Talk:Discrepancies (Dune)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

Recent deletion edits regarding BG invisibility and the BJ

In the K&B books, the Rossak lot turn invisible, right? And the BG (in one of the House books) does something similar, hiding in plain sight or something. Someone removed the invisibility part of this inconsistency and I would like for that person to come out and discuss it and/or for others to chime in. The edits now include blanking the entire BJ section... Lundse 14:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancies Within Original Novels

I propose a move of the section "Discrepancies Within the Original Novels". They are interesting, and I don't wish to see them gone, however, they are not controversial. I believe this page is to highlight controversial matters.

Could a new section on the main page refer to "Possible Continuity Errors" and link to a page containing these apparent continuity errors. I suggest "possible" because some of them might be matters of interpretation, whereas the Farok issue is quite blatant, unless he is a shape-shifter...

--Arkayik 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Rationalizations

I included the rationalizations on this page as a sop to Zeus69962. But Weregerbil has a point: These rationalizations have no existence beyond isolated rantings on newsgroup and forum postings. As such they could easily be considered original research. I am hesitant to simply excise them, as I do feel they provide balance to a controversial article, but I think a discussion should be considered. Justin Bacon 18:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


I don't know that the "rationalizations" stand, unless they can be cited.

--Arkayik 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have cited all of the rationalizations and I assure you that they more then do stand seeing as how they are rational as opposed to this assumption based on what a person believes an author to have written as opposed to the writings of the legitimate son of that author. Zeus69962 05:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If you wanted to take the effort to cite the rationalizations, that would be great. But don't claim you've done it when, in fact, you haven't done any such thing. You might also want to note that the only rationalizations currently in the artcile are for discrepancies which have absolutely nothing to do with the writings of Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson. Justin Bacon 16:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I HAVE done it... Go look in the records of our previous dicussions... I've answered every question from that alt.fun.dune site and a few more. None of them are justifiable and are usually due to one not being able to look for the answers, not reading the prequels at all, not caring about the right answers, or some preconceived judgment/notions about what they believed the story to have been and not what the actual author (or the current rightful holder of the copyright) said said. That said, go look in the archived records :) Push come to shove, if someone would like to recompile them, I guess I could reanswer them. Zeus69962 19:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Go to www.dictionary.com. Look up the word "cite". Get back to us when you have the slightest clue what the words you are using actually mean. Thanks. (I won't bother trying to make you understand, yet again, that the rationalizations found in this article at this time HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PREQUELS.) Justin Bacon 04:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of this page

I'm the person who originally created this page. My intent was to provide a catalogue of discrepancies between Frank Herbert's Dune books, and the Dune books written by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson. My intent was also to segregate these discrepancies here so that other Dune articles don't get cluttered with arguments; instead, a link to this page can be provided.

This is supposed to be a place for listing apparent discrepancies, but justifiable rebuttals or official responses by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson (such as those mentioned on the Dune FAQ at their site) are proper as well. Many of these discrepancies are matters of interpretation, or of Herbert and Anderson 'filling in' details that were absent in the original novels, but seem to violate larger themes.

Please remember that others may not share your interpretation, and that Wikipedia's purpose is to provide an NPOV overview of these things. There's nothing to win here. The only good to be done here is to provide readers with sufficient information for them to judge for themselves whether or not an apparent discrepancy is true or not.

Justin Johnson 20:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


The quoted passages are useful; but would be much more so if sourced -- at least the book and chapter, and some context too. For instance, I know one is about the duelling machine in Dune (I). Alan, 20/3/06

Herbert family member acknowledges discrepancies in interview

There are many discrepancies between original series and works of Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson? What do you think of it?
Not much. I wasn't really surprised by it. When you jump into a project like this, there are bound to be issues (the prose differences that I mentioned previously, etc.). The "discrepancies" are there, but they don't get in the way of the story for me. I read for enjoyment, not to pick apart a story. (emphasis added)

Interview with Byron Merritt (grandson of FH, nephew of BH)

Debates

THESE ARE WRONG! STOP POSTING THINGS THAT ARE NOT CORRECT!! I HAVE ANSWERED THESE ALREADY!!! DELETE THIS PAGE AND REFER TO OUR TALK SESSION UNTIL WE HAVE COME TO AN AGREEMENT.

Zeus69962 03:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude, take a lude. Or something. They're just stories. (And in the case of the BH/KJA stuff, not very good ones at that.) RJCraig 12:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude... Get an informed opinion or don't post one at all.

Zeus69962 16:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The answers to these questions are here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lundse/Zeus69962_Dune_discrepancy_discussion

This page must be deleted since it is in error, uninformed and extremely biased

Zeus69962 23:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

To anyone who stops by, please read a single "thread" or two of the discussion linked to above and give your 2 cents on whether the questions/arguments were answered and who tried to maintain a serious discussion. Lundse 23:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Lundse, I waded through quite a bit of the "discussion" the other night...and I must say I take my hat off to you and Justin for your efforts.

Zeus69962, well now, I'm really at a loss. If the opinion of someone who has been reading (and loving!) Frank Herbert's works (not only the Dune series, either) for nearly 30 years is "uninformed", well then, what can I say? Your pronouncements would be better informed by consideration of the fact that you may know nothing of whom you're dealing with. (In this reader's opinion Brian Herbert is an avaricious hack cursed to live on in the shadow of a brilliant father. As far as I'm concerned, the Dune canon ends with Chapterhouse Dune.) RJCraig 10:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The Butlerian Jihad.

I felt it would be relevant to add a segment to the end of the Butlerian Jihad section, pointing out the connotations of the word 'jihad'. I find it difficult to believe that a slavish world-builder like Frank Herbert would choose a word like 'jihad' for the sake of exoticism -- I feel the 'spiritual struggle' connotations of 'jihad' resonate very strongly with the attitudes of post-Butler Dune characters* towards thinking-machines.

(* i.e., all of them)

Agreed, glad you put it there. BTW, do you (or others) feel the quotes are too much, should there be just one or two with reference to what book and a comment? Lundse 12:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, too, good addition; esp. the point re the term being used by the entire empire (and not just the Fremen) to label a pivotal event in human history. (As for number of quotes, considering the type of mind opposing this, the more the merrier.) RJCraig 15:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


I don't currently have access to my books so I can't check for sure, but in the original book or its sequel. I recall it being mentioned that there was indeed a Battle of Corrin, where the house Corrino took its name and where an Atreides banished a Harkonnen for cowardice. This implies there was an actual war, don't you think this quote(s) should be added to the list of quotes about the Butlerian Jihad? -Amos 70.152.53.21 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course there was a war, but in the original novels, it was a war initiated by humans wanting to eradicate the thinking machines (and apparently not everyone agreed). There might even have been cyborgs, robot spaceships and giant AIs on one side of the war - slave pens and unnecessarily cruel robots et al is, however, all in the minds of B&K. Lundse 01:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you know what Brian and Kevin put in versus what Frank initially thought up...? Your theory about the war makes no sense. It couldn't have happened any other way. They had to have been enslaved after trying to enslave them; I'm pretty sure Frank intended for it to be that way. What is your problem with the "cruel robots"? Moreover, even if that is a product of the minds of KJA & BH, they have the right to do it as long as it doesn't interfere with canon - if anyone would take the time to read my explanations they would see that it is all explained :)

Zeus69962 08:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not really get the gist of what you are saying - two many personal pronouns and too little explanation of what groups you believe what about. They had to be enslaved after trying to enslave them - who are these two thems? And please note that FH does not in any place talk about that kind of enslavement.

My problem with the cruel robots is that they are unnecessary, belong to a "lower" kind of science fiction, diffuse the point of the Jihad and that they are an extension of the universe which goes against what has been described before. I read your explanations, back then, but since you were unwilling to answer basic questions about it and enter a discussion (but rather attempted to gain "support" through sockpuppets) I was not convinced. Lundse 09:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

See here is where you are saying that robots belong to a lower sci-fi but what about Asimov, most of his work is about intelligent machines... Star Trek has many robotic or technologically based species... But the most convincing argument is this one that I already showed you the quotes in which Frank wrote directly about machines hunting and killing humans in the future (God Emperor of Dune).

  • This quote... "You could have saved my friends in the forest," she accused. "You, too, could have saved them." She clenched her fists and pressed them against her temples while she glared at him. "But you know everything!" "Siona!" "Did I have to learn it that way?" she whispered. He remained silent, forcing her to answer the question for herself. She had to be made to recognize that his primary consciousness worked in a Fremen way and that, like the terrible machines of that apocalyptic vision, the predator could follow any creature who left tracks. "The Golden Path," she whispered. "I can feel it." Then, glaring at him. "It's so cruel!" "Survival has always been cruel." "They couldn't hide," she whispered."
  • and this quote... "He saw the milky distances enter her eyes. Without asking permission, she tapped his front segment, demanding that he prepare the warm hammock of his flesh. He obeyed. She fitted herself to the gentle curve. By peering sharply downward, he could see her. Siona's eyes remained opened, but they no longer saw this place. She jerked abruptly and began to tremble like a small creature dying. He knew this experience, but could not change the smallest part of it. No ancestral presences would remain in her consciousness, but she would carry with her forever afterward the clear sights and sounds and smells. The seeking machines would be there, the smell of blood and entrails, the cowering humans in their burrows aware only that they could not escape . . . while all the time the mechanical movement approached, nearer and nearer and nearer ...louder...louder! Everywhere she searched, it would be the same. No escape anywhere."

Zeus69962 20:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you being obtuse just to bother me?
I never said robots is a "low topic", I said killing, murderous, torturing, evil robots which do what they do for no reason but to engage the reader in a dramatic story about laser pistols is a low sort of science fiction. But this has never been my main point and is kind of irrelevant - go discuss what I asked instead of trying to find fault in something I wrote long ago.
And yes, FH wrote about machines killing in the future - is this how you are going to argue that in his universe the robots/cyborgs started the war? And how are you going to explain away the quote I have tried showing you time and again? Lundse 22:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorceresses

"In none of the six original books does any Bene Gesserit give any hint of knowing of any such abilities of ... telekinesis or telepathy, making this a rather grievous discrepancy."

"In Dune: The Butlerian Jihad, Kevin J. Anderson and Brian Herbert, however, endow their predecessors, the Sorceresses of Rossak, with telepathic and telekinetic abilities,"

This is incorrect. From Dune 1, pg 574-575 (paperback) "It was a time of sorceresses whose powers were real. The measure of them is seen in the fact they never boasted how they grasped the firebrand."

"...by the Bene Gesserit who were banding the sorceresses."

Also in the prequels it states that the planet Rossak endowed women with psychic abilities, but the Bene Gesserit of Frank's books are not located on Rossak.

Apparently, the Bene Gesserit originated separately from these sorceresses but consolidated their powers after the Butlerian. Jihad. Obviously, the Bene Gesserit of the original series are NOT telepathic. The discrepancy is therefore very subtle and not as obvious as whoever authored this section claims. 219.77.98.22 08:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Presumably such endowment would have come about as a result of exposure to the pharma-ecology of the Rossakian biosphere. Such powers having obvious benefits (hey, who doesn't have need from time to time for a psychobint bomb?), it seem to me the Bene Gesserit would have made every effort to maintain them artificially among the sorceresses after leaving Rossak as well as to spread them throughout their sisterhood.
The real problem with the difference in the powers of the women in the two time periods is the genetic memory linking them. While it makes sense that later generations could develop new powers not available to the earlier, the mechanism of genetic memory makes it unlikely that later generations would lose powers of the earlier.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Nice try, though. RJCraig 07:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


In regards to the discrepancy of the mental abilities of the Bene Gesserit who are the descendants of the women or Witches of Rossak –

Reading the entire saga of Dune, which spans over tens of thousands of years, one learns that many, many things change over such a long period of time. Necessity and invention create evolution, for a descendant to become very different than their ancestor, in ways you cannot predict.

The Bene Gesserit have many more abilities and are more refined in their attacks. Why would such a powerful organization, choose to employ a tactic that would result in killing their members, when they have so many other options to choose from.

Dune 1, pg 574-575

It was a time of sorceresses whose powers were real. The measure of them is seen in the fact they never boasted how they grasped the firebrand."

That is a direct reference to the time of the Witches of Rossak, thereby proving that the Bene Gesserit do come from them, and simply choose not to boast or reveal their secrets of their long and rich history. Ishallmakeyouperplexed=Pouya86 20:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Not boasting is one thing. But the Bene Gesserit, by the time of Heretics of Dune and Chapterhouse of Dune, have ancestral memories. So they're not going to lose these abilities. Nor is it reasonable to pretend that they simply choose not to use them. We're sitting inside their heads for most of those books, and those abilities never come up. You can attempt to rationalize away the inconsistency by saying "they must have lost those abilities... somehow", but that's all you're doing: Trying to rationalize a discrepancy and blatant inconsistency. Justin Bacon 06:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, even if B&K include a paragraph in their last books saying 'oh, yeah, the BG sorcerer powers - they were forgotten behind a shelf on Chapterhouse, lets brush them of now' it would still be an inconsistency. The feel of the original novels is that the BG (or ancestors) did not ever wield such obvious psychic powers. Lundse 19:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You're forgetting that Frank Herbert wrote the original Dune where it states that quote... This is the complete quote, read it and understand it because it is exactly the way KJA & BH wrote it...

  • "It was a time of sorceresses whose powers were real. The measure of them is seen in the fact they never boasted how they grasped the firebrand.
   Then came the Butlerian Jihad -- two generations of chaos. The god of machine-logic was overthrown among the masses and a new concept was raised:
   'Man may not be replaced.'
   Those two generations of violence were a thalamic pause for all humankind. Men looked at their gods and their rituals and saw that both were filled with that most terrible of all equations: fear over ambition.
   Hesitantly, the leaders of religions whose followers had spilled the blood of billions began meeting to exchange views. It was a move encouraged by the Spacing Guild, which was beginning to build its monopoly over all interstellar travel, and by the Bene Gesserit who were banding the sorceresses."

What he is saying there is more or less exactly how the S of R are described in the prequels as well as the machines and the fight against them... The BG didn't forget, as you have seen in that quote... They just do not "boast" about it... "The firebrand" was also explained in the prequels.

Zeus69962 08:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As well as another quote from the original Dune novel,

  • "Jessica saw the slave cribs on Bela Tegeuse down that inner corridor, saw the weeding out and the selecting that spread men to Rossak and Harmonthep. Scenes of brutal ferocity opened to her like the petals of a terrible flower. And she saw the thread of the past carried by Sayyadina after Sayyadina--first by word of mouth, hidden in the sand chanteys, then refined through their own Reverend Mothers with the discovery of the poison drug on Rossak . . . and now developed to subtle strengthen Arrakis in the discovery of the Water of Life.
   Far down the inner corridor, another voice screamed: "Never to forgive! Never to forget!"

This proves that Frank intended them to be from Rossak initially and brought up the concept of the intense drugs on the planet.

Zeus69962 19:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The last quote is about the Fremen, not the BG - maybe B&K made the same mistake?

The first quote does state that 'their powers where real' - I take this to mean that the initial proto-BG group were the first to show powers that at the time were thought to be 'sorcery' and at the times of the novels were understood (at least by the highly educated) to be arrived at through training. Also consider that in Dune, Hawat does not know the full extent of Jessica's powers - hence the not "boast[ing] how they grasped the firebrand."

An interesting thing in your quote, though: "Hesitantly, the leaders of religions whose followers had spilled the blood of billions began meeting to exchange views" - meaning that the fighting after the Jihad ended with religious leaders coming together. This fits with a religious/ideological explanation of the war, not with a Terminator scenario.

Lundse 09:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


The last quote is partially about, not the Fremen but the Zensunnis... Though, there is more in that quote regarding the BG (specifically) more than anyone else - In addition, the BG (as well as many other people - Most significantly the Tleilaxu) believe that they originated from the Zensunni so it could entirely be about the BG with that thought in mind. Moreover, just because Brian & Kevin haven't stated (in the legends series) that the BG have also derived from the Zensunni's are not ultimately left out of the question... Maybe the BG took some female Zensunni's out of the desert and merged with them when they planted the Missionaria Protectiva. It could be explained in the next series which takes place after The Legends series, which KJA & BH might write later on. Except, until they write it, that's just as speculative as any of your theories.

Next, the religious purge, as I've explained before took place at the end of The Battle of Corrin where many humans died, through the faults of other humans and machines. Moreover, the cult of Serena destroyed any semblance of an AI machine, anything that simulated it in any fashion and those that harbored these devices. Thus, that quote works just fine.

I don't understand what you believe to have happened at the BJ but there's no way that it didn't happen like this. It seems the only logical route. That's not to say that your analogy about the philosophical implications is wrong. only your idea that there were no thinking machines and these other "inaccuracies" which I've explained. I hate when someone screws up the story myself but that hasn't happened here at all. In fact, I cannot think of one error at all; if you look back to our discussion. I've already answered these questions, I'm sorry if you do not like the answers... Like them or not they are there and Frank Herbert was the one who thought them up. I will not argue the fact that Frank's writing is better than KJA & his son but he did allude to these thoughts in his books. You cannot deny that he makes direct references to "Thinking Machines". Once again, I don't understand what you think could have happened?

Zeus69962 19:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I know FH talked about thinking machines. Please let us move on from this level of discussion and please reread you own initial paragraph - the BG might also have been Zensunni? Yes, or they might have been mutants from the X-men universe, but since FH did not write either thing down they are at odds with his universe as it stands. Are you saying the BG came from Rossak, were Zensunni wanderers and wielded magic now?

I have explained time and again how the story goes according to FH. I have shown you the passages that say so and now you have showed me one, too. Your interpretation does not hold water, and I asked you some rather damning questions about them which you always evaded with the same kind of talk you do here; you say that you explained, that your explanation is sound etc. I maintain that it is not and if you go back and read some of my last posts in our former discussion you will see quite a number of questions which you never answered.

My two main points: there is nothing about your position I do not understand, get or sympathize with. I just do now agree, and I have told you why. Please do not explain your position again but address my former points. Second point is this: first we establish how FH envisioned his universe, then we establish how K&B envision theirs - then we compare them and see if they fit. You cannot keep reinterpreting key parts of FH's writing to shoehorn it in.

I have requested comments from the community regarding this matter, see below. Lundse 08:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I think you've misunderstood me... I didn't say that the BG were Fremen... I implied that it was not impossible, if BH and KJA decided to incorporate that aspect into it, it wouldn't be screwing around with the canon story. The point of that is that just because Frank didn't state something directly in his book doesn't mean that he didn't think it up. KJA and BH have (as we've agreed) the right to write anything... So long as it doesn't screw with the canon, that's our dispute... So when you ask a question like 'When Duncan killed the Harkonnen on Grumman and claim that it interfered with the quote': "My sword was firs' blooded on Grumman! Killed a Harkon . . . Harkon . . . killed 'im f'r th' Duke." You forgot or didn't read the fact that he did not use the Dukes sword to kill the Harkonnen; the quote did not state that the Harkonnen was the first person that he killed. I think that's the problem here, you need to read the books. In response to your BJ argument, I understand your point now but it's still incorrect... This is where you went wrong, The cyborgs didn't start the war, they were just pawns... The war WAS started by humans... The Titans were human! To some extent, they still are, considering the cyborg parts are just an outfit. The control lies in the disembodied brain which is human... In addition, Omnius was just fulfilling the Agamemnon's orders (who, once again, is human, in some form) So your philosophical idea still fits in... The two worlds can and do co-exist... Yes, Frank's writing is better but doesn't every story have better parts and worse parts, both in the writing and in the story... Especially considering that they are different writers... The point is not the quality of the writing, which although I (personally) prefer Frank's writing, I can also appreciate this in a different way. Moreover, I apologize for not answering some of your questions, it was not my intent and I still stand by the fact that they ALL can be answered. The last page became very clustered... I hope this time we can do this productively.

Zeus69962 02:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment - discrepancy

The above comments are the beginning of a new bout of discussion between me Lundse and Zeus69962. The discussion is old and can be found here: User_talk:Lundse/Zeus69962_Dune_discrepancy_discussion, it ended after Zeuss was blocked for using sockpuppets.

The gist of it is this: I believe that the universe presented in Frank Herbart's Dune novels is not compatible with the one presented by Kevin J. Anderson and Brian Herbert. Zeuss69962 does. Yes, I know this is "gushing fan mode" but I very much care for these books and I want this discussion to end properly, with some consensus about whether FH wrote about philosophical points on what makes us human or torturing robots annihilating mankind.

The main difference is the Butlerian Jihad, my argument proceeds thus: FH's Dune universe features a heavily hinted at, but never fully articulated, version where (part of) mankind rises against the use of thinking machines - because these belittle them, take their choices and their destiny away from them and thus what makes them less human. There is a bloody war, a religious and ideological conflict (possibly with some cyborgs on one side, who knows). In B&J universe the Jihad occurs because some cyborgs and some computer-overmind have decided to enslave humanity and torture it in slave-pens. I resembles a Terminator or Matrix scenario and humanities struggle is for their lives and existence, not their souls and against complacency. Last, I maintain that these two do not fit and that they are even more different thematically. I do not believe that FH's writing supports an "evil computer" scenario - and the objective is not to make these things fit whatever the cost to FH's original vision, themes and universe. I invite anyone to comment on this argument (please do so below this entire message).

I found some quotes in FH's dune books which support my view of (FH's view of) the Jihad:

  • "Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."
  • One moment he felt himself setting forth on the Butlerian Jihad, eager to destroy any machine which simulated human awareness. That had to be the past -- over and done with. Yet his senses hurtled through the experience, absorbing the most minute details. He heard a minister-companion speaking from a pulpit: "We must negate the machines-that-think. Humans must set their own guidelines. This is not something machines can do. Reasoning depends upon programming, not on hardware, and we are the ultimate program!" He heard the voice clearly, knew his surroundings -- a vast wooden hall with dark windows. Light came from sputtering flames. And his minister-companion said: "Our Jihad is a 'dump program.' We dump the things which destroy us as humans!"
This is Leto II remembering, note what he is eager to destroy - not an enslaver, enemy or dangerous thing but "any machine which..." - if FH had thought of this is humans vs. robots, whoever Leto is remembering would want to kill the evil robots, his captors, those things who slay his aunt or something.
  • (After the war) "Hesitantly, the leaders of religions whose followers had spilled the blood of billions began meeting to exchange views. It was a move encouraged by the Spacing Guild, which was beginning to build its monopoly over all interstellar travel, and by the Bene Gesserit who were banding the sorceresses."

I have contacted two editors who was on my side of the argument, hoping to get the comments started - I hope Zeuss will do the same. Lundse 08:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is in response to the call for commentary by Lundse. I have this page (and other Dune- and Herbert-related pages) on my watchlist, so I was aware of and read Zeus69662's latest comments above. I considered responding right away, but eventually decided not to.
I, too, am a long-time fan of Frank Herbert's Dune series and other writings and deplore, as I believe I have made very clear, Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson's pulp fiction attempts to expand and continue the former. This evaluation, however, is my personal opinion and therefore irrelevant. (Although I believe it is one with which history will eventually agree. The original books will endure; the prequels and sequels will be forgotten or remembered as mere curiosities.) As such it has no place in a Wikipedia article main page.
While I think this Discrepancies article is valuable, I also think it is straying dangerously close to original research.
The main reason I chose not to respond to Zeus69662 was utter apathy after reading this: I don't understand what you believe to have happened at the BJ but there's no way that it didn't happen like this. This is simply ridiculous. As I stated back in late mid-March, these are works of fiction. The events portrayed never happened. And in fiction, anything the author can imagine can happen, whether it makes sense in our real world or some possible extension thereof.
Unfortunately there is no way to argue with this sort of fan-boy enthusiasm. Or rather, no way to win against it.
Sorry, Lundse, if this is not the response you wanted. I may reconsider, but for the moment I have other more pressing battles to fight in the real world. RJCraig 21:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Fundamentally, I agree with Lundse's interpretation of the Butlerian Jihad, and agree with his stance that the correct handling of the issue is to determine how Frank Herbert viewed it, and then how what Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson wrote may or may not fit with the original interpretation. Zeus' position that we have to approach it as a matter of explaining away the discrepancies is flawed: It has the effect of elevating the subsequent authors over the prior author who established the idea in the first place.
Lundse's doing a better job than I could pulling quotations from the novels. I've put a section below discussing Herbert's other novels and his ideas about machine intelligence that, I think, establish an authorial theme that must be considered in any discussion of the Butlerian Jihad. Justin Johnson 00:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


  • ahem*

- "Leto closed his eyes. The hordes within wanted to argue, but he shut them off, thinking: Jihads create armies. The Butlerian Jihad tried to rid our universe of machines which simulate the mind of man. The Butlerians left armies in their wake and the lxians still make questionable devices . . . for which I thank them. What is anathema? The motivation to ravage, no matter the instruments."


  • A simulation of the mind of man is nothing if not cognition - awareness - For what is the difference between a human and an animal (or a machine for that matter) if not the human's cognitive abilities... The ability to perceive, analyse and interpret that information... Another word for it is to think; as Rene Descartes said "cogito ergo sum". Thus, the machine, must have been 'alive' in that sense...


______________________________________


- "Then this Hwi Noree . . . She makes me recall the Butlerian Jihad in a poignant way. She is the antithesis of all that's mechanical and non-human. How odd it is, Moneo, that the lxians, of all people, should produce this one person who so perfectly embodies those qualities which I hold most dear."

 "I do not understand your reference to the Butlerian Jihad, Lord, Machines that think have no place in.. ."
 "The target of the Jihad was a machine-attitude as much as the machines," Leto said. "Humans had set those machines to usurp our sense of beauty, our necessary selfdom out of which we make living judgments. Naturally, the machines were destroyed."


  • This shows that our two ideas can be merged. "It was a machine attitude AS MUCH AS THE MACHINES THEMSELVES." <-(The caps is not yelling, it's just stressing the point) The humans that made the machines in question were the Titans. Again, another reference to machines that think; if they think, they are sentient.


__________________________________________


- "Teg experienced an odd sense of deja vu. He had the feeling that his own captivity here had occurred many times before. No single-incident deja vu, it was a deeply familiar recognition: the captive and the interrogators -- these three . . . the probe. He felt emptied. How could he know this moment? He had never personally employed a probe but he had studied their use thoroughly. The Bene Gesserit often used pain but relied mostly on Truthsayers. Even more than that, the Sisterhood believed that some equipment could put them too much under Ixian influence. It was an admission of weakness, a sign that they could not do without such despicable devices. Teg had even suspected there was something in this attitude of a hangover from the Butlerian Jihad, rebellion against machines that could copy out the essence of a human's thoughts and memories."


  • Notice how he didn't say 'rebellion against using machines', 'rebellion against those that use machines'. The word rebellion itself, usually does not refer to inanimate objects. Thus, the computers must have been in control. When I say must, I mean in Frank's mind. For example, Some people call Star Trek fan's Trekkies, some call them Trekkers but Gene Roddenberry put that to an end by saying "It's trekkies, I should know, I created the thing". It's in that spirit that I say 'must'. I obviously know that this is fictitious.


___________________________________________


- "You could have saved my friends in the forest," she accused. "You, too, could have saved them." She clenched her fists and pressed them against her temples while she glared at him. "But you know everything!" "Siona!" "Did I have to learn it that way?" she whispered. He remained silent, forcing her to answer the question for herself. She had to be made to recognize that his primary consciousness worked in a Fremen way and that, like the terrible machines of that apocalyptic vision, the predator could follow any creature who left tracks. "The Golden Path," she whispered. "I can feel it." Then, glaring at him. "It's so cruel!" "Survival has always been cruel." "They couldn't hide," she whispered."

  • Here is the most important quote that I've found... Here Leto's describing the machines that he sees in his vision of the future as the great predator... Or at least one of them, that Muad'Dib saw. The thing that human's must defeat in order to progress along the human path. I believe that Leto found the machines vital to humanity's progress... So that we do not stagnate.

Zeus69962 05:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Actually, this is the most important one and should (hopefully - Shai Hulud willing) serve as the proverbial 'coup de grace' to this debate :)

"He saw the milky distances enter her eyes. Without asking permission, she tapped his front segment, demanding that he prepare the warm hammock of his flesh. He obeyed. She fitted herself to the gentle curve. By peering sharply downward, he could see her. Siona's eyes remained opened, but they no longer saw this place. She jerked abruptly and began to tremble like a small creature dying. He knew this experience, but could not change the smallest part of it. No ancestral presences would remain in her consciousness, but she would carry with her forever afterward the clear sights and sounds and smells. The seeking machines would be there, the smell of blood and entrails, the cowering humans in their burrows aware only that they could not escape . . . while all the time the mechanical movement approached, nearer and nearer and nearer ...louder...louder! Everywhere she searched, it would be the same. No escape anywhere."

Zeus69962 07:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Shai Hulud willing? That is simply too precious.
I'm going to ransack the bookshelves when I get home to confirm this, but if memory serves(?!) this describes a vision of the future, not of the past, of the very outcome Leto dedicates himself to avoiding. My proof? This is a description of a vision of the extinction of all humankind, which obviously did not occur during the Butlerian Jihad. Therefore there is no justification in assuming similar machines were in fact in operation earlier.
Comme ça avec votre coup de grâce! Pray thunder and lightning for us some more. Your graciousness in "victory" is quite illuminating. RJCraig 11:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

One must always ask Shai Hulud for blessings... lol... Anyway, Je crois que j'étais gracieux puisque vous tous êtes contre moi... On that note, the quote serves to show that the machines can and will attack humans... If those machines started a war against humans in the future then why couldn't they have done it in the past. Lundese said that FH would not write about humans vs machines (and that it's 'lower grade sci-fi') but that quote shows that he did write it, so then why couldn't he have made the BJ that way. I reiterate the fact that our two ideas can be merged. I hope that you don't consider FH as a second rate writer for writing about that... The philosophical implications are still there. Asimov wrote about machines as well and he's considered one of the greatest, Star Trek is a great show and they wrote about the Borg; Machines are one of the foundations of sci-fi.

Zeus69962 20:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I find that I needn't, at all. Ask a fictional Fremen deity for blessings, I mean. (Much less a mythical Greek one.)
Different machines, different "motivations". To be exact, FH did not write it, he mentions a possible future in which (intelligent?) killer machines exterminate humanity. Until BH & KJA came along with their schlock Terminator interpretation, my reading of the Jihad was of a human-against-human ideological confrontation. In this I concur fully with Lundse [sic!].
The only Herbert I consider anything less than first-rate is Brian. (And I'd put him at third- or fourth-.) The rest of your paean to The Machine is touching but of no relevance; go bark up another tree. RJCraig 02:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The machines couldn't have started a war in the past simply because they weren't nearly as good in the past as they would become in the future: "You yourself, Baron, could outperform those machines"? --maru (talk) contribs 02:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The person who said "You yourself, Baron, could outperform those machines" was Piter and he was just trying to keep his life and job... Moreover, a mentat would be extremely biased... As well, keep in mind the Barons answer to him "maybe"... Which is hardly a definite assurance.
This quote comes out of the glossary at the back of Dune:
  • "JIHAD, BUTLERIAN: (see also Great Revolt) -- the crusade against computers, thinking machines, and conscious robots begun in 201 B.G. and concluded in 108 B.G. Its chief commandment remains in the O.C. Bible as "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.""
-Key words: Thinking machines and more importantly, CONSCIOUS ROBOTS - If conscious robots doesn't mean something like the Terminator, I don't know what does...
As well, the story itself, wasn't a "terminator scenario", The Titans and all of the cymeks weren't "Terminators"... only the (disposable) armies were... Omnius needed humans initially to incorporate into the machines. He also wanted to "make the species better" (according to his views) like that Godship but when the humans revolted he thought that he should just exterminate them. --Zeus69962 03:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
To address your first point, Piter was pretty honest. He was essentially almost always correct in what he did see (he didn't see everything- witness how only Hawat revealed the true number of Fremen to the Baron.), and the one known mistake of Paul's gender was common to everyone (I don't count Yueh's second betrayal as a mistake, as there was no way he could have known of the assassination attempt). And as a mentat, he is supposed to be as unbiased as possible; how else could he effectively function? There's no reason not to believe a general historical fact he states, and the Baron is not even close to a Mentat, a fact lending Piter's statement extra force. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at in the rest of your post. --maru (talk) contribs 05:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Aren't you reading a lot into the word "conscious"? We are all here more or less conscious but I trust that none of us are psychopathically homicidal. The definition is perfectly consistent with a confrontation between human supporters of the use of such machines and those who opposed them. "Against" need not imply machine combatants. RJCraig 03:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My last explanation of my view

Go down to the last two paragraphs, Zeus, starting from "I will leave you with".

I have been away for a while and will deal with the above in this one sitting, bear with me if it becomes long-winded. To RJCraig and Justin - thanks for your comments and time, I did not expect any specific response or condemnation but just thought you should know, thanks. To Zeus, you seem to labor still under the assumption that the new novels can be used to shed light on FH's views - please note that this is not the way to go about these matters. First we establish what FH thought, then what K&B think and then we compare - you cannot compare a FH/K&B hybrid with K&B and then proclaim FH and K&B to be compatible. You may have you vision of the universe, which is FH as well as K&B inspired and think it fits with the new novels, you are entitled to it but it matters not what bit to the issue of discrepancies. What matters is to establish the two universes, and what I have been trying to do is describe how FH's works with regards to the Jihad. Regarding the quotes you have found:

"The Butlerian Jihad tried to rid our universe of machines which simulate the mind of man."
I cannot see how this supports your view. It clearly says that what is going is that some faction wanted to exterminate the machines, that this was the reason behind the Jihad. This is my point in a nutshell - that the Jihad took place because some people did not want computers to exist and take their decisions for them. And regarding Descartes, he said "Cogiti, Sum", the other version is a misunderstanding. And what does it matter whether the machines were "alive" and thinking?
"The target of the Jihad was a machine-attitude as much as the machines," Leto said. "Humans had set those machines to usurp our sense of beauty, our necessary selfdom out of which we make living judgments. Naturally, the machines were destroyed."
Another quote which supports my view. Humans were afraid of how they "usurp our sense of beauty", not that they went around killing them with buzz-saws. Clearly, the war is started by humans

for ideological reasons, not self-preservation. The quote does not in any way support a view that when Leto says "machines" he means "those robots trying to kill us all" and then he says "machine-attitude" he means "the ideological reasons".

"rebellion against machines that could copy out the essence of a human's thoughts and memories."
Are you saying that rebellion refers to rebelling against non-inanimate objects or that rebelling is done by non-inanimate objects? Whatever the word "usually" is meant to refer to, this proves absolutely nothing. And if computers control most of humanity by taking their choices for them (with their consent), then it could certainly be called a rebellion to end this reign.
"terrible machines of that apocalyptic vision".
So the vision of extermination of humanity happens machines killing people. Very well, that might have been FH's vision of humanities end (or it may be a step on the way, or a good way of showing the inevitability of it, the inhumanity of it, or referencing the jihad...); how does this establish that evil cyborgs and machines once enslaved humanity and that this was the reason behind the Jihad?
"If those machines started a war against humans in the future then why couldn't they have done it in the past." (Zeus quote)
Why would we want to assume this if not to fit it into B&K's vision? In FH's universe, the Jihad is to free humanity of their choices being taken for them, so why would we want to assume from something that might happen later in the universe that something similar has happened before?
"if conscious robots doesn't mean something like the Terminator, I don't know what does..." )Zeus quote)
What? So if there were conscious robots (which FH clearly states, or rather mentions briefly), they must of necessity be killer robots trying to enslave and exterminate all mankind? Is this what your arguments come down to?

I will leave you with this quote:

"We must negate the machines-that-think. Humans must set their own guidelines. This is not something machines can do. Reasoning depends upon programming, not on hardware, and we are the ultimate program!" ... "Our Jihad is a 'dump program.' We dump the things which destroy us as humans!"

It is the most reliable source we have to how it was, to the kind of thinking that guided people in the Jihad. "Humans must set their own guidelines, not machines" - is this what you say when you are being hunted down by mad robots bent on torturing you for some odd reason? No, it is what you say when you believe that humanity's humanity itself is in danger, not their lives (although they might be in the long run). And how about "the things which destroy us as humans"? Is this what you call cyborg spaceships and a powermad supercomputer running countless drones bent on destroying your race? No, it is what you call something which you believe is degrading humanity's collective soul. Lastly, to Zeus: if you do not respond lucidly to these last points, pointing out how the interpretations I have just rejected make better sense than the ones I claimed were right, and base it on this quote or others found within FH's writing; then I am taking this debate as closed and will take out an RfC on you if you stand in the way of editing based on it. I am sorry, but it is this cut-and-dry and if you will not listen and discuss it then we have to move on at some point. Lundse 19:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Welcome back from wherever! (BTW, I meant to call Honored Fratre Zeus on this but forgot: cogito ergo sum is a translation of Descartes' original French je pense, donc je suis which he later downplayed because it was misleading. See The Cogito page & discussion.) You can count on my support. RJCraig 21:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


My Answers:

  • As I've said before, 'simulation of the mind of man' must be cognition. Thus, if they were cognizant why couldn't they have fought against the humans. Your view on why they didn't is because of your preconcieved notions about what you thought to have happened before the actual story came out. I don't think you're right about the cogiti - I'm pretty sure he said "Cogito ergo sum", meaning 'I think therefore I am', although people are still disputing the exact words and this discussion is long as it is.
Of course the "could have fought against the humans", I never said they could not. I said FH wrote that humans rose up against machines. Your "Your view on why they" comment is complete bogus, I just referenced a quote which proves this is how FH saw it and you go on to say that its just my preconceived notions...
About the Cogito, Descartes (at least later on) would not have liked the "ergo" part as he believes it is not an argument but a "atomic" logical truth. "Cogito Sum" would be better... Lundse
  • 'Machine attitude as much as the machines' does not rule out either of our ideas.
No, not in itself, nor did I ever claim it did. Lundse
  • Humans had set those machines to usurp part means just that; The Titans (humans) programmed the machines to take control of and hold (the power and/or rights of the people) by force and without legal authority... Then, Omnius took control, yet humans (The Titans- who at this time are human brains in giant robot suits, all of the cymeks - mini versions of The Titans, and many human representatives. Initially, Omnius wanted to understand and 'assist humanity' (in his own twisted way) but he didn't take human emotions and quest for freedom into consideration... There is much more but you need to read the books and I'm not re-writing the entire series for you right here. Suffice it to say that your view of KJA's version (let alone Frank's) is very incorrect... Although, it is not up to Frank's standards (which, you have to take into consideration is extremely high and even the authors will attest to), It's hardly as simple or as trashy as you're making it out to be.
I do not care about this. When will you get this? Please respond to the quote and the interpretation and stop filling up the talk page with this irrelevant stuff. My one point about the new novels is that in them the aggresion/taking of power happens against the humans - are you telling me you still do not understand the difference between "against humans" and "against machines"? Lundse
  • He didn't need to say that, Siona said it in that quote about her vision and he concurred. In that vision, she saw humans in a war against machines. In Frank Herberts book... Humans being hunted, humans cowering, hiding from Machines. They are the threat from the past and the future. That which must be destroyed in order to ensure the Golden Path. Sure, Super Face Dancers might be another nuisance but they couldn't have been from the past seeing as they were grown in the scattering. Long after the time of Muad'Dib. The combination of them though might be enough to bring back Muad'Dib and his Tyrant son for assistance... Probably with improvements for the times.
Oh, my, God. You are actually looking forward to seeing Paul and Leto battling side by side with flying mech-armor and lasers akimbo, aren't you? BTW, I have no clue what you refer to with "He didn't need to say that," - please answer to my interpretation of the quote. Lundse
  • "Rebellion against machines that could copy out the essence of a human's thoughts and memories." - This doesn't even need an explaination... Thoughts and memories! The cyborgs weren't evil. Not in the literal sense... They had no emotions and were doing what the Omnius incarnations thought was correct. It's not a matter of good and evil, black and white - There are many colors and shades in the spectrum.
What are you talking about? This has no bearing on my point at all. Lundse
  • (Zeus Quote): "If those machines started a war against humans in the future then why couldn't they have done it in the past." (Lundse Quote): "Why would we want to assume this if not to fit it into B&K's vision? In FH's universe, the Jihad is to free humanity of their choices being taken for them, so why would we want to assume from something that might happen later in the universe that something similar has happened before?" (Zeus Quote): That's not what happened in Frank's Universe... That's what happened in your Universe. Frank has never distinctly said that and although he didn't say what Brian has written is correct (Since he unfortunately passed away) the closest thing to the truth must be Brian's word since him and his father had a great relationship at the time of his death and has to reason to fabricate anything. In fact, since he is saying that his father wrote the basis for this (which he couldn't deny as I've showed you), he is forfeiting the credit.
You say above "Frank has never distinctly said that" - by that I take it you mean my interpretation that "the Jihad is to free humanity of their choices being taken for them". My quote above shows that FH did say "distinctly that", please try to respond to that.
BTW, you are still messing things up by trying to interpret FH by way of B&K, can you not see the necesity of first seeing what one says, then the other, before comparing? Lundse
  • "We must negate the machines-that-think. Humans must set their own guidelines. This is not something machines can do. Reasoning depends upon programming, not on hardware, and we are the ultimate program!" ... "Our Jihad is a 'dump program.' We dump the things which destroy us as humans!" This does not show how KJA's version is wrong... It could be a metaphor, it could be that they did not want to mention the specific people because they didn't deserve to be recorded in history, it could be that (like many things in Dune and history in general) people like Irulan and Iblis Ginjo changed records to glorify their side or family, it could be due to Rayna Bulter's philosophy that any machines taint the soul and they became a stigma like the Harkonnen name at that time (although, that was initially unjust so slightly different).
Ah, finally a response. You say "It could be a metaphor" - no, it cannot. This is someone talking "from a pulpit" during the Jihad, he would not (as I said above) talk in metaphors about them being hunted down, killed and tortured. Interpreting it this way clearly shows that one is hell-bent on making FH fit with K&B, not the other way around. There is no mentally fit person who will think that such a speech is a "metaphor".
About "they did not want to mention the specific people because they didn't deserve to be recorded in history" - are you saying this guy talking to lead people during the Jihad did not mention that the cyborgs and machines were trying to enslave them and take power as a call for arms, merely because there were some people he did not want to mention. Can anyone else see the absurdity?
Changing records is bullshit because of two things: first, this is Leto II's memories - unless you posit that Irulan survived for thousands of years and is not fiddling with his memory, it is plain impossible. Secondly, this is what FH elected to show us - unless we have reason to think he was willfully duping us or someone tricking us, it must be accepted as a good source to what happened in his view.
This was the one part of your response that is in any way interesting, but from the level of your critique I am beginning to gather that you really have no arguments but is merely trying to confuse the matter. I you have more to say regarding the quote and how it can be interpreted any other way than that the way I have laid it out, please do so - but so far, colour me unimpressed. Lundse 10:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion, you need to read the books because you have a slightly skewed version of what really happened and the themes in the prequels. As well, you have a very intense hatred for KJA & Brian (who are have both accumulated many accolades in their respective names they they've earned and have worked hard to keep it truthful to Frank. This is a dishonor to him, his family and his legacy. Zeus69962 05:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian Herbert is a dishonor to his father and siding with him is akin to pissing on FH's grave, IMHO. I suggest we do not go down this road of discussion.
Your conclusion that I need to read the books is plain out wrong, you need to read and understand the key parts of Dune I have showed and explained time and again. If you can find anything in my interpretations which do not warrant the view on the Jihad I have set forth, let me know. But do not try to argue from K&B's number of books sold, family relations, how great you think the books are or what it says in them - it is all entirely irrelevant to what FH was saying.
Please for the love of God, understand that we need to establish first what FH said specifically and THEN we can compare with the prequels. Saying that "Humans must set their own guidelines" is a metaphor for "cyborgs are trying to take over the world and we must destroy them and the supercomputer Omnius because they are trying to kill us all" is pure stupidity - the quote is a call to arms for people to destroy computers because, you might guess this one, "Humans must set their own guidelines". Lundse 10:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Who says Brian is a dishonor? You?? What right do you have to say that? Yes, he wasn't as talented as his father but that's some pretty high standards to reach. I bet I can find more about people commending him than you can find people insulting him (credible people, not forum junk); his father felt him privy enough to write with him and his familt obviously feels he can do this or he woudn't be allowed to continue the series. I say their merits do matter if you keep standering their names. This is not a forum! For the last time, The Cyborgs are not Evil!!!, they are misguided/misprogramed. They do not have emotions or deal with things in that sort of simpleminded thinking. There are no such things as "good" or "evil" to them. Yes, let us establish what Frank was thinking but not in your way... since your way seems to be what you thought Frank was thinking as opposed to what he actually was thinking. The point is not to try to prove BH & KJA wrong, it's to see if what they say is plausable and it very well is. The reason for that is because the majority of the basis for the plot was created by Frank, they just wrote the story and added some things to the mix (none of which interfere with Frank's story). Please look at this from an unbiased perspective. Zeus69962 22:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dune Themes in other Herbert Works

Destination: Void

In Destination: Void, Herbert writes about a group of clones put on a spaceship designed to fail, forcing them to develop an artificial intelligence to operate the ship, or die trying. They succeed, and in doing so, create a pure consciousness, unfettered by human limitations, that becomes God. In the subsequent novels that he wrote with Bill Ransom, Ship is that consciousness, and it is omnipotent (to the point of having changed human history several times to see different outcomes--in one of the later novels, he threatens Raj Flattery that, if humans don't develop a certain next-stage in consciousness, it will 'break the recording': humanity's history will disappear, as if they'd never existed).

The point is that, if machine intelligence were created, it would transcend humanity, not enslave it. In a Terminator scenario, machine intelligence is a superior predator, like the appearance of a different and threatening life-form, akin to the Honored Matres of the last two Dune books.

Contrast this with Herbert's stated attitude to machines in God Emperor of Dune, where the threat is not Terminator style machines, but a machine-mode of thinking in people that is deterministic and anti-survival behaviour. Since the universe is an infinite place, it requires an adaptable intelligence to survive in it. The flaw in men turning their thinking over to machines is not the emergence of a superior creature, it's the threat of humanity becoming deterministic in its thinking, of devolving and ultimately dying out. The emergence of thinking machines in the original novels is the domination of a lesser, not a greater creature.

Yes, excellently put - thank you so much. Lundse

Recall also what Leto says to Moneo: that the heightened consciousness that the worm possesses is inherent in every human, if they but realize it. Leto also tells Moneo that the Bene Gesserit are no threat to him because the closer they come to him, the more they are driven to pursue the Golden Path just as he does. Odrade echoes this in Chapterhouse: Dune when she tells Murbella that the more awakened she is to the powers of the Bene Gesserit (that Murbella desperately wants), the more Murbella will be bound by her awareness to the goals of the Bene Gesserit. In Children of Dune, Jessica tells Farad'n much the same thing.

Which is, BTW, one of the more beautiful points of Hebert's writing, also mirrored (for kids) in Direct Descent. Lundse

In Destination: Void, one of the clones asks the penetrating question that allows them to succeed: Are we really conscious? This is a continual theme in Frank Herbert's works, that consciousness is a spectrum with God at one end and machines at the other, and that as consciousness increases, so does adaptability and awareness of survival behaviour. The basic flaw in machine intelligence is just the fact that it cannot progress along that spectrum towards godhood. (The artificial intelligence in Destination: Moon starts as a collection of electronics, but escapes those physical, machine limitations to the exact degree that it becomes conscious. The process of making the Ox, as they call it, conscious is the process of escaping machine determinism).

Thus, viewing the Butlerian Jihad as a Terminator scenario is inconsistent not just with the original Dune books but with Frank Herbert's whole corpus. Justin Johnson 00:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree, though we would of course benefit from from more quotes within the Dune corpus. And the name of the book is Destination:Void. Lundse 13:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Gack! Of course it's Destination: Void, not Moon. I can't believe I swapped in a Heinlein title. Justin Johnson 13:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The moon is a harsh mistress... --maru (talk) contribs 17:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You cannot use other novels as a justifiable argument for this one - Maybe Omnius didn't transcend to the level of this machine or maybe the clones who designed this made a better machine than the Titan's in Dune... There could be many factors... I can tell you one thing, Omnius would have probably agreed with this God-Machine. As well, if you read my quote above... Frank did, at the very least, intend for the machines to be predators.

The quote was:

  • "He remained silent, forcing her to answer the question for herself. She had to be made to recognize that his primary consciousness worked in a Fremen way and that, like the terrible machines of that apocalyptic vision, the predator could follow any creature who left tracks.

"The Golden Path," she whispered. "I can feel it." Then, glaring at him. "It's so cruel!"

Zeus69962 06:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I can pretty much guarantee you that Omnius and and Ship would not agree. Ship tried to teach humanity, test it to make it better and have a chance by itself and not as a slave race to him - to break free. I doubt Omnius has similar aspiration (not that I have read it, but if K&B were capable of such writing or indeed understanding such writing they would not have made one colossal blunder of the prequels.
That said, you are right that we are all better served by quotes from the Dune novels (although other books may still elucidate FH's points, themes and views). Your emphasis here is interesting, BTW, the 'apocalyptic vision' is linked to 'The Golden Path', something in the future - actually providing support for the idea that these machines are of a possible future... But yes, killing machines are a part of FH's universe, no doubt about it (e.g.. the hunter-seeker which is also alluded to in your quote) - but they did not start the Jihad nor enslave humanity in any vulgar sense. Lundse 13:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the real killer quote here would be the quote from GEoD about how the hunter-killers mentioned in the previous quote were of Ixian descent- and I know of no way to contort Omnius' descendants into being of Ixian descent. --maru (talk) contribs 17:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear, dear, how many repetitions of the same quote will suffice? Would it be out of place here to remind that most of the meanings of apocalyptic involve revelation, prediction and prophecy, not recollections individual or ancestral? Dare we assume that a master storywright such as FB would not have had such in mind when he chose the word? RJCraig 17:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

To Marudubshinki, maybe the Ixian designs were improvements on an old technology like they did with the no-ships - since that dates back to (a fossil from) the time of the titans (according to FH) and were used in the House Series.

To Brother RJ.. Leto has said that that vision cannot be changed, it can only be fought in order to be defeated and only can be defeated with the Siona gene... Then once beaten, they can progress along "The Golden Path" which puts humanity on a road that does not lead to stagnation... Why wouldn't Muad'dib have hunted down (whatever you think) 'The great threat from both the past and the future' and killed them when he first had visions of the great threat and the golden path? Because he couldn't yet... Yes the Super-facedancers seem like an additional threat but they couldn't have been from the past since they were created in the scattering and that was thousands of years from the time of Muad'dib...

Zeus69962 05:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...the evolution of appellations intrigues me. Style me henceforth as Reverend Brother RJ, please, and I shall call you Honored Fratre Zeus!
Oh dear. So is the horror the Honored Matres are fleeing really going to be terminator-spawn of Omnius' little seed pods? Surely FH, if he really ever intended to continue and make clear what the unnamed threat was, would have come up with something more interesting than that. ... Then again, even Homer nods. RJCraig 12:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Woah, no that's not what I'm saying at all... Honored Matres and the machines? and they aren't pods... Omnius escaped in a beam and had much time to rebuild his empire so yes he is a threat... Probably more than he ever was, since he learns from his mistakes.

Zeus69962 01:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. But I have seen speculation elsewhere that we can expect as much from the upcoming sequels. (Along with nonsense about the reappearance of Paul Atreides and all the other big names, regrown from the genetic material [embryos?!] carried by the Face-Dancer...Scytale was it? Ah, a rereading is definitely in order!)

By pods I meant the "reproductive probes" Omnius sent out in TBJ. (Remember, one of them actually lands on Arrakis and the first worm-rider (I forget his name and the book's at home) witnesses its being devoured by a worm. I think it first zaps one of the wormboy's friends who throws something at it?) I'd forgotten the beam part...wait a minute...doesn't Vorian(?) Atreides go after and destroy the update ship that tries to escape the destruction of Earth? Leading the Harkonnen progenitor to suspect him of turncoating and trying to flee? Sowing seeds of distrust, blah blah blah. (I was half asleep most of the time I was reading TBJ...great soporific!

Either way (and I'll check in a few hours, rest assured!), trying to escape as a beam of data (that is what you meant, yes?) presupposes a receiver somewhere, no?

RJCraig 08:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Does the beam thing you're referring to happen at the end of The Battle of Corrino? (That Ultima Thule upon whose shores I never trod?) RJCraig 08:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Too much to ask?

I suppose it would be asking too much that page or at least chapter numbers/headings could be provided along with quotes? (I realize we probably all have different editions of the books, but a general idea of where to begin looking would be nice.) RJCraig 11:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Its on page 374 (of 454), see my talk page for the discussion on this (or I'll move it here on request). Lundse 12:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Lundse; as I have noted on your talk page, I found the quote in my copy of GEoD. (The above wasn't aimed at anyone on our side of the fence, anyway!) RJCraig 17:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Funny, wikipedia isn't supposed to have "sides" User:71.100.139.19
Well, with only about 20 edits under your belt, all within the last day or so, it's obvious you're still new here. So, some pointers:
  • NPOV is the ultimate goal for the main article pages. These discussion pages are for discussing the content of the main page. Since it is entirely possible that differences of opinion can arise concerning the content of a page, and that people will align themselves on one side or the other of a debate, there is no conflict in the above statement with the goals of WP.
  • It is customary, if one is serious about this, to create an account and to sign your edits on the discussion pages (accomplished by using four tildes in a row: ~~~~). RJCraig 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I knew both of those but thanks for the helpful advice. Maybe my comment was not merely aimed at you, or at the talk page. And I rather enjoy maintaining a little anonymity, so take my ip address as my name for now. User:71.100.139.19

The BG using computers

This is irrelevant to the discussion about the BJ but I mentioned earlier that the BG had rebelled against the Cult of Serena (and used computers after the Battle of Corrin) and someone wanted proof of this.

Here is the proof:

  • "The Sisterhood had carried its main lines in computers even back in the Forbidden Days after the Butlerian Jihad's wild smashing of "the thinking machines." In these "more enlightened" days, one tended not to question the unconscious motives behind that ancient orgy of destruction."

It's on Pg. 214 of 471 but since we have different copies of the books I will write the quote at the beginning of the chapter as well... which is...

  • Bureaucracy destroys initiative. There is little that bureaucrats hate more than innovation, especially innovation that produces better results than the old routines. Improvements always make those at the top of the heap look inept. Who enjoys appearing inept?

-A Guide to Trial and Error in Government, Bene Gesserit Archives

Zeus69962 05:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem not to realize that the above is like quoting the Gospel of Judas to a hardcore fundamentalist. Cite FH canon, please, or not at all. RJCraig 11:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's in Heretics of Dune, thus your analogy is wrong.

Zeus69962 21:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why, thank you for that helpful bit of misdirection! It must be nice having the time and leisure to have committed everything to memory. How I envy you! RJCraig 23:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A protective suit beneath the bough, a liban jug, slice of slig, and thou...

Uhm...has Lundse or Justin or someone else pointed this out?

How's this for discrepancy and inconsistency between canon and later invention:

In The Butlerian Jihad, Earth is A-bombed into a lifeless cinder.

Yet in Appendix II of Dune, it clearly states that the Commission of Ecumenical Translators "convened on a neutral island of Old Earth, spawning ground of the mother religions."

Are we to assume that they were protected from lethal dosage by their faith, or something more substantial like radiation suits?

Or do BH & KJA have some miraculous explanation for the dissipation of planet-wide radiation in the 93 years of the BJ and its aftermath? Not to mention resettlement and redevelopment of infrastructure sufficient to host a convention of representatives of "[e]very faith with more than a million followers" during the same period.

Obviously, the bombing scenario was not part of FH's original vision.

RJCraig 13:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

When did this delegation take place? There are over 11,000 years between BJ and the original Dune... The radiation could have subsided and they could have rebuilt some structures... It could have also been that they wanted a place without structures in privacy, out in the open area. Zeus69962 01:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Here you go (from Dune):

Hesitantly, the leaders of religions whose followers had spilled the blood of billions began meeting to exchange views. It was a move encouraged by the Spacing Guild, which was beginning to build its monopoly over all interstellar travel, and by the Bene Gesserit who were banding the sorceresses.
Out of those first ecumenical meetings came two major developments:
1. The realization that all religions had at least one common commandment: "Thou shall not disfigure the soul."
2. The Commission of Ecumenical Translators.
C.E.T. convened on a neutral island of Old Earth, spawning ground of the mother religions.

So obviously, this was shortly after the Jihad, they even found a "neutral island" (which you do not do if the whole planet is a lump of coal). This is actually one of the bigger discrepancies, kudos, Craig. Lundse 05:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not obvious that it is right after... It must have taken enough time to band together the sorceresses into a new group... As well, the guild wasn't even formed by the end so they were far from being in a possession to encourage anything... In addition, they have the technology to terraform and I assume Earth would be the first planet that they would attempt to rebuild... By the end of The Battle of Corrin, people have already come back to Earth to re-explore I think... Although, I'm not sure about that. --Zeus69962 04:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course it is obvious - "Hesitantly" they begin to meet having "first ecumenical meetings" starting the "Commission of Ecumenical Translators" which met on Earth. Sure it might have been a few decades or even hundreds of years but not long enough to rebuild Earth (so much that you would have to find a neutral island). Give it up - in FH's writing it is clear that Earth was not destroyed in the Jihad; if so, it would not have made sense to write that these meetings took place there afterwards. K&B made a mistake.
BTW, I am puzzled by this statement: "As well, the guild wasn't even formed by the end so they were far from being in a possision to encourange anything" - when was the guild not formed? Are you telling me FH was wrong about when this happened? Lundse 04:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No it is not obvious.. As I said before, there are well over 11,000 years for this to have happened... It could have been a thousand years or two thousand years... long enough to at least rebuild one island... He didn't say all of Earth was there... Which, in a couple thousand years, it might have been entirely fixed. I imagine Earth would be one of the first planets that they would want to terraform. When I said that the Guild wasn't even formed by the end... I meant of The Battle of Corrin.
No. Read immediately below. We are not talking about thousands of years but only about a century or so. You "imagine"? And we are the ones dealing in speculation. Your arguments here are null and void, give it up. RJCraig 08:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Added emphasis to quote above. The Guild [sic] was beginning to build its monopoly, so it had formed by then and even if it had not completely achieved its later power leverage/base, it was more than in a position [sic] to influence affairs.

From Dune, TERMINOLOGY OF THE IMPERIUM:

B.G.: idiomatic for Bene Gesserit except when used with a date. With a date it signifies Before Guild and identifies the Imperial dating system based on the genesis of the Spacing Guild's monopoly. (p. 587/605, emphasis mine)
JIHAD, BUTLERIAN: (see also Great Revolt)--the crusade against computers, thinking machines, and conscious robots begun in 201 B.G. and concluded in 108 B.G. ... (p.594/605, emphasis mine)

Unless this is in error, the Guild monopolopy began 108 years after the conclusion of the Jihad. Is this sufficient time to terraform a devastated planet? Will have to wander over to the "RGB Mars" pages to see what other scifi writers have imagined, not that it will be particularly relevant.

(I'm so glad I brought Dune along with me to the office today!) RJCraig 07:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It might have been enough time to terraform an Island at least.

Zeus69962 06:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, well, any straw for a drowning man, I suppose. "A neutral island" means one not within the exclusive control of any of the relgions or denominational factions represented by the participants. If FH had had the atomic bombardment in mind at the time, surely he would have phrased it differently; "an island which was the only habitable part of the planet" or the like.

Just use deductive reasoning and logic. Frank need not say any of that if he didn't want you to know, or he himself didn't write that part of the story. He was known to leave much of the subplot ambiguous (and what was known for sure was known to him alone - possibly some family and friends as well.) This "neutral Island" doesn't discount KJA's theory at all. Zeus69962 20:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
(Yes, yes, the "Son of the Maker" gambit, information confided over the dinner table, etc. So convenient, so undocumented, so unprovable. Frank Herbert was a student of ecology and would have known that a dead planet could not be rejuvenated in a scant century or two. Theory? I thought everything was based on FH's notes. ??? RJCraig 22:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC))
And what hell does this have to do with deductive reasoning, do you even know what that means? Can you deduct from "neutral island" that the planet was bombed? Or are you saying you can deduct that it was possible (in a few decades times, certainly not millenia)? So what if he left the subplot ambiguous, the fact is that the CET found it natural to meet on Earth (without this being a big deal) after the Jihad - this seems rather odd if the planet has a radioactive ash surface. Or am I being out of line here? Being completely illogical?
Anyway, please respond to the quote I provided you (my comments start just after it, with "It is the most reliable source we have to how". Please try to read it and tell me why anyone would say that or FH write it, if not because the Jihad was a war of aggresion by humans against machines and their users, led in order to destroy machines for ideological reasons. If you do not respond lucidly and directly to this last sentence, I shall ask you no more and ignore you - I have spend far too much time with this and you seem to be unwilling or incapable of having this discussion. Lundse 22:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Lundse, I have realized something today. We are not dealing with a mere "fanboy". I have seen this sort of behavior when debating fundy Christians and their ilk. Nay, we have on our hands here a True Believer. RJCraig 08:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not a fundamentalist! Nor am I even Christian. I've read the books and am able to rationalize and use logic to determine that KJA and BH's version is as close to accurate as one could expect. Assuming of course, that the aforementioned person is willing to open their eyes and think about the plausibility of it all based on time, evolution, people who have the ability to alter historical text and societal ignorance; which are major themes in the prequels. Zeus69962 20:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Kindly do not interpolate like that without making clear which material is yours. I'm beginning to see that part of the problem appears to be a reading deficit. I neither stated that you were a fundamentalist (that's OUR territory, thank you, as "Talifans") or a Christian. I drew a comparison between your behavior and that of people who are, and labelled you a "True Believer"...someone whose beliefs are impervious to reason. RJCraig 22:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that many of the issues discussed on this page are by people who actually have not read the prequels. As a Dune fan, I enjoy reading all of Dune regardless of its author which from reading this page I can see there is much prejudice against KJA and BH for no reason. Furthermore, if there are people who are so ridiculous as they believe that the Legend series is about a war of humans vs. humans,or that there were no thinking machines, I think you seriously need to open your eyes, and actually read the cover of the books, and then everything inside. I'm all open for personal interpretation of books, but that would be dead wrong. If you have beef please bring it, I'm only providing the facts Pouya86=Ishallmakeyouperplexed 20:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Noone here has claimed that the war was human vs. human - try reading the posts again. Lundse 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah. And by whom was it brought to your attention, if I may ask? It's extremely interesting that you choose this particular topic to begin your "WikiLife". RJCraig 22:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha, ha! Yes! Someone here's actually been reading the books. Kudos to you! Indeed, bring the beef. Zeus69962 20:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So, are we going to play the sock-puppet game again? RJCraig 22:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
How is what he is saying supporting you, he does not even understand what the conversation is about? Lundse 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even going to dignify that RJ... All I care about is that he understands that you don't know what you're saying since you guys are the people who haven't read all of the books... As I have made abundantly clear, I've read them all and much more. Zeus69962 22:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am, for the last fucking time, talking about what FH wrote. When we have established basic facts about his universe, then we can compare it with K&B's. Now, please go and read the quote I have shown you (and take your new friend with you) and tell me how you can read that as support for the view that in Frank Herbert's universe the Jihad was started by computers against humans. Lundse 22:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
FH Zeus, it is not a question of your dignifying it or not, I should think, but for "Pouya86" to come forth and demonstrate that he/she is an actual individual. Suddenly appearing and jumping into a discussion is a hallmark of a sock-puppet. (Pouya86, if you are a real person, my apologies for jumping to conclusions. Please make yourself aware of what a wiki sock-puppet is and try to understand that this is nothing personal against you but why I suspect you might be one. Zeus has been censured for their use in the past.)
Zeus, if you have been paying any attention at all, you will know that we have not made any reference to discrepancies in books that we have not read. Any biased statements I have made concerning the quality of the works of BH & KJA (crap!) are my opinions based on ACTUALLY HAVING READ some of them (said experience having discouraged me from further reading) but as POV have been confined to talk pages or my user page. I do not have to have read everything they have written to suspect that the remainder is little better. I would have to read everything to comment on discrepancies in the remainder. Your objection is irrelevant. RJCraig 23:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Let's keep the vulgarity out of here, shall we? That would be great if "establishing facts" didn't mean (in your mind) twisting what Frank wrote to suit your opinion of something that the author has never authorized as true. Brian is the holder of the copywrite, thus, anything he writes (even if Frank didn't write think that part), is still canonical as long as it doesn't interfere with Frank's original thoughts. Moreover, once again, it wasn't computers who initiated the enslavement and subsequent war; it was humans (The Titans)... I'm not going to explain this again so read this carefully...

  • "Tlaloc tries to shake up the bored populace of the Old Empire. Seeing his failure, 20 people (the Twenty Titans) set out to conquer the Empire with Tlaloc’s lead. One of the Titans, Andrew Skouros takes the name Agamemnon. Beginning of the Time of Titans. The Titans reprogram computers and robots, giving them human aggression and power hunger. With the aid of AIs they conquer the Old Empire and divide it among themselves. Some systems on the edge of the Empire resist the Titans. The League of Nobles is formed with the lead of Salusa Secundus, and it successfully fights the Titans."

-The Butlerian Jihad] Zeus69962 23:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You still do not understand how uninterested I am in your quotes, do you?
I am trying to establish what FH meant, if you disagree with me on that, counter my arguments and exlain away my quotes. I never claimed it was the computers who started it nor do I care - I maintain that the humans started it against the computers, not that the "Titans" started a war against humanity. I know we both think it is humans who started it, but for what reasons, against whom? Please read my quote and stop giving me irrelevant quotes.:

I have summarized my quotes here: User talk:Lundse/Dune quotes - if you can give a good reason why any of them can be explained away please feel free to add it there (otherwise I'll delete it). Lundse 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet, and you can employ whatever methods there are to confirm that. I am just a humble Dune fan who stumbled upon this travesty of flawed and biased information, which has no place in wikipedia I believe. I come to Wikipedia to read facts, and while I understand there is a risk, it shouldn't ever be an out and out fan forum where we bash things without merit. Now let's get this straight, you all believe that the humans started the war against the machines. Serena Butler intiated the Jihad yes, but it's really just a massive counterattack to the years of Thinking Machine attacks against the League of Nobles, and the oppression of captive humans. Once the Omnius AI was created by the Titans and became independant, IT tooks the reign and began the systematic conquereing of all human life. It was only much later that the Jihad began as the humans fought back in force. You ask, for what reasons? To liberate humanity from fear, captitivy and stagnation! To beat the thinking machines and to rule the universe free from fear. They fought against everything and anyone who wanted something other than humans to be the unchallegened rulers of the universe. What say you? Pouya86=Ishallmakeyouperplexed 00:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. Yes, I believe humans started the Jihad against computers (in FH's universe), in the new novels (as I understand Zeus' explanations) the Titans actually strike first (and/or the Jihad is a later "second strike" of sorts). OK so far?
Now, I maintain in addition to this, that in FH's universe the Jihad could not have been started as a counterattack, because he describes it as an ideological revolt. If humanity had almost been wiped out by cyborgs, AIs and robots they would have destroyed the machines because of this.
You could never distrust a machine is a direct quote from Messiah, Alia (who I think we can assume has the education/memories to know). So the Omnius scenario becomes dubious.
They made their devices in the image of the mind the very thing which had ignited the Jihad's destruction and slaughter. - making the devices in this way started the Jihad, not the near-extermination of humanity. If there had been a near-extermination as in the new novels, then that would have been the reason.
"We must negate the machines-that-think. Humans must set their own guidelines. This is not something machines can do. Reasoning depends upon programming, not on hardware, and we are the ultimate program!" He heard the voice clearly, knew his surroundings -- a vast wooden hall with dark windows. Light came from sputtering flames. And his minister-companion said: "Our Jihad is a 'dump program.' We dump the things which destroy us as humans!" Direct speech from someone during the Jihad, talking "from the pulpit" according to Leto II memory. If you want to motivate people to destroy all machines (in K&B's universe) you mention the torture, the killing, Omnius, the Titans. You do not throw about philosophical rhetoric about what humans need as a species.
And last, if FH wanted the Jihad to have been started because cyborgs, then machines tried to take control, he would have written this somewhere in one the 6 main books - it is too huge a deal not to mention. Lundse 00:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, your initial statement that "it has been brought to [your] attention" conflicts a bit with "stumbl[ing] upon this travesty". Either way, the fact is that the reading of a human-against-machine (and against machine supporters) ideological jihad is what one comes away with from reading the books written by FH. That the "terminator version" now promoted by BH & KJA is inconsistent with this is also FACT. You have obviously read enough of the discussion here to parrot Zeus' "this is not a forum" line; please give what we have written the same attention. RJCraig 00:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What kind of humans do you know in any future that would want to give up machines/computers because they make their work easier? Riddle me that? There had to have been a struggle of some sort and the Titan's screwing with the machines seems the most feasible assumption based on pragmatisism, based on occam's razor, based on what logic would dictate. This would show the humans that although machines could be trusted to do your work for you, humans could tamper with it to give it a voice and with that voice they could damage the soul. Thus, taking advantage of you when you least expected it... A true abomination... Your problem is that while there was a gap in the time between Frank Herberts books and the prequel, Alt.fan.dune (which is a horrible site) and other 'Talifan' decided to take it apon themselves to think up what happened (not what could have happened - There are many possibilities). I on the other hand, as well as many devoted fans (like Pouya over there I assume), waited for the actual answer to come out before we made any prejudicial arguments and thought about if it could have been that way... Which it very well could have. Moreover, we have read the book in its entirety, not decided that it wasn't worth our time; we (or I can only speak for myself at least but Pouya seems like an intelligent guy as well) read it and have an unbiased view on it. If you read the books with open eyes you will see that the answers are there too. A wise man once said that "one can not take on all of the fools in the world" but I have tried to show it to you and I think this quote is beginning to show its weight. I hope more people like Pouya who have read this will come out and demand that the lies stop once and for all. I think you had a bet with some friends about what happened in the beginning and the real story proved you way wrong so now you're taking it out on the authors for doing their job; doing the research that you either didn't bother to look for or you were too blind to see. The quotes you are bringing up are the same quotes that I was answering for Justin at the start of this debate. We need a moderator because you are set in your ingorance and it is not fair to Dune or the fans to get this biased article and have (Justin's, alt.fan.dune's, yours and whomevers) prejudicial arguments about the series. It's just not fair! I like Pouya's closing line and I will leave you with that... "What says you?!"

There is a new forum on the official Dune website, maybe you should direct your crap there, I'm sure many people over there can answer these almost as well as I can.

Praises be to The Divided God! Zeus69962 18:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What kind of humans do you know in any future that would want to give up machines/computers because they make their work easier?
What? That doesn't even make any sense. What are you on about now? (Your reading comprehension deficit has already become painfully obvious; now we get evidence, in addition to all the spelling mistakes, of production problems as well. You can't even quote without screwing up the grammar. "What sayS you?" Use copy-paste, fer chrissakes.)
The remainder of your blathering isn't worth addressing. I have been reading the Dune Novels forums as a matter of fact (and have even commented) and quite agree with your evaluation: the "psychofants" over there do for the most part seem to be capable of about the same level of comprehension and argumentation. I imagine you feel quite at home. RJCraig 20:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
And, alt.fan.dune is not a website but a newsgroup gathering of fans who have spend quote a number of lifetimes (added together) reading the original books.
I quote: "waited for the actual answer to come out" - I take this to mean that you decided BH and friend would provide the answer to what FH meant for you. I read the original books to figure that out and I still have not seen you debate the interpretation based on the originals. So one last time, try responding to our arguments.
Also, you said "What kind of humans do you know in any future that would want to give up machines/computers because they make their work easier" The humans described by FH in the original Dune novels, quite clearly, over several books. Please see my quote page and/or reread the books. Please note that I am talking about the originals and they have not been written for 6th graders and this might demand some measure of interpretation (such as "They made their devices in the image of the mind the very thing which had ignited the Jihad's destruction and slaughter" to mean that "the Jihad" was "ignited" by the creation of "devices in the image of the mind", and not by evil cyborgs). Lundse 21:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

DUNE TIMELINE

Brother RJ, I'm not sure if you are still creating a timeline or not but I'm putting this link here until there is one (and maybe even after since I'm not sure what you'll include into it... lol... it seems that until I can convince whomever to take out the lies in this site, I must patrol these pages and be the figurative 'Swordmaster fighting against ignorance'). So if anyone wants to see (from what I can tell) an accurate view on the Dune Chronology, this would be the best place to do so.

Zeus69962 18:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I unfortunately don't know enough about abnormal psychology to determine exactly what sort of delusion you are suffering from, but it seems to be a grand one. If you want to see what I am doing on the timeline, you need only follow the link I gave you (or follow the one from my user page) to the working page I have created (which, incidentally, also includes the above link and gives you credit for making it known to me).

Your command on my talk page to "Take out the Timeline from the Dune Encyclopedia" on the basis of your uncited assertation that "Dr. McNelly has admitted to writing things that are definately untrue, just to show that history can be tampered with" has been given all the consideration it deserves. (If you have a citation, produce it.)

I will continue to work on the timeline as time permits (unlike some I actually have a life unrelated to Dune). Meaning that I will verify each entry against the "Old and New Canon" books for myself and weed out those which seem specious. You can assist me in this by providing page numbers for the New Canon citations, if you choose. At such time as I feel the timeline is ready, I will propose that it be moved from a user to a regular WP page.

RJCraig 20:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I said to make the one from the Dune Encyclopedia entitled "An Alternate Dune Timeline" or "The Dune Encyclopedia's timeline... Putting a link to the closest thing to an official timeline is not giving it equal (Which it technically should be getting more since the Dune Encyclopedia was considered an alternate view of Dune by means of intentional fabrication of the info (to show how history can be tampered with) and Dr. McNelly creating the missing pieces himself.

I put a link to the official Dune website where KJA confirms Dr. Torkos' intellectual abilities and his knowledge on DUNE. Moreover he is the translator for the Hungarian versions of Dune so he is officially a part of the Dune writing process in some form.

Here is the proof for that: http://www.dunenovels.com/dune7blog/page41.html

Zeus69962 21:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've answered this on my talk page. Dr Torkos' intellectual abilities or "Duniverse" knowledge were never in question; that is not what I mean by wanting to verify the entries: in scholarly work it is customary to give page number citations. His timeline is not part of a scholarly publication so this omission is excusable. Even given the differences in editions, some indication of location here is desirable. If you would bother to check, you would find that the Torkos timeline entries all appear. I have edited some to correct and eliminate excess verbiage; many of the "marries" and "begets" are probably not needed.

The timeline I envision will be based entirely on verifiable citations from the Dune books, regardless of authorship.

(This "It's not fair" whine of yours is something new and, I must say, not very becoming.)

RJCraig 21:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Where has Zeus6996 been all my life!?! His ideas are basically what I think, and in fact his quotes are amazing because I couldn't even find them. Y'all haters better shuttup and listen to him, I think he knows what he's talking about. (insigned by Pouya86=Ishallmakeyouperplexed - Lundse)

But is he, or you, willing to address the quotes from FH's books describing his version of the Jihad? Lundse 22:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It is hardly a whine... You are disrespecting the author and have no regard for the truth. It is indeed not fair to the authors or to the fans to hear this bias. Zeus69962 22:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And I maintain the same about your view. So let's discuss it. Again I ask you to give your interpretation of the "pulpit" quote and explain how this could be said by a person who wants to drum up support for the Jihad and who has been attacked by cyborgs and is at war with a evil, rogue AI. Lundse 23:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The Robots are not evil... How many times do I have to say that?! They are entirely devoid of emotions which is far worse. What 'pulpit' quote are you refering to? Although, I'm sure I've already answered that somewhere too. Zeus69962 00:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So Omnius was just trying to eradicate mankind but was otherwise a nice guy? And Erasmus thought he was inviting people for tea and it was a fault in his circiutry that made him torture and maim?
The quote I refer to can be found by searching for 'pulpit' on this page, or on "It is the most reliable source we have to how it was", which is the beginning of my interpretation. And no, you never addressed any point regarding any quote I have ever put forth, you have only restated your claims and tried to refer to other quotes by other authors even when I have made it perfectly clear that I am talking about what FH wrote and what his view was. Lundse 01:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Did i say he was nice? no!... read above... are you blind? I said "They are entirely devoid of emotions which is far worse". Erasmus was human and he was evil I guess (using your limited vocabulary about emotions - I would call him crazy or sadistic.), although, Gilbertus Albans would disagree with you. I have answered all of your quotes, even the most recent ones although I have already answered them (if you look in the archives). "pulpit has been mentioned 5 times and I think I've answered the questions following it. If you look in "my answers" area under your "It is the most reliable source we have to how it was" I've answered that too... If you believe that I haven't repost the question here. Although, I'm sure that I have. Zeus69962 01:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The only thing vaguely resembling an answer in that section is your attempt to brush it off as a metaphor. As if someone agitating for action against the machines would use a metaphor to describe the torture, enslavement and killing of humanity.
I responded to these "answers" and explained why they missed the point and/or did not make sense in themselves. Try reading this, then the quote and my initial comment and it and then try again respsonding. our response as it stands is simply not good enough. Lundse 01:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

(Whoops, edit conflict. Aren't we busy!) "Some enchanted wikipage...you may meet a stranger..."

Where has Zeus6996 been all my life!?!

And remember, we saw it all begin right here!

His ideas are basically what I think

Not surprising if you are, as I still suspect, a puppet. (What odd things to say otherwise!) Y'all haters? Straight out of the psychofant dictionary. Your guise is slipping.

You are disrespecting the author and have no regard for the truth. It is indeed not fair to the authors or to the fans to hear this bias.

Discussing one's interpretation of an author's work in no way "disrespects" that author. Even mercilessly critiquing a work to the point of ripping it to shreds does not, so long as you maintain a distinction in doing so between the creator and the creation. I assume that by "the author" here you mean Frank Herbert and would dare say that we hold him and his work in higher esteem than you do. The only thing possibly harmed by open discussion is sales of New Canon books. Whether that is unfair to the living authors depends on one's view of their actions. (I find necrophiliterary activities rather disgusting. But that's POV.) RJCraig 02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, they aren't my ideas, they are Frank's in conjunction with Brian's and Kevin's and every other fan that's willing to look at it with open eyes and not some sort of . Secondly, as he said, go do a search... He's not a puppet... Regardless, you'll still claim him to be like you did with the others. Zeus69962 03:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Which others? The ones stealing into your house and using your IP? I, BTW, suspend judgement, but I am a bit leery considering your history (and suspect a meatpuppet myself). Anyway, you should know that we need an administrator to check where the Pouya edits come from, you could apply yourself to cleanse your name if you wish - I'd help you find the place.
Oh, and stop saying we are wrong and you are right and show it by responding properly to the arguments and quotes. Lundse 04:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about it that much, nor do I want to apply; suspect whatever you want. Copy and paste the questions here and I'll reanswer them. Zeus69962 04:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


My final statement of the conflict

I will not restate these points again, I have wasted far too much time as it is.

The quote which I think most clearly illustrates FH's view of the Jihad is this:

One moment he felt himself setting forth on the Butlerian Jihad, eager to destroy any machine which simulated human awareness. That had to be the past -- over and done with. Yet his senses hurtled through the experience, absorbing the most minute details. He heard a minister-companion speaking from a pulpit: "We must negate the machines-that-think. Humans must set their own guidelines. This is not something machines can do. Reasoning depends upon programming, not on hardware, and we are the ultimate program!" He heard the voice clearly, knew his surroundings -- a vast wooden hall with dark windows. Light came from sputtering flames. And his minister-companion said: "Our Jihad is a 'dump program.' We dump the things which destroy us as humans!"

My argument is ad absurdium, I will show how this scene could not have taken place if K&B's version of the Jihad is correct (and thus that it must be wrong, ie. inconsistent with FH's).(unsigned by Lundse)

and I will show you how you are incorrect, my friend. (unsigned by zeusxxxx 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

Please do - can't see you trying though. Only restating your/K&B's view. Lundse 09:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

First, the part "Humans must set their own guidelines[, not machines]". Is this what you say when you are being hunted down by mad robots bent on torturing you for some odd reason? No, it is what you say when you believe that humanity's humanity itself is in danger, not their lives (although they might be in the long run) and when you want humanity to "take over" from machines (and probably machine-attitude).

  • It wasn't that way. The robots were not "torturing for some reason". Omnius wanted to take control, set humanity upon his guidelines. The torturing came either from rebellion or from Erasmus' testing (which was a fraction of the population of one planet - which is still bad but it's hardly their goal as you make it out to be.) Omnius believed that humans were anarchs and that they needed him to tame their quest for power (when in reality, it quested in its own way and quite possibly even worse). Read the prequels boy-o, you have a gross misconseption of the (as the Fonz would say "factimundos")
    • I do not care about what the new prequels say and want to get at FH's meaning, I said as much - that you choose to ignore it shows that you do not wish to have this discussion. Please address my point and not the fact that I wrote "for some odd reason". Lundse 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Well you should care about what they say if you want to make an anbiased assumption on one of the most ambiguous parts of the original Dune saga. You have an incorrect view of the prequels. I am not discounting your philosophical revolution argument entirely but you are discounting KJA's & BH's part in this. Claiming that there are inconsistancies (In an "Encyclopedia") when in fact there aren't. That's the injustice. I've already addressed your point now twice. Here's #3 Bucky, you do not understand the story of the prequel saga and are biased towards KJA & BH. End of story.
        • This convinces me you are not paying attention and are not capable of arguing your point, let alone understanding mine. For future reference, will the public please take note that this is at least the tenth time Zeus insists on drawing in sources from non-FH books in order to establish what FH meant. You have still not addressed in any serious manner the quotes I have dragged out for you which shows how FH saw the Jihad, until you do so I will ignore your opinion of the matter. Lundse 23:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I've already answered it. Humans must set their own guidelines means that they were formerly controled by something other than human. If the machines weren't in control that quote would be "We must not use computers to enhance our guidelines" or just not mention humans at all because if what you're saying is true and it was a human vs human fight then that's incorrect because a certain percentage of the humans disagree. It just doesn't hold up.
            • Yep, they were formerly controlled. If that control was (to some degree) self-elected (such as using computers to take most decisions for humanity) then it makes sense to say that "humans must set their own guidelines". If the machines had taken power (or had been given it by cyborgs without the consent of the governed) you would say "humans must throw of the yoke of the oppresors" - the Declaration of Independence does not talk about how Americans must set their own guidelines, it specifically tells what the King did wrong and that he held control illegitimately. Again, if I were drumming up support, I would mention that evil cyborgs had instated the huge AI running our lives (and/or trying to kill us). Lundse 09:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Secondly, "the things which destroy us as humans"? Is this what you call cyborg spaceships and a powermad supercomputer running countless drones bent on destroying your race? No, it is what you call something which you believe is degrading humanity's collective soul. Note the "as humans" - if the things they were up against were trying to kill them he would probably just have said "destroy us" or similar.

  • It could very well be. Do they not destroy? Although, that quote could have be used for many reasons, biological warfare, et cetera. Omnius was not bend on destroying the race until the very end when he forced to. He wanted to enforce his law - He believed himself to be God - The Machine God. The fact that he said "destroy us as humans" could seem like it was an attack on humans by something other than humans. This doesn't prove anything.
    • Your last line (where you seem to try and address my point) does not make sense - "destroy as humans" is not a way to describe a physical attack or attempt to take power, it descries a spiritual or degrading effect. Lundse 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I have addressed all of your points and I am starting to become bored with your ignorance to the obvious facts. It describes both a physical and a psychological struggle.
        • The last sentence is your claim restated. I asked you not to do that but to argue your point - failing to do so means, your guessed it, that I cannot take your opinion serious. Lundse 23:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
          • How can humans destroy them as humans? Your questions are dumb... how can one answer a dumb question? This does not prove anything about your point.
            • I never said humans could destroy them as humans, why are you thinking I said that? Please reread what I wrote (it is something about computers by way of their existence and being overused destroying humans's souls/humanity/"as humans".
            • See the top of this discussion thread: "

Secondly, "the things which destroy us as humans"? Is this what you call cyborg spaceships and a powermad supercomputer running countless drones bent on destroying your race?" - "it could very well be". This is like saying a girl being beaten and raped by her boyfriend would talk about leaving him because "he just doesn't respect me as a person". And you are just nodding you head and saying "it could be", do you not see the strangeness in describing the robots trying to annihilate humanity in this way? Lundse 09:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


If I wanted to drum up support for the Jihad (an we were in the universe with murderous robots and a rogue AI), would one not mention the fact that mankind was in obvious, imminent danger of being eradicated? It does not make sense to throw about philosophic rhetoric when the enemy is at your door, you do that when you want people to rise up against something they do not even yet see as the enemy (try imagining this sort of speech in the Terminator movies' future-scenes).

  • What?! Let's get something straight here... Frank did not have to do anything there buddy! Be grateful for what he did include. What he put in, as we all know, is extremely ambiguous and could be argued in many different interpretations. I've said this once and all say it again, unlike you, I've read all of the books. When I finished the originals, I waited for the prequels to come out - all the while thinking about possibilities in my head - when the books came out, I read them, thought about it logically and realized it makes sense. Forget the Terminator! Forget your pre-concieved hopes about what you thought happened or the hopes of alt.fan.dune (or whatever that crappy site is where you get all of your information), forget your predjudice against BH & KJA ; there are no reasons why it couldn't have happened the way Frank (in conjunction with BH and KJA) have written it. I've gone through them all myself and then here again. Boo - to the - yah
    • What he put in is not ambiguous, it is quite clear to every other person except you (and possibly Pouya) who I have ever talked with and who has read Dune. And reading all the books does not matter, because I am talking about FH's writing here - let me know you understand this disctinction, please! BTW, I had no prejudice. When the first two chapters came out, I signed up to receive promotional copies (with an autograph, even) - I read them and felt strangely sad ("The Baron Harkonnen, lean and muscular" gets me laughing now, but back then I just felt sad). Lundse 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The people who you have discussed this with are obviously biased like yourself and those who write with you on this page. Read the books in full.
        • It is not a page, I told you. I have read the FH books in full which should be sufficient to understand FH's universe - failure to understand this is why I cannot take you seriously. Lundse 23:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
          • you're writing here about what KJA & Brian did incorrectly, not what Frank did. As I said, he left this part of the story ambiguous and aside from the notes and the people that he told it to (Brian is probably one of them), nobody can know for sure. The closest thing by all accounts would be the way Brian and Kevin wrote it.
            • Do you understand that we need to establish what FH meant before comparing? I maintain (and I would like you to argue against this if you disagree) that FH was not ambiguous about such things as the Butlerian Jihad, where Paul was born, why the Baron got fat, etc. Lundse 09:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to note that in no part of FH's books is there mention of Omnius nor that cyborgs attacked humans first or that the Jihad was any sort of "counter-attack". Rather, it is clear that the Jihad is ideologically based (eg. from the above quote).

  • There is a mention of a 'God of the Machines' or something of that nature. That would probably be his reputation built up over thousands of years of religious fervour. Frank might have not mentioned that it was a counter attack but he didn't mention that it wasn't nor did he mention that it was any other kind of attack. All they had of that time were 'word of mouth records' until they could create new ones, since the records got burned at the end of The BJ (at the B of C I believe).
    • There is no noun phrase within the original novels using the words god and machine except for "the god of machine-logic" - I checked. And yes, FH did mention that it was a religious/ideological war, humans starting it against machines - ruling out a counterattack. Lundse 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, 'God of the machine-logic' <- Does that not describe Omnius after records were destroyed and a religious fervour swept the species. Once again, humans did start it, read the books.
        • No, it does not describe Omnius for obvious reasons (which, since I am bored, I will give here). The quote is from the BG "article" on religion, the BG are sympathetic to the Jihad and so they would not call a rogue AI "the God of machine-logic" but rather "a rogue, insane, dangerous, murderous, megalomanic thinking machine". What they would call the God... is the way of thinking, note that it is contrasted with what "new concept was raised" instead: "Man may not be replaced." For this contrast to make sense, the two must be comparable - what is more comparable. An insane AI and an ideological commandment, or a way of thinking and an ideological commandment? Lundse 23:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
          • After the god of machine logic was defeated a new concept was raised means after he was taken down, his rules went with him and humanity could create its own guidelines as it were.
            • Please respond to me point that: the BG are sympathetic to the Jihad and so they would not call a rogue AI "the God of machine-logic" but rather "a rogue, insane, dangerous, murderous, megalomanic thinking machine". And the one about: For this contrast to make sense, the two must be comparable - what is more comparable. An insane AI and an ideological commandment, or a way of thinking and an ideological commandment? Again, do not just restate your position, but argue your position. Lundse 09:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


If Zeus or anyone can come up with such quotes I will gladly step down, and I also invite him and others to respond to all the others quotes I have profered time and again as proof of my interpretation of FH's Jihad. Lundse 04:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I have come up with much better quotes like these two which show that Frank created a scenario exactly like this in the future. Muad'Dib speaks about the enemy in the future who blocks the golden path; this enemy is also supposed to be from our past according to the father of the tyrant and The divided God himself. Do the math!!!

- "He saw the milky distances enter her eyes. Without asking permission, she tapped his front segment, demanding that he prepare the warm hammock of his flesh. He obeyed. She fitted herself to the gentle curve. By peering sharply downward, he could see her. Siona's eyes remained opened, but they no longer saw this place. She jerked abruptly and began to tremble like a small creature dying. He knew this experience, but could not change the smallest part of it. No ancestral presences would remain in her consciousness, but she would carry with her forever afterward the clear sights and sounds and smells. The seeking machines would be there, the smell of blood and entrails, the cowering humans in their burrows aware only that they could not escape . . . while all the time the mechanical movement approached, nearer and nearer and nearer ...louder...louder! Everywhere she searched, it would be the same. No escape anywhere."

- "You could have saved my friends in the forest," she accused. "You, too, could have saved them." She clenched her fists and pressed them against her temples while she glared at him. "But you know everything!" "Siona!" "Did I have to learn it that way?" she whispered. He remained silent, forcing her to answer the question for herself. She had to be made to recognize that his primary consciousness worked in a Fremen way and that, like the terrible machines of that apocalyptic vision, the predator could follow any creature who left tracks. "The Golden Path," she whispered. "I can feel it." Then, glaring at him. "It's so cruel!" "Survival has always been cruel." "They couldn't hide," she whispered." Zeus69962 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    • What scenarios FH came up with regarding the future is irrelevant. And even the first quote does not support a reading guaranteeing that the enemy itself is thinking machines (they could be tools, as hunter-seekers are). Feel free to try again. Lundse 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It is very relevant, Frank thought it up. They are the great threat. Read the quote. Plain as day. Zeus69962 23:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • They are not relevant, they do not deal with the Butlerian Jihad. They are not relevant, they do not prove that machines (or AIs, or cyborgs) attacked humans (but merely that machine-tools were used). Also, this book considers the possibility of Ixian prescient machines (something interely new) and the machines fro your quote seem to play to this fear - thus, the new threat is a prescient machine or humans controlling one. Oh, and it case you did not know, just because FH wrote somethig as a possibility in the future does not mean it was something that happened in the past - once again, your logic is so thoroughly flawed that I cannot take you seriously, try harder or be ignored. Lundse 23:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
        • My logic has been the same thing coming in. However, yours hasn't. First, the machines weren't supposed to be there at all. Now, you conceed to machines being there but say humans controled them. There's no way of satisfying you is there... You're insatiable!

Zeus69962 05:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

          • I never claimed there were no machines, nor even that there was no machine-human fighting. Never. I have no idea where you get that weird idea. Please respond to my arguments instead of inventing some odd position am claim I held it at some point in history so you can attack me for it (and for changing it). Lundse 09:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


The recent rationalizations

Please step forward to defend these, most of them make no sense

Rationalization:It is quite possible that the Bene Gesserit in the original novels had these powers but a situation never arose where they needed to use them. It is never explicitely stated that they do not have these powers, they are just not expressed in the writing.
Nonsense, the same would apply to them being green and descendant from Yoda's sisters. It is never explicitly written otherwise so... Sorry, but it goes agains the picutre we get in FH's writing. Lundse 15:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
That may be your interpretation, but do you argue with the fact that Paul can't see Guild Navigators just because it was never mentioned in the first book but was in the second? User:71.100.139.19
An inconsistency within the original work matters not to this (I am not acceding it is one, I am just not debating it here). Please try to respond to what I said. Lundse 15:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason to discuss what you said because it is a non-issue. Just because the later novels do not speak of the powers does not mean they are not there. User:71.100.139.19
Well, it sort of does when we spend two+ books inside the heads of Bene Gesserit's who are being wiped out by Honored Matres, yet never even consider becoming invivisble or using telekinesis to save themselves... The rationalization does not make sense. Lundse 08:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
As I have said that is your opinion, but it does not negate the fact that it is a rationalization that has no objective proof against it User:71.100.139.19
It is not just my opinion, it is what FH wrote. Stop being absurd, of course the BG had no psychic abilities or we would have heard of them. I cannot begin to understand how you think this is up for debate, you might as well be arguing that they were spawned by evil aliens who are led by an abducted Elvis - it would make as much sense. The fact that you can say "but it might..." is no reason to include it in the article, I might as well include my Elvis theory... Lundse 12:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is upon you, prove that FH never gave the BG these powers, and never intended them to have them in the past, and it will be deleted. Otherwise it remains in hte realm of possibility and therefore deserves to be represented as the opposing view.User:71.100.139.19

Rationalization: A popular rationalization of this supposed inconsistency is that the war was started for both reasons. It was a religious, philosophical and physical war all wrapped into one, but the lesson to be passed down was the philosophical one and thus that is how it is portrayed 10,000 years later.
Sorry, not possible. Either it starts for one reason or the other, one cannot choose to rebel against the standing order of society and its use of computers while at the same time choosing to defend oneself against evil, murderous cyborgs and Ais bent on world domination. See my quotes. Lundse 15:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
So a gigantic, universe sized war must have only one reason? If you know anything of politics and war then you know that they are usually started for many, MANY reasons, and the religious aspect is usually the one that is most remembered in history, for example, the crusades. User:71.100.139.19
I am not saying there was only one reason, I am saying that FH focused on one main reason. And that the one B&K give is inconsistent (ie. that these two reason do not go together). Lundse 15:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Why do the two reasons not go together exactly? I saw both reasons in the Legends books myself, and also realize that the more important one 10,000 years later would be the religious one. User:71.100.139.19
Because a war cannot both be a war of aggresion by cyborgs and their soon-to-be-rogue AI and at the same time be an act of rebellion on the part of humans wanting to rid humanity of thinking machines. Nor can the reason to get rid of thinking machines be both that they killed a lot of people and that they are bad for humanity's soul. Plus, if the machines had killed people, people during the Jihad (see the quote from the pulpit - User talk:Lundse/Dune quotes) and later generations would use this as rationale, which they never do over the course of six books!Lundse 08:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you serious? Wars have multiple reasons all the time, the war in the Legends books HAD both reasons, you have said that you read it so I would expect you to know. The machines were killing them but the war took on a very religious tone and that ended up being the main motivator. Realize that there really was no machine attack that provoked the Jihad, there was a stalemate for many years and no one was threatening the other with all out war, but then religion entered the picture and the Jihad began. Also try to think about what would happen to a historical account in over 10,000 years. Would they focus on the fact that these particular machines were manipulated to the point that they became violent, or would they focus on the actual lesson learned and the philosophical ideas that came out of the conflict? Your quotes, by the way, fit perfectly into the events in the Legends novels, many speakers said very similar things in them, so to say that they would speak differently is merely your opinion, and is outright false when compared to the novel in question. User:71.100.139.19
But it cannot start because of two mutually exclusive reason and in two mutually exclusive ways. Is it a rebellion started by humans or an aggresion started by cyborgs - which one? Lundse 12:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The BJ, as represented in both the original novels and the Legends books, starts on a religious base. The machine take-over, also as represented in the originals and Legends, was started by "other men with machines." They sync up quite well.User:71.100.139.19

Rationalization: The establishment of the mentats is not explicitely told in the Legends saga, it is only hinted at. The experiments which produce the mentat that are conducted were probably changed into a full-fledged school after the war was over due to the new need for such a school. Also, the mentat being better than a computer is not something that is trained into them, but merely a fact about humans that cannot be erased. The mentat is trained to think like a computer, but then has the skills of a human.
In Dune, we are told the mentat order start after the jihad in order to fill a gap - that they were made by a machine (or that there is anything machine-like about their way of thinking) is misunderstanding the point and the role they play in the universe and in the book (thematically). Lundse 15:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
That is your personal interpretation of it, you have to accept that others have different points of view than you do. I, personally, really enjoy that they were started by a machine, it is an interesting aspect since they were meant to replace machines entirely, but were, in fact, started by that very thing. But you are so caught up in your own personal view that you have blinders on to anything beyond that. User:71.100.139.19
You can think it is as dandy as you like, but I am talking about what FH wrote. I have not found quotes for this yet, I might come back to it later... Lundse 15:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Considering this whole site is meant to keep a neutral point of view I would suggest you not expect deletion of something just because you disaree with it. User:71.100.139.19
No, I suggest deleted non-sourced, original research into how one might excuse the blunders of B&K. You do not see rationalizations on Fresh Prince of Bel-Air or other tv-series articles about how the mother might have gotten plastic surgery since she changed appearance from one season to the next... The discrepancy is sourcable, provable and obvious, the rationalization is only speculation and what-ifs. Lundse 08:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
If we are to delete non-sourced original research then this whole page goes out the window. Rationalizations are supposed to explain something that isn't quite obvious, sometimes through false means (but of course those would be worthy of deletion). I have supplied one, and so far it is not proven false. YOU are stating that this is an error and YOU must prove that it is, in fact we should delete this "inconsistency" since it is unproven.User:71.100.139.19
The discrepancies can be sourced from the books themselves, some rationalizations could be from the official site (ie. the Gurney/Kynes one, which does not make sense as it only explains one side of the problem). Lundse 12:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If they had a single, or even only a few sections that they pulled from then they could be, but most, just like your own "inconsistencies" pull from a general reading and understanding of the books. In the end though I do not know how to cite sources here so if someone wishes they could add the sourcing for the ones that come down to one book or smaller.User:71.100.139.19

Rationalization: This was answered on the official Dune website: "More than fifteen years have passed. Gurney met Liet then on a different planet, when he was using a false name, and his appearance was different. It's not surprising he would not recognize Dr. Kynes"
Question, how long did the two know each other the first time round? And why did FH not mention that Kynes recognized Gurney? Lundse 15:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Because the books hadn't been written so no one would understand it at all. Or, maybe he never planned for them to have interacted in the first place, who cares, this is still a RATIONALIZATION of it now isn't it. User:71.100.139.19
It certainly is. A very bad, post hoc one. Of course we both know that FH never intended for them to have ever met, or he would have written that scene differently. B&K do not give a rat's ass, they have the copyright and will milk it for every chance they have of making people we know pop out in weird places. There is no reason the two should meet, except to cash in on owning their names - it serves no purpose and is demonstratably against what FH wrote:
"His first encounter with the people he had been ordered to betray left Dr. Kynes shaken"
"Kynes took a deep breath to still his resentment against Halleck, who had briefed him on how to behave with the Duke and ducal heir."
Why not rationalize it with memory loss (maybe aliens abductem them and changed their memories)? It is a rationalization and one which is invalid and does not change one bit that K&B wrote something which goes against what FH wrote. Lundse 15:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice neutrality there Lundse. They know far more than you will ever know about this universe, and have much more invested than you. Is what they said correct? I have no idea, I personally agree with you, I think they used him for the cool factor in the prequels and came up with an excuse later, but this is supposed to be a neutral site and so I add the rationalization that is most popularly used. I am now adding it back in since you deleted it out of pure personal reasons. User:71.100.139.19
I did not delete it for personal reason, nor do I have to be neutral on the talk pages. I removed it because it does not answer the problem - why both men did not know each other. Only one was disguised and used a false name, yes? So how come both of them react as strangers, even in their own minds? And I do not think they know more about the Dune universe, if they did, they would not make so many mistakes... Lundse 08:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
It attempts to explain it though, and is the popular rationalization, and for that fact alone it should be included. User:71.100.139.19
But it does not make sense, it does not explain the thing it tries to explain. It is like saying "the Kynes/Gurney thing can be explained by the fact that my sofa is pink" - it does nothing and is therefore irrelevant. Lundse 12:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It does plenty, they both looked different and went by different names, or did not know the other's name in the first place. User:71.100.139.19


I have added a new rationalization to this part...

  • In the appendix of Dune, we are told that after the Butlerian Jihad, the "Commission of Ecumenical Translators convened on a neutral island of Old Earth, spawning ground of the mother religions". In the prequels, earth had been hit by atomics as to make it uninhabitable for an indeterminate amount of time.
    • Rationalization:The date when this commission convened is not told, so there could have been some recolonization of Earth in the time since the end of the Butlerian Jihad thanks to the possible use of terraforming technology or other means. The use of the term "Old Earth" gives a little more credence to this belief.
      • Nonsense, you do not convene on a radioactive planet, unless you have some specific reason why it must be that place (which it was not, they found a neutral Island, so the place was not what it was about). Again, your explanation is pure speculation that they have some new way of cleaning up after atomics, that this was used and so on and so on... Lundse 08:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Before the arguments start flying against me please understand that I disagree with this rationalization, but saw some debate going on here and elsewhere about this very thing and so I decided to add it in for neutrality purposes. If you find problems with it please edit it as you see fit but I truly feel that it is a necessary addition and so, I ask that you not delete it entirely without extremely good reason.

Neutrality does not mean that whenever we say something bad we have to "soften it up" or write the opposite (or invent it in order to write it). If we say Hitler was repsonsible for the killing of 6 million "unwanted elements" should we also write in the next paragraph that "maybe he did not mean it" or that "maybe it was not really his fault, it could have been aliens"? Your rationalizations are as speculative and far-fetched, not to mention unsourced and without basis in any of the novels. The descrepancies are there, that one can explain them away is not an interesting piece of information - of course you can, you can explain anything away. Giving (pretty bad) examples of how is not the job of wikipedia (though we should mention somewehere in the article that this is being done, come to think of it - lets have an example there). But we should not defend every single blunder K&B perpetrated, we are not their press agents and if they made that many blunders it is not POV to say so, actually it would be POV to defend them at every turn even when they obviously made these mistakes (that fans can then wish them away makes no nevermind). Lundse 08:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Neutrality means that you must present both sides of the debate, so far this article has had major issues with doing that in my opinion. You are posting your own thoughts and ideas as fact without consideration for the other side of the debate. You call my additions "unsourced"? Practically everything on this page is unsourced. You forget that unless the original novels explicitely state something to the contrary then it is a matter of opinion and interpretation, no matter how insane that interpretation may be, as long as it is a POSSIBILITY then it remains in the realm of consistancy. You are the one that is interpreting things for yourself and then posting them here as fact, not I. User:71.100.139.19
I interpret stuff like "Paul was born on Caladan" to mean that Paul was born on Caladan and stuff like "Paul was born on Kaitan" to mean Paul was born on Kaitan - I am sorry if this seems to you to be only my opinion, but in that case you obviously have no place editing articles on books. The fact that noone has been able to argue against the interpretations or provide coherent alternatives which do not presuppose K&B's omniscience should be reason enough to include them. Lundse 12:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you know the customs and beliefs of the Caladonian people? No? Then you do not know how they would react to someone being born offworld but then having their naming ceremony take place on that world. If I was born on vacation but then went straight back home I would say that that was the place of my birth. This is yet another instance of your interpretation, one which I agree with, but yet again, one which must have both sides represented.User:71.100.139.19
If you cannot accept that this is an inconsistency, and one which cannot be explained away no matter what you say or do, then we have no common ground to discuss from. Born means born, they made a mistake - sure you can explain it away, but only by saying that FH did not mean what he wrote. The new books do not force us to reinterpret FH's old books, they are themselves forced to accede to what was written - or they are in a parallel universe, or inconsistent. Lundse 23:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
This is yet another instance of you thiking that the rationalization is something that I believe, and also another instance where you are wrong. I, again, agree with you that this is probably an inconsistency, but I also see a debate which has two sides and so this article deserves to represent both sides regardless of my, or your, opinion. The truth is that this is a legitimate argument, as I pointed out, and you neglected to answer, if I was born on vacation (or on a trip somewhere else) but then immediately came home I would say that I was born wherever it is that I live, not the actual place where I was born. No one is reinterpreting FH's novels, but with any added information questions can arise that need answering, this is one of those times. We may not like the answer, but if it fits in some way, shape or form then it should be represented in something that is supposed to be objective and neutral. Konman72 01:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Konman72. I've been engaged in the C.E.T. discussion with User:71.100.139.19, but your statement about saying where you were born interests me. Provided that you know you were actually born somewhere other than where you grew up and lived afterwards (your parents told you that you were born while they were on vaction), I can see only two reasons for telling someone you were born where you lived: (1) you don't want to go into that much detail with the person you're talking to, or (2) your intent is to deceive. Can either of these be assumed to apply to Irulan's statement at the beginning of Dune or the Caladan entry in the Imperium Terminology section? RJCraig 08:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's me, I finally got an account, figured the time was right (your message had nothing to do with it!!! :) ...seriously). I wasn't born on vacation, but if I was that is what I would say, that I was born wherever my actual home is. Also, as I said I do not agree with this rationalization, but this is another one provided on the official website so it seems apporpriate to include it since it is the "official" response. Konman72 09:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi. Just a question: How does the usage of "Old Earth" support the "New Canon" reading? Sorry, but I'm not seeing it. (Also, is the new edit acceptable on POV?) RJCraig 10:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That was something I was hoping to get more input on, the question that would really determine its importance is if the term "Old Earth" was used at the time of the convention or the tim of the original novels. If it is used when the convention takes place then "Old Earth" suggests some kind of change to warrant the word "Old" in the title. However, upon further review this seems like a highly unlikely thing so I will edit it out presently. As for your recent edit, it seems pretty good to me, open-minded and neutral. It may need some minor modification to make it sound better, it seems to have some repetitiong between the first part and the rationalization, I might get to that this time as well.

OK. FWIW, I have always taken the "Old" to indicate maybe a touch of nostalgia for the original home world; maybe also a bit of contrast with all the "New Earths" that humankind eventually settled. (How many planets will end up being called "Terra Nova" someday?)

My problem with the "rapid terraforming" explanation is Frank Herbert's interest and knowledge of ecology. Think of the "three hundred and fifty year" timescale that Pardot Kynes presents the Fremen for the flowering of Arrakis. That's the time FH imagined would be required for terraforming a planet with a viable, though spare, biosphere. An irradiated Earth would be virtually sterile, and you'd have to start from scratch. Simply not enough time if we're going to maintain any semblance of science in the science fiction, you know? RJCraig 11:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand and it is a problem that I would have with it to had the date been specified. As I said I agree with you guys as far as this goes it probably is an inconsitency, but this is a valid argument in my opinion, just not a very good one. Oh, and the reason that I used the Battle of Corrin instead of 1 A.G. is because I thought that would meet with resistance since I have seen a lot of people say that the convention took place between the end of the BJ and 1 A.G. so I went with the last benchmark that we had where we knew the convention hadn't taken place. If everyone is ok with saying the convention took place on or after 1 A.G. then someone can change the dates and number.
We do not have a date, no. But we have (after the Jihad) "Hesitantly, the leaders of religions whose followers had spilled the blood of billions began meeting to exchange views" which then leads to the CET. This does not imply a timespan in which you can clean of radiation (which would take thousands of years), terraforming and formation of nation-states (including neutral islands). Lundse 12:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The nation-states need not be on Earth in order for there to be a neutral island. If we had a convention on a mountain on Mars it would be appropraite to say it took place on a "neutral mountain on Mars." The part about taking longer to terraform is your opinion.User:71.100.139.19

I take "neutral" to mean "not within territory controlled by followers of any of the religious factions which were fighting". Think Geneva during wartime.

Do either of you know of any reference to the date of the founding of the Landsraad? The reason I ask: the "Religion" appendix says that the Commission met for 7 years. Three+ years in, the delegates issue a statement which leads to riots in which approx. 80 million people are killed. Then:

The major dams against anarchy in these times were the embryo Guild, the Bene Gesserit and the Landsraad, which continued its 2,000-year record of meeting in spite of the severest obstacles.

A date for the founding would help pinpoint that of the Commission.

A later passage provides an alternative yet highly inexplicable point of time for reference; discussing C.E.T. Chairman Bomoko, the appendix states:

It is pleasant to think that Bomoko understood the prophecy in his words: 'Institutions endure.' Ninety generations later, the O.C. Bible and the Commentaries permeated the religious universe.

Ninety standard-definition generations is 2700 years; if the end point of the period referred to is the time of the events in Dune, then the C.E.T. took place around 7500 A.G. Which is internally inconsistent with the above quote about an "embryo" Guild. Or FH was using "generation" for something like 113 years. Which would be odd even taking into account spice-enhanced lifespans. (Generation referring to the normal/average time between procreative events in a lineage. Jessica is 22 when she bears Paul in 10176 A.G., consistent with the usual definition.) Not sure what to make of these.... RJCraig 12:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting...Another odd bit is the part about the Landsraad meeting for 2000 years since, as I saw it, it hadn't formed during the BJ, either in the legends or original books, so it would have to be 2000 A.G. or later when the convention met. This may be a part where both FH and B&K got mixed up and slapped a bunch of stuff together without thinking about the whole thing. But if it did take place in 7500 then that seems like sufficient time to terraform and so the above rationalization holds more merit, but then the question becomes, how did the people lose and forget about their homeworld in less than 3000 years? This whole debate just got a bit more confusing it would seem. User:71.100.139.19

But the only time the Guild could have been described as "embryo" is just before or after it achieved its monopoly on space travel. Obviously the Landsraad dates from sometime around 2000 B.G. or later. (It is curious that there is no entry for Landsraad in the Terminology/glossary section.) RJCraig 08:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure about this whole thing. Perhaps I'm missing something, but it all seems a bit odd. Konman72 09:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Rationalizations (meta)

This is not a section in which I will discuss a specific discrepancy, but a section to discuss how we should deal with discrepancies (I might use examples, though).

My stance on this is that we are not apologists for anyone. If Hitler killed 6 million Jews (I know the issue is more complex than that, bear with me), we will write that and not go into how he might not be such a bad guy, not have thought it over or "was, on the other hand, good to animals". Neither should we step in and save K&B when they mess up. Using what they write on their homepage is fine (insofar as it makes sense) but inventing reasons why eg. Kynes resents Gurney all of a sudden (eg. he was brainwashed by unseen aliens) is not kosher - we cannot speculate at wikipedia...

But we can report that two sets of books are at odds with each other (we have sources). And I think we should, lest people think that the new books are in any artistic sense a continuation of FH's work. It is an important difference, and one we should point out, that the new books ignore FH's messages and themes and exists solely to cash in on copyright (that was POV and of course it's not the way I think it should be written).


Example: where Paul is born. Yes, one could speculate and apologize for K&B saying that Irulan was simplifying things - it is a good rationalization, I agree. But it is, nevertheless, a rationalization - I cannot for the life of me see why we should include it. If people think K&B are the bees's knees, they will supply such rationalization themselves and/or go to a homepage that wil tell them it is all OK and that they can still have telekinesis and psychopathic robots with their FH, thinking man's sci-fi. That is not wikipedia's job. That said, I do not think it is the most grievious of inconsistencies as it does not matter all that much to the themes (although it does weaken the Atreides link to Caladan, which is quite important for contrast with their new fief).


So, here is what I suggest. Whether people believe an inconsistency can or should be explained away is their own business, although we should of course write that a lot of fans believe they can (and give an example, the Caladan/Kaitain is a good one for this, IMHO). About the themes and "feel", then this is where I feel more strongly. We have to write that the impression one gets from FH's writing is one thing, his succesors another (eg. reasons behind the jihad, whether psychokinesis exists). This does not have to be a "they are wrong" kind of writing, merely a "the two universes have a different feel, different themes and (maybe) different metaphysics.Lundse 09:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this is that the whole thing is speculation. Almost all of these are. Unless the original novels said explicitely that X NEVER happened then we cannot say that it is an inconsistancy when the prequels say that X happened, no matter how much it was implied that X never happened it is not said and therefore is an opinion, a very valid and well supported opinion, but none-the-less an opinion. If you take out all speculation then this page would be left with about 3 inconsistancies. Also, if we take out the rationalizations then we would need to be even more open minded and neutral in the description of the "inconsistancy." This is a topic that is debated quite heavily and so both sides need to be represented, so far the best way to do that has been to have a paragraph explaining an inconsistancy and then providing the rationalization for it. This whole thing is not like saying "Hitler killed 6 million jews" because that is an objective thing, but most of these are based on speculation, especially the BJ section since you, yourself, say that is is "inferred" which is a special word for "up for debate/interpretation." Just look at this quote from your above post, "we have to write that the impression one gets from FH's writing is one thing, his succesors another" what kind of impression one gets from a work of literature is completely subjective, I could very easily say that the impression I got from the original six books was that the BJ was a huge battle between cheese and bacon and, while that is absurd, there is no one who can prove me wrong on that because it is an impression, not a stated fact. I agree with the point of this article, but the whole thing requires speculation or it would be limited to such a degree as to not have any purpose at all. We need to represent both sides, no matter how absurd one explanation may seem to you or anyone else as long as it remains in the realm of possibility then it must be represented or we fail at remaining neutral.

I disagree on your point about the originals having to say specifically that something did not happen for its inclusion to be an inconsitency. Take the BG psychic powers, for instance: saying they existed all through the original 6 books is tantamount to saying they and/or FH were retarded (as they never considered using them). But I would be content if it is clear that these are inventions of K&B and that they have no basis in the originals, which would even have to be re-interpreted heavily in order to accomodate these new facts.

And yes, this entire article is in a sort of trouble. Everything borders on speculation (I still hold that this is worse for the rationalizations). Maybe this should be incorporated into the Dune universe article with small references to it in other relevant articles (Frank Herbert, Brian H., Dune, etc.). Maybe we should rather say that the main problem is "differences", that the themes of the Jihad hold true for FH's universe, but less so for the new "expanded universe", and that the BG have also changed. BTW, I am aware that one might have read the originals as meaning exactly what B&K says (implying there is no "change"), but this is about as likely as the cheese and bacon scenario (eg. why would one think Paul was born on Kaitan?).

I don't know. Anyone else care to join? Lundse 10:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If we take out all speculation then yes, it would have to explicitely state that, for example, the Bene Gesserit had no power of invisibility (or near invisiblity as it is expressed in the prequels). It seems to work perfectly the way it is, we post a supposed inconsistancy and then have a rationalization that has the possibility of explaining it depending on your personal view of the subject. I see no reason to change it unless we want to incorporate the rationalization into the explanation of the inconsistancy, but that would seem to negate what is being said. BTW, I interpreted the BJ very similarly to what was in the Legends books based solely on the original six, and I have met many like me. I even went through all of the pertinent quotes once and explained the way that I interpreted them and they fit well into the Legends books. I'm not trying to insult you but you seem a bit closed-minded, espeically about the BJ. Konman72 10:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Deletions

I propose that both the Butlerian Jihad and Mentat Origins sections be deleted. They are both completely based on personal interpretation, and both suffer from a lack of evidence based in the original novels. Frank Herbert never said how the mentat school was formed except that it arose from a need, this is not denied in any way in the prequels. Also with the BJ, there are very few quotes about it and all remain vague. The general consensus is that the inconsistancy is based on how the conflict started, whether that be a religious/philosophical motive or a rebellion against oppression. The problem with calling this an inconsistancy however is that the prequels contain both reasons, and it is obvious that the religious/philosophical motive is the most important one not only throughout the conflict but it becomes solidified through the machinations of history.

So, with all of that said I propose that these sections be erased entirely. Konman72

Rather than erase completely, why not rewrite and include in a renamed section? RJCraig 04:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That might work, but what could it be titled? They seem to rely so much on speculation and opinion that I don't see them being valid entries in an encyclopedic article. They would have to be something like, "Heavily Disputed/Debated Instances" or something like that. Konman72 04:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm reading over the BJ section now and it contains not only errors but complete opinionated statements. "Along the lines of the Terminator movie franchise"? No, the Terminator movies were a lot more straight-forward, with the actual enslaved humans being the fighters rather than a bunch of religious zealots; I also think this statement was meant as a sly way of hitting the prequels. "Started because of a slave rebellion"? No, it was started as a religious backlash due to the murder of Manion Butler. And then the part about the word Jihad being used doesn't make much sense. Jihad can be used for both, and was used for an actual war in Dune and Dune Messiah. I would change all of these but I think that I have done a lot of edits in the last few days and don't want it to appear like I am trying to take over the article. Also with these things changed the whole BJ section would really have no argument, it would just sound like, "some people think the BJ was this way others think that way, here's what's said" which isn't terrible but seems unecessary. Konman72 05:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have made the deletions, I waited a while seeing if someone could give reason against it but no one did. Add them back if you want, but they will require major modifications first. Konman72 23:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/i/s/Talk%7EDiscrepancies_%28Dune%29_Archive_1_37e1.html"