Page 9 of 13

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 10 May 2010 13:14
by Freakzilla
I love how he thinks McDune is as [memerizing] as Harry Potter.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 10 May 2010 13:41
by SandChigger
Remember, there's NO LONGER ANY NEED to get yer "Bonzo for Barsoom" Bob SECONDHAND!!!

Go STRAIGHT (like Science Fiction Author Hardwoody!) to the source!

http://www.commonsensecentral.net/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Common Sense Central

For those who seek plain talk and absolute brutal truth.

A no nonsense web site by Bob Williams
Now also on Twitter! (He's following me! He's following me! It must be CYBERSTALKING!!! Quick, call the FBI!!!)

:laughing:

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 10 May 2010 13:55
by Serkanner
TheDukester wrote:Wow, that was surprisingly easy ... maybe I need to get out more. :)

Ladies and gents, I give you "Kudos to Brian and Keith."

http://goo.gl/8IAC" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The good old days ... :lol:

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 10 May 2010 14:01
by Freakzilla
SandChigger wrote:Remember, there's NO LONGER ANY NEED to get yer "Bonzo for Barsoom" Bob SECONDHAND!!!

Go STRAIGHT (like Science Fiction Author Hardwoody!) to the source!

http://www.commonsensecentral.net/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Common Sense Central

For those who seek plain talk and absolute brutal truth.

A no nonsense web site by Bob Williams
Now also on Twitter! (He's following me! He's following me! It must be CYBERSTALKING!!! Quick, call the FBI!!!)

:laughing:
Maybe Keith can help? :wink:

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 10 May 2010 16:00
by merkin muffley
SandChigger wrote: A no nonsense web site by Bob Williams
Now also on Twitter! (He's following me! He's following me! It must be CYBERSTALKING!!! Quick, call the FBI!!!)

:laughing:[/quote]

Maybe Keith can help? :wink:[/quote]

DUDE, you MIGHT want TO make that PHONE call to the FBI. DON'T fuck WITH Charles Manson's TWIN brother...
http://www.commonsensecentral.net/2008/ ... Mooers.htm



Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 10 May 2010 16:40
by SandRider
TheDukester wrote:Wow, that was surprisingly easy ... maybe I need to get out more. :)

Ladies and gents, I give you "Kudos to Brian and Keith."

http://goo.gl/8IAC" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
exactly right, that's where I picked it up from .... I try not to type "Kevin J. Anderson" unless
absolutely necessary for clarity ...

and thankee for the wingnut link, Mah Chigga ... I never have enough internet-loons stashed
in my bookmarks for a rainy day ....

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 11 May 2010 10:57
by MrFlibble
TheDukester wrote:Further, it's the difference between lazy story-telling and effective story-telling. Relying on an A-->>B answer oversimplifies everything is an "easy out" for an author with few skills (and, further, an audience who can't think for themselves). Having the baron slowly backslide over time is much more effective (more tragic, even), and presents a fuller picture of the character for the reader.
I can't say I've read McDune books extensively, but I must confess I didn't notice any character development at all. On the contrary, the good guys seem to be always good, and the villains keep doing evil things and being total buffoons all the time (that, at least, is the impression that the House books left on me).

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 11 May 2010 11:15
by TheDukester
That's Anderhack's writing in a nutshell. That complaint has been leveled against him for years now, and by far more than just OH Dune fans.

Good guys are always good; bad guys are always bad; no gray area is ever present. Also, he tends to define his characters by their tasks. So, a ship's captain is only ever seen being a captain ... a messenger is only ever seen delivering messages ... and so on, etc.

TheKJA's characters experience less development than is seen in Looney Tunes cartoons. Seriously.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 11 May 2010 16:05
by A Little Galach
So I don't remember if this was mentioned earlier in this thread, but I read the first couple chapters of Chapterhouse last night and I feel like mentioning this. There is no way for anyone to read that book and come to a conclusion other than that the Honored Matres are fleeing from some form of Tlexiau. Any person that reads it and says to themselves "ROBOTS!" is dishonest or plain stupid.

The grand pubbah of the HMs thinks about the futars being possibly sexed by their masters and creators...I assume robots creating and possibly humping human-tiger crossbreeds is not what Frank had in mind here. (athough it'd make great porn!)

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 11 May 2010 16:08
by Freakzilla
It was seriously implied that GHM was sleeping with her futar. I don't think there's much "probably" about it.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 11 May 2010 16:12
by A Little Galach
Freakzilla wrote:It was seriously implied that GHM was sleeping with her futar. I don't think there's much "probably" about it.
Correct. What I'm referring to is that GHM speculated that those with many faces controlled their futar creations with sex. If the many faces were robots...would they control their futars with sex? If so why wouldn't Keith dictate it into their abominations?

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 11 May 2010 16:16
by merkin muffley
Freakzilla wrote:It was seriously implied that GHM was sleeping with her futar. I don't think there's much "probably" about it.
"I'll bet your lovers often kiss your chin," Lucilla said.
...
"Kiss chin," the Futar said.
"I said later, darling. Now will you shut up!"


That whole interrogation is pretty disturbing.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 11 May 2010 16:26
by Freakzilla
A Little Galach wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:It was seriously implied that GHM was sleeping with her futar. I don't think there's much "probably" about it.
Correct. What I'm referring to is that GHM speculated that those with many faces controlled their futar creations with sex. If the many faces were robots...would they control their futars with sex? If so why wouldn't Keith dictate it into their abominations?
Hmmm... I dont' remember that but it's a great inconsistancy if true. Can you provide a quote?

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 11 May 2010 16:30
by A Little Galach
Freakzilla wrote:
A Little Galach wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:It was seriously implied that GHM was sleeping with her futar. I don't think there's much "probably" about it.
Correct. What I'm referring to is that GHM speculated that those with many faces controlled their futar creations with sex. If the many faces were robots...would they control their futars with sex? If so why wouldn't Keith dictate it into their abominations?
Hmmm... I dont' remember that but it's a great inconsistancy if true. Can you provide a quote?
is there a copy of Chapterhouse posted somewhere?

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 11 May 2010 17:07
by Freakzilla
A Little Galach wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:
A Little Galach wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:It was seriously implied that GHM was sleeping with her futar. I don't think there's much "probably" about it.
Correct. What I'm referring to is that GHM speculated that those with many faces controlled their futar creations with sex. If the many faces were robots...would they control their futars with sex? If so why wouldn't Keith dictate it into their abominations?
Hmmm... I dont' remember that but it's a great inconsistancy if true. Can you provide a quote?
is there a copy of Chapterhouse posted somewhere?
I emailed you a PDF composite of the US and UK editions.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 11 May 2010 19:50
by A Little Galach
First page of Chapter 4, Logno is the senior aide to GHM.
Some Honored Matres snickered and said Great Honored Matre dared bed a Futar. Logno thought it possible. This GHM dared many things. Had she not salvaged some of The Weapons from the disaster of the scattering? Futars, though? The sisters knew Futars could not be bonded by sex. At least not by sex with humans. That might be the way the Enemies of Many Faces did it, though. Who knew?

So...robots...may...have sex...with Futars?

I understand that Logno here wasn't implying that they did have sex with them, but that it was a possibility. "Who knew?" At this point most people would consider Face Dancers and their Masters fringe members of the Human race at best so I throw that "human" comment above out when talking about the Tlexiau.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 11 May 2010 20:40
by Superdog
MrFlibble wrote:
TheDukester wrote: On the contrary, the good guys seem to be always good, and the villains keep doing evil things and being total buffoons all the time (that, at least, is the impression that the House books left on me).
Towards the end of the House books I started to picture Rabban and the Baron as scooby doo villains. Foiled again! Those damn kids!

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 11 May 2010 21:35
by Freakzilla
You should post this in the Inconsistancy Concordance topic.

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 12 May 2010 08:11
by A Little Galach
Freakzilla wrote:You should post this in the Inconsistancy Concordance topic.
Is this directed to me and if so, didn't I just do that?

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 12 May 2010 08:27
by SandRider
shhh .... Freak be smokin the chronic again ....

just nod, agree, and back slowly away ...

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 12 May 2010 19:30
by MrFlibble
A Little Galach wrote:What I'm referring to is that GHM speculated that those with many faces controlled their futar creations with sex. If the many faces were robots...would they control their futars with sex? If so why wouldn't Keith dictate it into their abominations?
Um, I don't remember that. Lucilla managed to find out that Futars needed a command from handlers, of whom is nothing known, to attack. Without Handlers, Futars were (relatively) harmless to HMs. No mention of Futar control via sex (although it remains unclear how Futars identified Handlers; perhaps they were conditioned to obey to some form of command language).

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 12 May 2010 20:21
by Freakzilla
SandRider wrote:shhh .... Freak be smokin the chronic again ....

just nod, agree, and back slowly away ...
Where am I? :oops:

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 12 May 2010 22:51
by SandRider
shhh, shhh, s'cool, baby, you in the ""New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance" ....

s'all good, main, getchoo a slug of this here forty and chill, dawg ...

I done tole you bout smokin that sherm fore you gets yer eat on, main ....
make you be trippin an' shit .... say ... say ... where you nine be, dawg ?

aw, shit ....

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 13 May 2010 01:51
by Omphalos
Freakzilla wrote:
SandRider wrote:shhh .... Freak be smokin the chronic again ....

just nod, agree, and back slowly away ...
Where am I? :oops:
I am Batman!

Re: "New Canon" Inconsistency Concordance

Posted: 13 May 2010 10:49
by A Little Galach
MrFlibble wrote:
A Little Galach wrote:What I'm referring to is that GHM speculated that those with many faces controlled their futar creations with sex. If the many faces were robots...would they control their futars with sex? If so why wouldn't Keith dictate it into their abominations?
Um, I don't remember that. Lucilla managed to find out that Futars needed a command from handlers, of whom is nothing known, to attack. Without Handlers, Futars were (relatively) harmless to HMs. No mention of Futar control via sex (although it remains unclear how Futars identified Handlers; perhaps they were conditioned to obey to some form of command language).
You are correct. However I am referring to the speculation I quoted above by the GHM about the Futars and masters. Idle speculation, admittedly, but it certainly indicates that it was a possibility.