Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

lol! Amen!

Sometimes I am truly amazed at the lack of ability of people to read a work and instead of try to impose their own reality and beliefs upon it INSTEAD attempt to glimpse the view of the writer who has spent enormous vision, time, both waking and sleeping time to create a monument such as the Dune series.

No writer should demand a reader share their views, but readers should at least try to step outside their little realm of comprehension and attempt to see the bigger picture of a work. Very sad that supposedly fantasy or sci-fi readers blast a work and even leave vulgar comments because they are limited in themselves.

Wow, you've presented a great challenge to me indeed. How best to respond?

My first thought was sarcasm, with something like "Will gosh durn! I aint not known nuttin' bout no readin! Amma I s'posta aktilly look atta words witout dem purty piktures" But that sounded a little forced to me

THen I thought about pointing out that, as your profile says you're an alleged author, that your choice of the word "vulgar" seems a little misplaced within the syntax of your critique. Being that A) if you were trying to use the word "vulgar" as it was originally intended, you would be implying that my commentary was of common, everyday usage. B)If you are meaning it in the more modern sense, then I fail to see where anything I said was excessively obscene. If I were to say, for example, that you are a "f*cking doucheb*ggy pretentious c*cksucker" that would more aptly be described as vulgar as I can only assume you intended. If, on the other hand, you meant to say that my comments were overly excessive, ostenatious or pretentious (according to Merriam Webster, giving props) then I would have to point out that the term "vulgar" in that context would point more accurately to someone who cruises the Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ site seeking out people posting their opinions in an attempt to shoot holes through it in an attempt to laud themselves as intellectually superior. (The claiming of success in this regard on your behalf, btw, would be premature at best and spurious at its worst) I don't know, I'd have gone with maybe "glib" instead.

Then I thought about the consitutional argument, which I would claim first amendment rights to say any damn thing that I please, but I thought that is too obvious, and unfortunately protects you as well, so in that regard I would say you came to my page uninvited, so you voluntarily opened yourself up to reprisal, rebuttal, and generaly snarky retribution. Or, to state it in the vulgar, you f*cked with the wrong smart ass.

Or, I could go the route of saying that I too, am involved in the arts as a profession, and that it is the responsibility of the artist to convey the intent of their work in such a way that it is clear. In my opinion, Herbert failed to do that in this book. It doesn't have to be liked, or understood by the frontal lobe of the cerebrum, but art needs to be viscerally understood. The great artists (Michaelangelo, Cormac MacCarthy, Stravinski, Frank Zappa) could do this. The mediocre ones (Frank Herbert, Chris Columbus, you) understand the words, but not the music. (That's a quote by Mark Twain btw, he's an author, you might want to read his stuff)

But, in the end, I realized that anyone who blasts someone's opinion simply because it's not in line with their own, is nothing more than a Republican, and thus not worth my time. You should try to step outside of your own self-aggrandizing snot nose douchebaggery and allow people to have opinions about work that have nothing to do with you personally. If you want to argue and debate, that's fine, but you personally attacked me, calling me limited with no provocation and no knowledge of who I am, or my background, and then you expect me to take you seriously as an intellectual.

I will give Frank Herbert props in this respect; I am atleast familiar with his works. I've never heard shit about yours

This is a personal attack that has been reported btw.

Since you wish to critique my writing, English is not my first language. I am a German speaker and I live in Germany. Here we are honest in our thoughts and responses and we provide them without hesitation wíthout ulterior motives, and certainly not in the manner to which you addressed me: disrespectfully, rudely and nastily.

Your ethnocentricity in assuming someone is from your own culture, and uses speech with intention as you might is a fundamental attribution error.

Your first amendments claims and accusations of Republican behavior is completely unbased and non-existent as US politics are of no interest to me.

Just as you gave your option, it was my right to voice my own. It seems your response indicates I should also not have a right to free speech. Your reply I believe is indicative of your own challenged mental state on that topic.

Whether you read my work or are aware of it is completely immaterial and irrelevant, as it makes no difference to me. I am neither upset or bothered by this message of yours, which is extremely juvenile in nature but unfortunately representative of the attitude, base behavior and actions that continue to reflect poorly on too many new Americans.

I'm sorry if your hatred towards certain groups inspires you to attack someone over a book review on a website dedicated to book reading and reviewing, and includes totally unfounded and assumptive remarks far beyond any topic based on the book itself. I hope you get your anger management issues resolved at some point because it obviously serves no purpose or reason except your self-justification which is again very subjective.

You might have objected to me about my comments but including a profanity laced diatribe stretching into US politics having nothing to do with the book mentioned shows some deep, deep issues you need to deal with that has nothing to do with me, a general commenter on a post on the web.

Red Haircrow

Allow me to assist you in a couple of areas then

In English, the word is "opinion" not "option"

Sentences such as "INSTEAD attempt to glimpse the view of the writer who has spent enormous vision, time, both waking and sleeping time to create a monument such as the Dune series." and "uses speech with intention as you might is a fundamental attribution error." Are grammatically incoherent in the English language.

Forgive my assumption, but being as you came on my page and insulted me in english, it was a forgivible conclusion, especially since you plastered Native American all over your page.

If you are going to instigate an arugment in English, then perhaps you should have a better grasp on the grammatical rules, especially since the origins of our languages have a common lineage. I don't claim to be able to speak fluent German, but I also don't go around picking fights in German. If you would like to re-read my post with an English-Duetsch dictionary, you would see that I did in fact say that you enjoy first amendement privilages, not that you don't. Verb tenses are a wonderful thing to pay attention to.

And as far as personal attacks, you are the one who unprovoked called me "limited", and that I have a challenged mental state. I would also like to point out that you brought ethnocentriciy to the table first, by making blanket statements about the behavior of Americans. (Or too many new Americans, whatever the hell that means)

I'll be interested to see where your supposed report goes, being that I couched everything in the hypothetical, and didn't actually call you a f*cking pretentious douche directly.

We have a saying here in the states: "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight" If you're gonna start something, then you better be prepared for reprisal. We also have a term for unjustified pretentiousness of people from across the Atlantic, it's called "Eurotrash"

Wow, you can't let go of the politics angle. IT'S CALLED SARCASM!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wasn't actually trying to comment on your political alignment, I was making a backhanded slap for a slighty comedic effect whilst exposing you for the tool that you are! As for your whining about my anger issues or whatever else, you seem to forget that you brought this to my doorstep, then tried to back paddle by saying "Ve in land of Teutanie be honest and pure" Honesty would have been something like "I disagree with your review, I found this book and the series to be good for the following reasons...." not "You do not like book, or David Hasselhoff, so you are limited cretin, ROAR!"

Ditto

haha, he already pointed out that you are too stupid to get this book, so how could you POSSIBLY understand any reasons that this genius literati would have proffered?

I'm almost done with this book, but I'm enjoying it. I do know what you mean about the dialogue though. That said, could you perhaps hide your review because of spoilers. I hate that I now know the ending! Thanks.

Lara, I apologize, I didn't even think about spoilers. I will take care of that. I hope you find the book more enjoyable than I did

(Look at that Redhair Crow, a polite exchange between 2 people who have a difference of opinion. Btw, as I suspected, your "flag" resulted in nothing. The rest of the world understands sarcasm)

Thank you, Josh! I appreciate that. I did appreciate your review as I've read many mixed reactions to this one. I guess it all comes down to personal preference.

As for the book, I did not like it at first, but I stuck with it since I loved the first two so much. By the end, I'm finding the intricate assassination plots really interesting. I think the way this one differs from Dune Messiah is there is a lot of mystery about what exactly the plot is, which I like. The twins are really creepy, especially when Leto thinks about sex. I'm not a prude, but there is something unsettling about a child having those kinds of thoughts. But, I think that was the point.

All in all, I'm (for the most part) enjoying this. I'm trying to reserve my judgement for the end.

Thank you for the review!

2 years later.. Would just like to point out how badly Red got owned here. Sucks to suck hahaha. I saw that he was pasting the same response on every review that was negative. Was a pretentious douche.

I kind of agree with this review. The second half of the book really put me off.

the children are supposed to be too articulate. its almost like you missed the point of the book.

Just because I didn’t respond to the book doesn’t mean I missed the point

Josh wrote: "Just because I didn’t respond to the book doesn’t mean I missed the point"

No but to bring up the defining thing, the thing that they talk about every other paragraph, as being odd is to miss the point.

Well, again, just because I didn’t respond to it doesn’t mean I didn’t understand the intent. I get it, I just didn’t enjoy it. To paraphrase Roger Ebert, “it’s not what it’s about, it’s how it’s about it�. I didn’t care for the story, I didn’t care for the execution. Much of what I liked about book 1 and gone a course that I wasn’t on board for. I get it. I didn’t like it.