It don’t work. For example Frank Herbert at some point got annoyed by reception of especially “God Emperor” that he basically said straight what the message was and yet, 40 years later chuds are still wanking to the great (literal) gusano despot - which is especially fun in context of the tweet in OP since who is now identifying with a hideous murderous hive insect (Leto II considered himself a hive being - amalgam of all the personalities in him with what was the Leto himself only existing as an equilibrium between them).
Verhoeven also openly said his movie was satire but they still going too.
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.
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).
You know the good narration method of “show, do not tell” which a lot of authors violate by telling and not showing?
“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.
his own son systematically sabotaging the ideals of his works
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.
It don’t work. For example Frank Herbert at some point got annoyed by reception of especially “God Emperor” that he basically said straight what the message was and yet, 40 years later chuds are still wanking to the great (literal) gusano despot - which is especially fun in context of the tweet in OP since who is now identifying with a hideous murderous hive insect (Leto II considered himself a hive being - amalgam of all the personalities in him with what was the Leto himself only existing as an equilibrium between them).
Verhoeven also openly said his movie was satire but they still going too.
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.