 01:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no official announcement of a deal having been reached from the HLP. According to the last thing on the subject I've read from Byron Merritt (admin on the Dune Novels website BBS, grandson of Frank Herbert and HLP member), negotiations are still on-going. (As he put it, the lawyers still have it.) And that was in response to news of the MTV (blog?) post about Berg being chosen as director.

Considering how hard it is to keep in any mention of the controversy over the new books, the fact that there is buzz about a possible movie is not worth bothering with yet. --SandChigger (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I still think it's too soon to start writing about the Berg film in this or its own article, but I wanted to list any sources that appear as they may be of use later:

• ""Berg to direct Dune for Paramount."". Variety.com. 2008-03-17. Retrieved 2008-04-03.
• ""New Dune Film from Paramount."". DuneNovels.com. 2008-03-18. Retrieved 2008-04-03.
• HT Syndication. "Peter Berg to direct Dune adaptation." Hindustan Times. 18 March 2008.

Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, the Berg film is actually mentioned in the article again, so I am adding these additional sources but leaving them listed here as well in case the article is edited further. — TAnthony^Talk 04:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Esmar Tuek

Tuek is not a Fremen, he just works closely with them. I know it for FACT but i cant find a reference --FTWonkerton (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

From Dune:

"...The smuggler's called Tuek, Esmar Tuek. He's a power among his kind. They all know him here. He's dined at many of the houses."

That do it? :D --SandChigger (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

From Dune:

"Why didn't you invite some Fremen?"

Leto says this right afterwards, so I would assume Tuek isn't one. There is also the bit where Gurney is interviewed by Tuek (I believe) where more description is offered. I think this mentions him as having non-blue eyes. --FTWonkerton (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow I'm an idiot. Allegiances, not actually being a Fremen. --FTWonkerton (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Error?

I think there is an error in this entry. Leto II, Paul's son becomes the new emperor in the next book, but in this article it states Paul's son was killed. Either he had two sons or something is wrong. I have not read the books myself but I am an avid fan of the original movie.

74.137.18.74 (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)ManBear

Two sons. The first was killed by Sardaukar in the raid that captured Alia; it was Chani's second son who became God-Emperor. (As you surmise, this is covered in Dune the novel.) --Gwern (contribs) 05:25 22 January 2008 (GMT)

Original research

Per WP:OR I've reverted the insertion of original research again. When an editor reverts the inclusion of content, rather than reinserting it and precipitate an edit war - in which the individual doing so is then clearly the edit warrior - it is a better idea to come to the talk page and argue the case for adding that content. So far this material still reads as a synthesis of original research, especially that blockquote from the website which was then included in the External Links section as a critical review page for Dune: even the description of the site makes it obvious this is original research. Coldmachine^Talk 08:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I find your edits peculiar and unjustified. Your second edit[1] removes quite a bit of material sourced to Herbert himself; only two of the paragraphs strike me as potentially overreaching, and I suspect those could be cited.

Your first edit[2] is even worse. You simply reverted me, irrespective of my additions! Your argument against O'Reilly's book is odd. Of course it's original research in the same way any literary study is. Would you have reverted me if I had linked not to the e-book O'Reilly has kindly provided for free for us Dune editors, but instead added a bunch of bibliographic information from WorldCat? O'Reilly, Timothy. Frank Herbert (1st ed.). New York, USA: Ungar. p. 216. ISBN 9780804466172. OCLC 7175483. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)... --Gwern (contribs) 19:42 4 March 2008 (GMT)

Hi, thanks for coming to the talk page to resolve this. First off, no need to get personal about my edits. Second of all, here's a breakdown of things and why I believe the content you're pushing for inclusion constitutes WP:OR:

• Paragraph opens with: "The setting is notable for what is removed from the usual list of available technologies available to the protagonists."

1. Then goes on to cite material to advance this literary hypothesis or view (i.e. WP:OR)
2. Cites two sources, one which is completely lacking in detail (just "Frank Herbert, O'Reilly"), and the second which is not reliable since it's self published work, to support this view.

• Paragraph opens with: "The novel's combination of space travel with medieval weaponry was usually seen in works regarded as kitsch, such as the Flash Gordon series, or the Barsoom stories of Edgar Rice Burroughs."

1. Then goes on to cite material in relation to this literary view (as I say, an indication in itself of WP:OR)
2. Cites one source, which is the same as the previous self-published non verifiable work.

There are three content policies which are all interlinked: no original research is one, and the others are verifiability and neutral point of view. I believe that the content you're pushing to include lacks verifiability (it doesn't come from a reliable source) and it's a synthesis of literary views put together to push forward original research. Coldmachine^Talk 22:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As an addendum: I took a look at what other articles are doing on this point and there's an example over at The Lord of the Rings where 'themes' are given a separate article, although as a caveat even this has been tagged with the original research template. Coldmachine^Talk 22:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Organization

I just moved a paragraph from the lead into the body of the article under the heading "Origins". The lead isn't really supposed to introduce any material that can't be found in the main body. It is supposed to summarize what is already in the article.

On the same subject of organization, the organization of this article puzzles me. I'm a fan of the book and I'd like to help with this article, but I've got a lot of questions first. Why does this article have two synopsis sections? This makes no sense to me. It seems like this article has too much synopsis and not enough analysis. Are we running into problems gathering analysis? I've got some experience in the field and a lot of resources, so I could help, but I don't really want to start a war trying to fix the synopsis. Wrad (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added an "Analysis" section which I intend to expand. It might be a little rough getting started, though, so suggestions and copyedits are welcome. Wrad (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We need to shrink the plot synopsis to 900 words at the most. There's just no way around it. If we want to move some of the plot into character and setting analysis, so be it, but we shouldn't have such huge plot sections on wikipedia. Looking through the history of this talk page I see a very large group of editors who have said exactly what I'm saying now. It's time to get it done. Wrad (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Haven't read it all in detail, but on first glance I'm impressed with the scope if this new information and its sources. Thanks for the add and the reorg! — TAnthony^Talk 02:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm cooking up a themes section now from some books I've found. I'm most concerned about the plot summaries though. I envision an article with a much shorter, single plot section, along with some setting and character analysis. I don't know where to start on this though. Experience tells me that plot sections can become battle fronts. Should we start a draft on a subpage? Wrad (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan! Also, for what it's worth, I think extensive thematic analysis of literary material should be given a separate article as is the case with The Lord of the Rings. It reduces the risk for tarring the main article with WP:OR. Coldmachine^Talk 08:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about a separate article. In my experience, if you keep the themes section strictly well-referenced, OR isn't a problem. I've found this to be the case with Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet, both of which had problem with OR before we added sourced sections. I may be wrong, but I think we should at least try to have a sourced themes section in the article before splitting it to another article. Wrad (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not Synthesis

I'd encourage anyone with fears of WP:synthesis in the Analysis section to read my sources directly. They will find that there is no synthesis in what I added. I am making absolutely no claims not made in the sources. Period. This includes all of the allusions to the book. All allusions to the book used to support the statements in the Analysis section are also found in the sources I used. Again, please check the sources yourself. It is not synthesis and I challenge anyone to show me otherwise from the sources I use. Wrad (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot section

Here's how we fixed the plot section for the Hamlet article. This is the synopsis section as it stands in the first section. I think we should work to have it cover the novel as well as we can in under 900 words without relying on the second synopsis section. Feel free to edit anything within the pink and leave comments or suggestions. I'm thinking that a big help for this will be a preceding settings section describing the world in which the novel takes place as succinctly as possible. That should save a lot of space in the synopsis section. Wrad (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've copied the old setting section here so we can rewrite it as a section to precede the synopsis section so that when people read the synopsis they have a basic idea of the general situation at the beginning of the novel. Again, feel free to edit and comment. Be bold! and all that stuff. Wrad (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis

Setting

451 words

Thousands of years in the future, the human race has scattered throughout the galaxy, populating multiple planets ruled by aristocratic Houses who themselves answer to Padishah Emperor Shaddam IV. The CHOAM corporation is the major underpinning of the Imperial economy, with shares and directorships determining each House's income and financial leverage. Key is the control of the planet Arrakis, the only source of the valuable spice melange, which gives those who ingest it extended life and prescient awareness. Melange is crucial as it enables space travel, which in turn is monopolized by the Spacing Guild; its Navigators use the spice to to safely plot a course for the Guild's Heighliner ships via prescience using "foldspace" technology, which allows instantaneous travel to anywhere in the galaxy.

The spice is also crucial to the powerful matriarchal order called the Bene Gesserit. The secretive Bene Gesserit, often referred to as "witches," possess mental and physical powers developed through thousands of generations of controlled gene lines and years of physical and mental conditioning called prana-bindu training. When a Bene Gesserit acolyte becomes a full Reverend Mother by undergoing what the Lady Jessica calls "the Reverend Mother ordeal" (referred to as the spice agony later in the series), she gains access to her "ancestral memories" — the complete life experience of all her female ancestors back to the point of each life's conception. The agony is induced by taking a massive overdose of "awareness spectrum narcotics," though Jessica discovers that the equivalent Fremen ritual involves drinking the bile of a drowned sandworm, a melange-essence poison known as the Water of Life which the subject must change internally or die. Only women have ever been able to survive the transformation. However, the Bene Gesserit have a secret, centuries-old breeding program to create a prescient superhuman — and male equivalent to a Bene Gesserit — called the Kwisatz Haderach, who would not only be able to survive the spice agony, but whose "organic mental powers would bridge space and time."

The planet Arrakis itself is sparsely settled by a human population of native Fremen tribes. Leaders of the tribes come to be so by defeating the former leader in combat. The Fremen also have complex rituals and systems revolving around the value of water on their desert planet. They conserve the water distilled from their dead, consider spitting an honorable greeting, and value tears as the greatest gift one can give to the dead. Their culture also revolves around the spice, which is created as part of the life cycle of the giant sandworms who dominate the deserts. Lastly, missionary efforts of the Bene Gesserit have implanted a belief in a male Messiah who will one day come and transform Arrakis.

Plot

824 words

Emperor Shaddam IV has come to fear House Atreides, partly due to the growing popularity of Duke Leto Atreides and also because the talent of Leto's fighting force is beginning to rival the effectiveness of the Emperor's own dreaded Imperial Sardaukar guard. Shaddam decides that House Atreides must be destroyed, but cannot risk an overt attack on a single House, which would by necessity unite the other Houses against him. The Emperor instead uses the centuries-old feud between House Atreides and House Harkonnen to disguise his assault, enlisting the brilliant and power-hungry Baron Vladimir Harkonnen in his plan to trap and eliminate the Atreides. Shaddam forces Leto to accept the lucrative fief of the desert planet Arrakis, the only known source of the spice melange, previously controlled by the Harkonnens.

Complicating the political intrigue is the fact that the Duke's son Paul Atreides is an essential part of the Bene Gesserit's secret, centuries-old breeding program to create a superhuman called the Kwisatz Haderach. There are signs that Paul might actually be the Kwisatz Haderach, born one generation earlier than expected, though this remains in doubt.

The Atreides suspect foul play, and are able to thwart the initial Harkonnen traps and complications while simultaneously building trust with the local population of Fremen. Ultimately, however, the Atreides are unable to withstand a devastating Harkonnen attack, supported by Imperial Sardaukar disguised as Harkonnen troops and aided by a traitor within House Atreides itself — the Suk doctor Wellington Yueh. Captured, Duke Leto dies in a failed attempt to assassinate Baron Harkonnen; Paul and Jessica escape into the deep desert. With Jessica's Bene Gesserit abilities and Paul's developing skills, they manage to join a band of Fremen, ferocious fighters who ride the giant sandworms of Arrakis.

Paul and his mother quickly learn the ways of the Fremen, while teaching them the weirding way, or Bene Gesserit method of fighting. Jessica becomes a Reverend Mother, taking the concentrated spice while pregnant with her second child. Daughter Alia experiences all that her mother does from the spice, gaining prescience and wisdom before even being born. Years pass, and Paul increasingly recognizes the strength of the Fremen fighting force, and recognizes their potential to overtake even the Sardaukar and win back Arrakis. Living on the spice diet of the Fremen, Paul's prescience increases dramatically, enabling him to foresee future events and gaining him a religious respect from the Fremen, who regard him as their prophesied Messiah. As Paul grows in influence, he begins a jihad against Harkonnen rule of the planet under his new Fremen name, [Muad'Dib]].

Both the Emperor and the Baron Harkonnen show increasing interest in the fervor of religious fanaticism shown on Arrakis for this "Muad'Dib," not guessing that this leader is the presumed-dead Paul. Harkonnen plots to send his nephew and heir Feyd Rautha as a replacement for his more-ruthless other nephew Glossu Rabban — who is currently in charge of the planet — to gain the respect of the now-troublesome Fremen. Winning them over as a fighting force, he hopes, will give him enough power to overtake the Emperor himself. The Emperor, however, is highly suspicious of the Baron and sends spies to watch his movements.

On Arrakis, Paul is reunited with an old ally of the Atreides, Gurney Halleck. Completely loyal to the Atreides, Gurney is convinced that Jessica is the traitor who had caused the House's downfall. He nearly kills her, but for Paul's last-minute intervention. Disturbed by his lack of complete prescience and the near-loss of his mother, Paul decides to take the spice poison. After several days in a near-death state, Paul emerges as the Kwisatz Haderach. His powers are less random, and he is able to see past, present and future at will.

Alia is captured by Sardaukar and brought to the planet's capital Arrakeen, where the Baron Harkonnen is nervously attempting to thwart the Fremen jihad under the close watch of the Emperor. The Emperor is surprised at four-year-old Alia's defiance of his power and her confidence in her brother, whom she reveals to be Paul Atreides, still alive. At that moment, with the aid of a gigantic sandstorm, Paul and his army of Fremen attack the city. Alia kills the Baron Harkonnen with a poisoned needle during the confusion. Paul quickly overtakes the city's defenses and confronts the Emperor, threatening to destroy the spice and thereby effectively end space travel and cripple both the Imperial power and Bene Gesserit in one blow. Feyd Rautha challenges Paul to a knife-duel in a final attempt to stop his overthrow of power, but is defeated despite treachery. Realizing that Paul is capable of doing all he has threatened to do, the Emperor is forced to abdicate and promise his daughter Princess Irulan in marriage to Paul. Paul ascends the throne, his control of Arrakis and the spice establishing a new kind of power over the Empire which will change the face of the Known Universe.

Setting comments

I just trimmed it quite a bit. I think this section should focus on the importance of spice, the most crucial element in the novel. Mentats and machines aren't as crucial to a beginner's understanding of the basic plot of the novel, so I took those out. Wrad (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So I just did a first pass at a copyedit/rewrite of the Setting above, basically consolidating redundancies and fixing links. There may be some ideas and phrasing lost from the article's current version worth re-incorporating, I'm going to check and compare at some point. — TAnthony^Talk 18:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot comments

I started a rewrite. Obviously it's still missing crucial elements such as Jessica's taking the poison, Alia, and the overthrow of Harkonnen rule on Arakkis. I'm also not sure about the spellings of some things, so feel free to fix those if you know them. Wrad (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I added some more and eagerly await comments. Wrad (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I like the layout for this revised plot synopsis. I haven't checked the content thoroughly, but it looks like a good start to me and I entirely agree with you that the current synopsis is too long - a revised version should be shorter, preferably. Coldmachine^Talk 16:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I did an initial copyedit/rewrite of the Plot section above as well, though I wouldn't say it is now perfect! I am assuming that this section should somewhat stand on its own from the Setting section, but I wasn't sure to what extent we need to repeat certain details, like the explanation of the Kwisatz Haderach, Arrakis as the sole source of spice, etc. I'm curious if the group thinks a casual reader will usually read both, or may skip ahead to Plot and then perhaps not fully understand some of what's going on. — TAnthony^Talk 18:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think if we put both sections under a Synopsis heading we increase the chance of their reading both. I think trying to explain too much in the plot section comes at too high a cost, and we're just going to have to count on them to read the setting section. Wrad (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to put this draft into the article. It's not perfect, but it's better than we have now. We can continue making it better as we go. Wrad (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Literapedia as an External Link?

I added an external link earlier today to Literapedia, a site devoted to short character and chapter summaries of classic literature. The argument presented for removing this link was that "another wiki is not a good source." While I recognize that as a generalization, this is true, Literapedia is a scholarly source, limited in scope, and well-edited.

I present my link again to you, the denizens of Wikipedia, to pass judgment: Dune at Literapedia

As I post, the first six chapter summaries are missing. They will be complete sometime in the next three hours. Docmcconl (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Update: Summary is complete. Docmcconl (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it wouldn't be appropriate as an actual source/reference, but I don't see any harm in it being an external link as a potential point of interest for those wanting more plot detail, etc. — TAnthony^Talk

I agree with Staecker's edit here. According to WP:EL links normally to be avoided include: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." The wiki itself acknowledges that it is an experiment by an "English literature teacher and his students". I don't believe this is an appropriate link to provide. Coldmachine^Talk 07:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

However, Literapedia is not an open wiki. If you try to edit it, you will notice that the pages are locked. The English literature teacher approves every application for membership to ensure that only his students may add or delete content. Docmcconl (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Then it can't have "a substantial number of editors" in that case, so it still fails to satisfy WP:EL. Coldmachine^Talk 09:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Opposed. Doesn't qualify as a source. Moving on.... --SandChigger (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to reopen the discussion in light of several other articles that cite Literapedia, including To the Lighthouse, Cry, The Beloved Country, and The Things They Carried, among many others. A Wikipedia search for the term "Literapedia" brings up seventeen hits, all of them classic literature. This looks legitimate to me. --Docmcconl (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a nice classroom project, but since the contributors do not qualify as reliable sources on their own merit, the material itself would have to be cited and sourced. It is not, and there is no statement on the website's verification process. Therefore, there is no way to verify the accuracy of the information. Providing a link to the site would be misleading. And just because similar links appear elsewhere, doesn't automatically justify including it here. Oppose
Jim Dunning | talk 14:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

While consensus can change, I don't believe it has on this issue. I am also still opposed to inclusion of this link. Coldmachine^Talk 15:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition; I have some concerns about a possible conflict of interest which may exist with this user and the promotion of this website across several articles: a cursory look at the contribution history gives cause for concern. I will advise via user's talk page providing links to the appropriate policies. Coldmachine^Talk 15:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Heroism

Tha part about the heroism in the novel (in my opinion) forgets to mention that Paul sees his actions not for the benefit of himself, revenge or even for the greater good of the Fremen but because all his other actions will only lead to one thing: Kralizec (sp?). He mentions this a lot of times and although he might be a hero (superficially seen) the way he acts as hero is by trying to save the future of mankind / known empire. His child also sees this "road" and actually doesn't stay from that "Golden" road but walks it. Both acts are off course acts of heroism but to say that Paul is a superhuman being that becomes a hero is a bit short sighted (again in my opinion off course). Paul would ultimately rather have died before ever being found by the Fremen, although the universe would've ended for know mankind without his interdiction...

We'd have to have a source for that analysis or it would be WP:OR Wrad (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review

Okay, my blue-eyed friends, I'll be reviewing this article for GA. I've read the book and know a bit about science fiction literature, so hopefully my review won't be useless. My goal will be to have a review ready by tomorrow evening. If there's anything extraordinary behind the article that I should know before reviewing, now is your chance. --JayHenry (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I'm a bad reviewer. This will have to wait another day. Thanks for your patience (if you have it). --JayHenry (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry only for the delay. My previous edit probably left the impression that I was failing the article, and I don't want to leave that edit summary in your watchlists and give you an undeserved scare! --JayHenry (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Some GA nom concerns

I've just taken a quick look at the article and have a couple concerns. One is that the material in Lead is not fully supported in the body of the article. Which, in turn, raises the question of whether the article is complete enough for the article to be GA. For example, the Lead mentions that "Dune is popularly considered one of the greatest science fiction novels of all time, is frequently cited as the best-selling science fiction novel in history, and was the first bestselling hardcover science fiction novel ever." This statement is nicely cited, but there is no further treatment of the topic in the article. This is not just a concern about WP:LEAD, but why is an article about such a popular book lacking a section about its "Reception", both popular and critical? Similarly, its Nebula and Hugo Awards are mentioned in the Lead, but there's no further context provided below it. There are also statements like, "In a story that explores the complex and multilayered...." that don't seem to be supported in the article.

Also, per novel style guidelines, the "Synopsis" section should be renamed to "Plot introduction" and "Plot summary". The same for "Analysis" (which is an interesting read): change this to "Major themes"; as it stands, it hints at it being an editor's analysis rather than a presentation of themes identified by literary critics.

Maybe someone can jump on this quickly – I'll return as soon as I can and help. I'd think that lack of a Reception section will hinder a pass on this.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis and Analysis strike me as better headings than the novel guidelines ask for. The section isn't outlining themes. It's covering analysis. (Let's remember that guidelines can be overruled if the article would be better if it didn't follow them. This is the case with this article, in my opinion.) The "complex and multilayered" bit seems to be covered in the analysis section, which discusses politics and ecology, among other things. I'll fix the lead issue up a bit on this, though. Let me emphasize that everything in the analysis section is the work of literary critics, not wikipedia editors. Absolutely everything. Check the sources if you doubt it.

I really haven't been able to find anything about reception for all my searching. I'll try again, but if it isn't there, I don't see how it can be required for GA. Wrad (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I just found a review. So that should be taken care of shortly. Wrad (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't think I'm questioning the sources of the themes (or analyses): I'm not. I'm just pointing out areas that would be concerns of mine if I was doing the GA review. And you're right, Guidelines are not gospel, but there have been some significant discussions on "synopsis" vs. "plot summary" with the consensus landing on "plot summary". As for Reception, the WP article about a novel as popular and as well analyzed as Dune would be lacking if its critical reception is not covered. I don't know if I can say it's required, but the Guidelines do say, "Understanding the novel's position in its own society and in later literary and cultural traditions is crucial" (italics mine). There is no lack for reviews, for it's initial publication and for later printings and editions. It would be good if a number of viewpoints could be included. Here are some places to start with—

• Juan A. Prieto-Pablos, "The Ambivalent Hero of Contemporary Fantasy and Science Fiction," in Extrapolation, Vol. 32, No. 1, Spring, 1991, pp. 64-80.
• Jack Hand, "The Traditionalism of Women's Roles in Frank Herbert's Dune," in Extrapolation, Vol. 26, No. 1, Spring, 1985, pp. 24-8.
• Willis E. McNelly, "In Memoriam: Frank Herbert, 1920-1986," in Extrapolation, Vol. 27, No. 4, Winter, 1986, pp. 352-55.
• Leonard M. Scigaj, "Prana and the Presbyterian Fixation: Ecology and Technology in Frank Herbert's Dune Tetralogy," in Extrapolation, Vol. 24, No. 4, Winter, 1983, pp. 340-55.
• David M. Miller, in his Frank Herbert, Starmont House, 1980, 70 p.
• O'Reilly, Timothy. "From Concept to Fable: The Evolution of Frank Herbert's Dune." In Critical Encounters: Writers and Themes in Science Fiction, edited by Dick Riley, pp. 41-55. New York: Frederick Ungar, 1978. Contends that Dune is Herbert's critique of contemporary society.

I'll start checking them out and see what else I can find.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just glad we're finding something. This novel is more modern than what I usually do, so it was hard to know where to look. Wrad (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Some more reviews:

• NYT ACROSS THE UNIVERSE; Dune Babies
• NYT Herbert Obit
• NYT THE SANDWORM SAGA
• NYT Books Of The Times

Also, I'd look at reviews of the sequels, since they usually include some commentary on the first installment.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Science Fiction Studies had an article on the novel: History and Historical Effect in Frank Herbert’s Dune Also, [3] if you want to stretch. --maclean 00:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, would you like some time to work to add these sources? I think they would definitely benefit the article, and so I'm happy to wait to do a full review after you've had some time to work on it. (I don't mind leaving an article on hold longer than the guidelines suggest).

I have some questions regardless. Does the article actually use the material in the bibliography section? Seems like they might provide useful context?

Is it necessary to mention both awards twice in the first paragraph of the lead?

The synopsis section could benefit from reviewing it and pretending you haven't read the book and don't know what any of the terms mean. Will someone unfamiliar know what "the Padishah Emperor" means, for example. These sections are good from the perspective of someone who's read the book, but perhaps another pass imagining you've not read the book will help?

I do think a Reception section is needed, and I'm not sure the current source is adequate or even reliable. Articles that discuss the awards or best-selling status will provide some information here. The quality of this source is sort of a striking contrast to the scholarly job that was done on the analysis section. --JayHenry (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the novel? If you have, could you find someone who hasn't and have them review the synopsis. I've really done the best I could and think a newbie would be the best thing at this stage. As for reception, I thought that scholarly reception was "analysis" and the masses were what we regularly call, "reception". Reception answers the question "what did casual readers think of this book? Did they like it? What did they like/not like? How well did it sell?" Scholars analyze the book. I believe that most of the links provided above are analysis, and not reception material at all, though I intend to look into all of them. The journal they're coming from even says that it prints analytic material. Wrad (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... agree fresh eyes may be best. Yeah, I've read it. maclean who just popped in above has done good work on some sci-fi works like the novel Pattern Recognition and might be able to help here. User:Skomorokh is also an editor who has done good work with sci-fi topics and could help. Regarding your latter point, I'd be surprised if neither scholars nor journalists discuss the book's popular reception, sales, awards, and influence on the rest of the genre, but I've not had the chance to research the topic myself.

I hope my comments don't seem like I'm really negative or something. I think it's already well done and am just offtering some suggestions for areas of further improvement (asymptotically toward perfection!) that aren't necessarily related to the GA criteria. --JayHenry

With respect to the "Reception" vs. "Analysis" content, regardless of who is writing the book review, I have been keeping all the opinionated points in the "Reception", and keeping the "Analysis" more descriptive (merely describing a theme or motif but not saying whether it is effective or not). It is a function of the jobs, for the book reviewer to say whether the book is worth the time, and the academic to analyze it. Academics usually write more enlighten and complete analytical descriptions, but occasionally the average magazine/newspaper reviewer will drop something profound. Also, I read this book a couple years ago. --maclean 05:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Reception" can cover critical reviews, observations from literary critics/scholars about reader and reviewer response (as well as their assessments on the quality and success of the work), awards, and sales. It isn't limited to book reviews in a magazine or newspaper. In fact, some Reception sections expand to include "Literary Significance." I've referenced scholarly articles above since they often include citations to book reviews written at the time of original publication, which may help editors track them down. Also, reviews of sequels often refer to older reviews or include commentary on the initial installment.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Per Jim's request I've placed the article on hold to allow some time for work on reception and literary significance. No pressure and please don't be discouraged. These are key sections to add, but it should not be interpreted as any slight against the work done so far! --JayHenry (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't seem to have access to Extrapolation. Wrad (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

How goes process on the GA nomination and review? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to put the nomination on hold so that editors could work to add key information. While I'm happy to wait we can't really keep this on the GAN page indefinitely. Unless there's some indication that work is going to occur imminently, I don't see how I'd be able to pass the article this go round. Would appreciate hearing the thoughts of the editors working on this article whether or not the request is fair. --JayHenry (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I haven't had time available to work on this. I think the GAN was premature, so I understand if the result at this point is to not list (and would concur). However, I would like to see the article improve since the novel is an important one; consequently, irrelevant of the GAN status I will work on the article this weekend.
Jim Dunning | talk 01:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed it for now. The concern from WP:WIAGA remains "broad in its coverage". Particularly the section on Reception is particularly thin when it's a key element to this novel. Jim has suggested a number of sources that could be used. Currently (and curiously) as far as I can tell, the article neglects to actually use the sources in the Bibliography. These too would likely contain some of the missing information. Best of luck with this article. I hope to even see it at FA some day. --JayHenry (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Environmentalism & Ecology

"After the publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson in 1962, science fiction writers were confronted with the problem of biological-human relations. Dune responded in 1965..." This comment suggests that Dune was written in response to Silent Spring. However, as noted on Frank Herbert's page, "Herbert began researching Dune in 1959..." Therefore, the section relating Dune to Silent Spring should be removed or rewritten. While Silent Spring may have been a later influence (which would require something from Herbert himself), it did not provoke the writing of the novel. Biccat (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. He can begin researching in 1959, eventually read Silent Spring in 1962, and finally finish the book in 1965. No contradiction whatsoever. Wrad (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cultural influence and Shai Hulud

I did want to clarify that I phrased my edit summary wrong when I removed the mention of the band Shai Hulud; I was questioned about it on my talk page but should have commented here as well. In any case, the band itself is notable, but their only connection to Dune is that they named themselves after a term from the novel — that is not influence, that is trivia. The band is not notable within the context of this article, and wouldn't be (in my opinion) in the Sandworm article either. The mention of the band, and other such trivia, have been deleted a few times in the past. — TAnthony^Talk 16:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. But doesn't that mean there's a bigger call to make here? If the name of Shai Hulud is not a direct link to Dune - and the term itself was coined in the novel - then why mention any such connection to the book by any artist in any medium? Apologies if I'm jumping into a discussion that's already done and dusted. Tanzeelat (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You are definitely correct, and similar trivial references have been removed from both the Dune (novel) and Dune (film) articles. The ones that remain are a bit "meatier" and (I think) show a more substantial and direct influence, with sources. Some of it still borders on trivia but ... — TAnthony^Talk 15:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The list of songs which sample the Dune film seems endless and kind of irks me, LOL, but since they contain material from the film I guess they are technically some form of derivative work, right?? — TAnthony^Talk 15:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the answer is to hive it off into its own article, where the triviality can be labelled... except that might be considered OR... Tanzeelat (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that was done when there was a longer list, which has since been deleted. It doesn't seem quite worth it at this point. — TAnthony^Talk 14:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Universe != Galaxy

I think I fairly mucked up reverting those revisions. Sorry! --SandChigger (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)