Classic Science Fiction discussion

Frank Herbert says he wrote Dune in less than a month from ideas that were percolating in his mind for a while. The manuscript was rejected by several publishers ostensibly for not hewing to the pulp nature of the prevalent market and for being too long. Herbert persisted and eventually got the book published in the 1965 as well as 5 sequels and books by others in the same universe, and movies. It won the Hugo and Nebula awards.
Arguably, it is the world's best selling science fiction novel. It changed the science fiction landscape in many ways.

Having read so much science fiction I still have never read Dune. I think I got a little turned off by the movie as I tried to imagine the book. I don't guess the movie was so horrible, but it didn't make me want to read the book.

I am planning on reading it soon. Movies and their books often differ.

Making a movie of the book was ever a challenge and in my opinion none really captured its essence. I would guess that reading Dune for the first time it would seem dated, and perhaps surpassed by more recent work by contemporary authors. Its SF elements have been copied so often as to make the original cliched.

Read the book,enjoyed it very much.But not the sequels....any good?

I like Dune, I read it in around "69 I believe. I never really got much into the sequels. I read the two that followed but never thought they came up to Dune itself.

Just me of course.

When I first dipped my toes into science fiction in my late teens, my aunt recommended Dune, so I read the first 3 books. Although I liked them because of the epic storytelling, I can't recall that I enjoyed them - I don't think it was easy reading.

Perhaps a re-read is in order to see how I feel about them now?

I find that works...sometimes both ways. Books we loved when young sometimes don't hold up, LOL.

Some of the sequels when considered against other books of the same period may have stood out on their own, but in comparison to the original book, they were generally paler. Maybe that's just the consequence of success.

Ric wrote: "Some of the sequels when considered against other books of the same period may have stood out on their own, but in comparison to the original book, they were generally paler. Maybe that's just the..."

I'd agree with this. Dune stands on its own. The prequels and sequels are not in the same league to be honest.
I also agree that it's one of those books that changed the genre. It is one of the first I remember that gave you the feel of 'cultural depth' and of an immense history behind the story.
I think that in his Foundation Trilogy, Asimov created an Empire that he told you was old. With Dune, Frank Herbert created an empire that you felt was old

Jim wrote: "I think that in his Foundation Trilogy, Asimov created an Empire that he told you was old. With Dune, Frank Herbert created an empire that you felt was old"
Nicely put.

I wouldn't say that Dune changed Sci-Fi per se, but rather that the sub-genre itself evolved enough to stand tall on its feet - luckily high enough to even surpass anything Fiction (implicitly its peak at the time, LOTR).

Tolkien was not only matched, but dwarfed by Herbert on pretty much everything, and then some: vastness of the universe described, level(s) of complexity, character and intrigue depth and development, maps, languages etc. All it changed was the quality standard. New level: epic.

I know it's a matter of taste and maybe of empathy, but in my personal and humble opinion there still is no book that comes remotely close to Dune in a single most important respect: how one feels after reading it. It's something impossible to describe, but well beyond inspirational - to me, at the very least.

And it still doesn't feel dated... Sorry for the long post, cheers everyone!

Got to REALLY disagree, but to each their own opinion.

Lord of the Rings is still the best.

Have never thought of comparing Dune with LOTR. They always seemed to be from different genres. But since Constantin has brought this up, I think: Dune was written as a story about a unique planetary ecology, and hence the world building as an sfnal aspect; while LOTR was about a quest taking place in a fantasy kingdom. For their individual foci, both books were exemplary. But they're apples and oranges apart.