Talk:The Dune Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Previous discussions

When the article was renamed the old discussion was not moved. It is still available on Talk:Dune Encyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding that discussion below, and redirecting the old Talk page here. TAnthony 01:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canonicity, Brian Herbert, etc.

Wasn't Brian Herbert (Frank's son) also involved in compiling the encyclopedia?

"THE DUNE ENCYCLOPEDIA reflects an alternate "DUNE universe" which did not necessarily represent the "canon" created by Frank Herbert. Frank Herbert's son, Brian Herbert, writing with Kevin J. Anderson, IS continuing to establish the canon of the DUNE universe. This is being done with the full approval of the owner of the DUNE copyright, the Herbert Limited Partnership."
I find this part quite shocking and unencyclopidic, owning a copyright does not mean that something is canonical, please read dune faq ( http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sf/dune-faq/part1/ ) for different opinion, also I find using caps lock to emphasize part of the text unencyclopedic ( Brian Herbert, writing with Kevin J. Anderson, IS continuing to establish the canon )
Unfortunately, the quasi-official policy of Wikipedia is that the copyright holders decide what is and isn't canon. Only when "Fanon" (as non-copyright holder orignating stuff is called) is really popular, swamping official stuff, does that stuff get included, and even then only with context as fanon. I know, I don't like BH and KJA any more than anybody else. I keep wanting to include this Penny Arcade strip in the articles but I know I shouldn't... --Maru 04:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
When i wrote that i didn't know that that was quoted Anderson, i saw that penny arcade comic before :) i think a link to Dune FAQ and alt.fan.dune would be enough and maybe a qoute from Willis E. McNelly, I dont find Dune Encyclopedia pure canon but i find it's buthlerian jihad story more believable then BH and KJA Terminator ripoff i personally would like to qoute this
I had proposed to FH that he and I collaborate on a prequel to the Dune saga called "Prequel to Dune: the Butlerian Jehad" or some similar title. FH and I had discussed writing it together and he agreed with my general plot outline, completed first chapter, and so on but his untimely death prevented us from continuing.[1]
But he never reposted whether or not his claims could be checked at the Herbert archives in CalState. Those links do sound appropriate tho. --Maru 21:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I Agree that it can't be verified but those still are the words of Willis E. McNelly, I still think that second opinion would be nice.. I think this document is a bit hard on DE --Defufna 04:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I think it is fairly balanced. It is true that FH didn't really respect it, and his son has been rather harsh on it, so a certain harshness in that section is to be expected. Could use some better formatting, because as is it goes straight from description and status into canonicity issues. --Maru 18:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Brian herbert is a moron. he has done so much damage to the ingenious work of his father just having the intention of earning money. Any real Dune fan simply cannot consider his books as canon. On the other hand the Dune encyclopedia was authorized by Frank Herbert himself when he was still alive.At least partially it was even written by FH himself. And it is definitely not incompatible with Heretics and Chapterhouse. This is because the timeline of Dune Universe described in the Encyclopedia ends with the death of LetoII. Therefore it does not refer to the ocurrences in the last two books but there is no inconsistence. --- yours truly german Dune fan

I don't get this argument; just because Frank approved/was amused by the Encyclopedia doesn't make it any more canon that BH & KJA expanding on his notes. Are the 10 million Star Wars books "more canon" than the BH/KJA books because George Lucas is still alive? I've said this on more than one talk page, but people need to remember, Frank Herbert can't write anything else! I think we're lucky to have a resolution to his saga and other related novels that are even remotely based on his actual ideas. Frank may not have sued McNelly or specifically contradicted his work, but the good Doctor and his peeps weren't really working off a box of Frank's notes. TAnthony 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how has the Encyclopedia been contradicted by the novels published after it? I think such information should be included so people can decide for themselves what to consider canon.

Considering, Frank, Brian and the good Doctor himself, who wrote the encyclopedia, have stated categorically that it is not canon there really is no point. If you really want to do this then put it on the Dune discrepancies article rather than here, and you might want to include the many times Frank contradicted it....in case somebody wants to discount Frank's work as canon. Konman72 20:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I really disagree here; the scope of the Dune discrepancies article is really canon works, that is, inconsistencies among Frank Herbert's own books, and then the Brian/Kevin books. The Encyclopedia falls out of that scope. It makes perfect sense to me to have significant content from the Encyclopedia that conflicts with canon explored in the Encyclopedia article itself. As it's out of print, many people have never seen it; it would be interesting, if nothing else. Although I'm on the team that finds it non-canon, the fact that Frank "approved" it or whatever puts it above pure fan fiction and makes it notable. And hey, like any other book on Wikipedia, it's allowed a detailed synopsis and analysis. TAnthony 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Futher reprints of the book - sources

Dr. Willis E. McNelly had tried for new reprint of DE but negotiation with FH family trust (aka BH) failed. He wrote about it on alt.fan.dune newsgroup in 200-2001.

  • [2] - who own copyright and whose permition is needed
  • [3] futher how hard is to get agreement with FH trust
  • [4] announcing of negotioations, which apparently failed since no reprnt appeared

I hope this clears the question. Pavel Vozenilek 06:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Selected content

Over time I have added some mention of "notable" content here, particularly items that have been contradicted by later canon works. In most of these cases, a expanded explanation of the Encyclopedia version is included in the individual articles (Butlerian Jihad, Holtzman effect). As much as it seems logical to confine all Encyclopedia content to this article, I think the information is only really notable when presented in comparison/contrast with canon material, and thus is better placed in the individual articles.

I've made an effort in general keep in their own section or clearly cite any Encyclopedia references I come across (or add). In the case of articles with more significant use of Encyclopedia content (again, like Butlerian Jihad and Holtzman effect), I add links in this article for interested readers to follow.

For the record, I'm on the team that finds the Encyclopedia non-canon, but I also find it interesting, and the fact that Frank "approved" it or whatever puts it above pure fan fiction and makes it notable. TAnthony 03:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] from VfD

  • At first glance this looks like an article on a wiki-worth book. On closer inspection it turns out that the Encyclopedia has not been updated since 1989 (when several new books have come out), is considered 'entertaining' by Frank Herbert, and was mostly speculation even then. Inshort it's an artice about an unpopular book. DJ Clayworth 16:33, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The updated argument is really weak -- must things be constantly updated to keep their places in Wikipedia and then deleted if they slip from currency? --Daniel C. Boyer 13:21, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • As long as its a real book, and we state these things, I think that should be fine. It's more informative to at least say that, than have someone look for it and find nothing. The Trolls of Navarone 16:35, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's a decent enough article, no reason to delete. Pteron 20:00, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Real book, really published in enough numbers to count above vanity press. No further criteria are required for a book to have an article. We don't keep any kind of 'Wikipedia canon'. —Morven 21:28, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Well said. Andrewa 07:39, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Popular enough for someone to have bothered writing a decent article about it, apparently. And the importance of the Dune series is uncontested, even if this is a relatively minor factor in it. Might as well keep. Isomorphic 04:30, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cribcage 06:45, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. What they said. --Tagishsimon 07:48, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Frank Herbert may have only found it entertaining, but it remains a popular book in SF circles. Judging from some of the reviews I've read about Brian Herbert's new books in the series, this book may prove more enduring than the canonical ones. MK 07:51, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Given that a number of people (full disclosure: including me!) have worked on that article since it was listed on the Cleanup page, it would be rather rude to delete it just because the subject of the article is "unpopular". --Stormie 01:38, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fanfic?

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the vast majority of the substance of the Dune Encyclopedia should be classed as fan fiction? 209.149.235.254 20:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Possibly, if the criteria for fanfic holds for works created with approval (if not full endorsement) of the original author, as is the case here. As a personal aside, The Dune Encyclopedia is far more enjoyable and true to Herbert's vision than the abominations that were made after his death. Basically his son and Kevin Anderson pilfered the Dune legacy for profit, producing junk that reads like the worst fanfic out there. Just my $0.02. Alcarillo 17:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
If the Dune Encyclopaedia is "fan fiction" then there aren't words to describe the immature scrawlings which the wastrel son has propagated with such prodigious vigour.
Kneeslasher 20:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't really contribute to the discussion much, does it? (Your comment should probably be reverted in keeping with WP talk page guidelines, but I have no interest in a flame or edit war at the moment.) Both are fanfic IMO. (Canonicity has to be a more interesting concept than simple ownership of copyright.) The Encyclopedia is arguably more imaginative and the better work for being better written. Anyway, this isn't the place for abusing the authors. If you want to do that, start a blog and slag them off to your heart's content. Like I do. :) --SandChigger 12:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Canonicity certainly can be more complex - look at Star Wars, with its G, C, and N-canon levels (and more, probably), or Star Trek (which does something I'm not entirely sure about). But in the Dune case, with the exception of the DE, canonicity right now seems to fall under either whatever the legal possessor of copyright says, or for us fans, anything FH wrote. --Gwern (contribs) 02:42 7 June 2007 (GMT)