That's fine, because the review that Library Journal posted for Dune was written in 1999. So, again, I must ask if you agree with Library Journal in that Machine Crusade, Sandworms of Dune, and Paul of Dune (all recipients of starred reviews- though in MC case it was the audiobook and not the book itself) are better than Dune? If LJ reviews are based on literary quality, and you support them as a legitimate measurement of such, then you must agree that the original Dune is inferior to the new books.leagued wrote:
The original Dune did not receive a starred review from them but both Machine Crusade and Paul of Dune did.
So, do you agree that Frank Herbert's original Dune is inferior to both and/or either of these latter works? Or is the Library Journal review system based more on predicting mass appeal than literary quality?
Literary quality.
And I don't think they were doing starred reviews back in 1965.
I also thought I'd include the review of Dune to point some things out:
Cliched.Dune is to science fiction what The Lord of the Rings is to fantasy.
Though fans believed they had bid a sad farewell to the sand planet of Arrakis upon Herbert's death in 1986, his son Brian has assumed writing the Nebula and Hugo award-winning series with the help of Kevin J. Anderson.
Not even about the book in question.
Refers to the popularity of the work, not the quality; therefore indicates the likelihood of the book to be sought out by library patrons.But the original is always the most popular, and Ace here offers a good-quality hardcover complete with maps, a glossary, and appendixes.
Predicts a future increase in popularity of the book. Again, this showcases the fact that the main goal of LJ reviews is providing librarians with a metric to determine which books they should stock based on popularity. This is not a bad goal at all, but it is a different priority than that of other review sources.The book's huge fan base should expand even more thanks to a six-hour miniseries premiering on the Sci-Fi Channel later this year that is said to be more faithful to the book than David Lynch's truly awful 1984 feature film.
You can't accept a review's validity in a vacuum. Background information is important so you know how much weight to give to that review.