4 ms·
I also agree with one of the parents that Villevenue’s was sterile, however the book itself is kind of sterile — as lots of SF of the era was. The world buildin
by tnecniv 3y ago
I also agree with one of the parents that Villevenue’s was sterile, however the book itself is kind of sterile — as lots of SF of the era was. The world building is incredible, and Villevenue captures all that well in the sets, costumes, and such. However, characters and dialog are not a strength of that book in my opinion.
I love the book though, and I enjoyed Villevenue’s adaptation because it was exactly how I visualized the book when I first read it. However, having such a direct adaptation means you inherit the flaws as well — in this case some dryness and the pacing issue that you mentioned.
- mnky9800n 3y agoI do not agree that sterile sci-fi was anymore common in 1965 then any other time period. Books like George R. Stewarts earth abides came out ten years before. PKD wrote the man in the high castle, martian time slip, do androids dream of electric sheep, and the three stigmata of Palmer eldritch, Ursula k le guin wrote the left hand of darkness a couple years after, like this list goes on and on. Yes there's trash like anything a.e. van vogt wrote but there's always trash. Also I think dune is purposefully written in a particular way because one of the themes of the book is the disposableness of life and this is what the fremen oppose.
- nkrisc 3y agoI agree, though the book is more sterile than Villevenue’s, I think. His version had a few jokes, which is a few more than the book has, as I recall.