3 ms·

I'm not sure Frank Herbert would agree with you. https://youtu.be/26GPaMoeiu4 https://youtu.be/26GPaMoeiu4 https://youtu.be/5IfgBX1EW00 https://youtu.be/5IfgB

I'm not sure Frank Herbert would agree with you. https://youtu.be/26GPaMoeiu4 https://youtu.be/26GPaMoeiu4 https://youtu.be/5IfgBX1EW00 https://youtu.be/5IfgBX1EW00

EarlKing 5y ago
Good links both, but in both cases he never expresses or implies his works are allegorical. He's quite clear in both of these links why he wrote. In the first one he states his point was: "Don't trust leaders to always be right." He expands on that in the second: "I wrote the Dune series because I had this idea that charismatic leaders ought to come with a warning label on their forehead: 'may be dangerous to your health'. I mean I think the most dangerous president we've had or one of the most dangerous at least, not because he was a bad guy but because people didn't question him... one of the most dangerous presidents that we've had in this century was Jack Kennedy because people said 'Yes sir, Mr. Charismatic leader, what'll we do next?' And we wound up in Vietnam. People don't realize that he was one of the major moving forces getting us into Vietnam." And further: "And I think probably the most valuable president of this century was Richard Nixon because he taught us to distrust government... and he did it by example... which is the best kind of teaching." He openly talks about wanting to know why people drank the koo-aid or said Sieg Heil and murdered Jews and Gypsies... but at no time does he say his work was allegorical. These were simply ideas he wanted to convey in his work. It's funny, though... at around the 30:00 mark in that second link there was someone very offended at his writing of gay characters, saying that his writing of them would only lead to violence against gays. His response was insightful, truthful, and pure comedy gold... but the kid seemed very disturbed. He, like some in this thread, seemed to read into the book what he wanted to read, and was incensed when no one else agreed with him. :D One last note: That second link was almost certainly a great talk, but the UCLA's recording is clearly damaged. The recording cuts out so much that it is extremely aggravating to try to listen to it.
- bananamerica 5y ago
  Well, you clearly have your conclusion all made up. No point at all in have a discussion...

I'm not sure Frank Herbert would agree with you. https://youtu.be/26GPaMoeiu4 https://youtu.be/26GPaMoeiu4 https://youtu.be/5IfgBX1EW00 https://youtu.be/5IfgBX1EW00

EarlKing 5y ago

Good links both, but in both cases he never expresses or implies his works are allegorical. He's quite clear in both of these links why he wrote. In the first one he states his point was: "Don't trust leaders to always be right." He expands on that in the second: "I wrote the Dune series because I had this idea that charismatic leaders ought to come with a warning label on their forehead: 'may be dangerous to your health'. I mean I think the most dangerous president we've had or one of the most dangerous at least, not because he was a bad guy but because people didn't question him... one of the most dangerous presidents that we've had in this century was Jack Kennedy because people said 'Yes sir, Mr. Charismatic leader, what'll we do next?' And we wound up in Vietnam. People don't realize that he was one of the major moving forces getting us into Vietnam." And further: "And I think probably the most valuable president of this century was Richard Nixon because he taught us to distrust government... and he did it by example... which is the best kind of teaching." He openly talks about wanting to know why people drank the koo-aid or said Sieg Heil and murdered Jews and Gypsies... but at no time does he say his work was allegorical. These were simply ideas he wanted to convey in his work. It's funny, though... at around the 30:00 mark in that second link there was someone very offended at his writing of gay characters, saying that his writing of them would only lead to violence against gays. His response was insightful, truthful, and pure comedy gold... but the kid seemed very disturbed. He, like some in this thread, seemed to read into the book what he wanted to read, and was incensed when no one else agreed with him. :D One last note: That second link was almost certainly a great talk, but the UCLA's recording is clearly damaged. The recording cuts out so much that it is extremely aggravating to try to listen to it.

bananamerica 5y ago
Well, you clearly have your conclusion all made up. No point at all in have a discussion...