Talk:Honored Matres

Rewrite/Update

This article can use some updates and copyediting, anyone feeling "bold"? TAnthony 16:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I edited some stuff, moved a few paragraphs around, and split the article up into categories. Let me know what you think. Mindgiver 15:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the singular be Mater rather than Matre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.14.112.200 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 16 March 2007

Perhaps, but the books use Matre. TAnthony 14:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Execrable Contributions of The Son and His Hack

Is it really necessary to combine the information available from Frank Herbert's actual work with the garbage from Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson?

Yes, they read some of his unpublished notes. No, that doesn't make their work more than third-rate fanfic that got published on the strength of the Herbert name alone.

It would be bad enough to write elaborate fancruft assembled from original research on a fictional work, that spoils every detail of that work, without the sin of assimilating fanfic into the story's canon.

24.79.6.12 20:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, references to info from the Brian Herbert/Anderson works should definitely be cited as such or split out into separate sections, as in other Dune articles like Butlerian Jihad (there doesn't seem to be too much here, though). I think you may also be suggesting that the prequels/sequels are unworthy of being included at all; whether they suck or not is the reader's opinion, but they do have a place in an encyclopedia. TAnthony 12:39, June 15, 2007 (UTC)

In truth, they are both better writers than F. Herbert himself. Far better in my opinion. Most people I know who've read through the whole see the Brian/Kevin combintion as *better* and more even than anything F. Herbert wrote except Dune itself.216.203.27.99 05:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

While I enjoyed the Brian Herbert/Kevin J. Anderson works, I find it very hard to believe you've found that many people who would actually call them "better" than Frank's originals. Perhaps they're easier to read, but come on, they are blatantly inferior to even Frank's grocery list. — TAnthony^Talk 01:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If it has to stay, the page could at least say that the sequels are "allegedly" based on notes left by Frank Herbert, rather than just accepting the truth of that dubious proposition. Mangajunglist (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I don't find the new books necessarily worthy of being placed alongside Frank Herbert's own, and feel that he may not have made some of the same plot choices etc, but the truth is that we have sources statements asserting that there were notes, and nothing at all to suggest that there were not. Any wording to suggest that the notes do not exist is unsourced editor POV. All they're saying is that they used a 2-page outline by Frank, not that he wrote the book himself or spelled out all of the details.— TAnthony^Talk 07:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I take your point, but think that it's misconceived. There are doubtless sources asserting the existence of the invisible flying tea cup, the faerie king Oberon and Robocop on a unicorn, but I've yet to hear anyone suggest that any of these should be uncritically accepted as historical fact. The fundamental difficulty with your position is that the sole (ultimate) source of the information is the otherwise unvouched ipse dixit of two people with an obvious financial interest in promoting one version of events. The individuals have had every possible opportunity to substantiate their claims by releasing or publishing copies of the notes, but have failed to do so. Without wishing to get into the merits of the books in question, I think it's fair to say that the claims that BH and KJA made about the notes were crying out for corroboration. In the absence thereof, it's difficult to see how anyone can lend much credence to them. In such a situation, it would hardly be NPOV to refuse to acknowledge the considerable degree of controversy surrounding the provenance/existence of the notes. Mangajunglist (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, they've published images of the floppies containing the notes with labels in Frank's handwriting, and I haven't heard of any handwriting experts coming forward to challenge that. And I think we both know that even if any notes were published, plenty of dissenters would say the boys wrote them, as they are not handwritten by Frank. And I can easily see accusations of forgery after that! The books weren't written by Frank, these "fans" hate that they dared continue the series in any way, and nothing will ever satisfy them or change their minds. Oh, and your "Oberon/unicorn" comparison is a classic straw man argument I will disregard.

I put myself in the position of BH/KJA, and the mere suggestion that they are lying is basically insulting and inflammatory when there is no evidence except that some fans hate the books. You can say all you want about how they have motive to lie, but there is nothing concrete to contradict them, and writing any of these articles to suggest they are making false claims is basically slander, and I'm sure could be argued to violate WP:BLP. It speaks volumes that no one has yet produced a reliable published source which challenges the existence of the notes, or even reported on a fan/reader challenge significant enough to be noticed in the mainstream. You say there is a "considerable degree of controversy" but there is no real way to quantify if it actually amounts to more than the most hardcore fans posting in a forum. And I will repeat, they are not saying he wrote the books. If you read a 2-page outline of any book, the completed novel is obviously going to have a lot more to it. Am I the only one who can see that two writers could start with the same outline and come up with two considerably different novels? What is it, specifically, that has convinced you that Frank could not have conceived the basic plot of Dune 7? There were certainly choices made that didn't feel to me like natural extensions of the plotlines Frank set in motion, but they were going off two and a half pages. Give me a break. — TAnthony^Talk 22:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

straw man? It's nothing of the sort. I'm certainly not trying to paint you as a follower of the invisible flying tea cup, or some kind of Pastafarian. If you took that from it, then my apologies. The reference to the tea cup is a jocular - but in my view apposite - allusion to Russell's problem with articles of faith. Let me put it another way. Barring a tearful confession and retraction, what is the hypothetical piece of concrete evidence that would persuade you that Wikipedia ought to acknowledge the fact that the existence of the notes in question is disputed? (nb I'm not for one second suggesting that Wikipedia ought to make the claim that the notes are falsified.) If I were to publish my own version of Dune VII using the notes that FH gave me, would you accept my claims at face value as well? If not, why?

You'll doubtless accuse me of straw man again, but are you trying to suggest that anything other than complete acceptance of any claim that BH may make would amount to defamation? If so, I think you're missing a subtlety. It's entirely possible to point to factors that impact negatively upon an assessment of a person's credibility without making the claim that he's lying. I don't know Brian Herbert. I make no aspersions whatsoever about his personal integrity. What I am saying is that the state of the evidence engenders healthy, rational scepticism about his claim, just as it would if anyone else with a book to plug made a similar claim. The formulation on the Hunters page ("The authors have stated...") is appropriate for an unvouched claim, as was "It is apparently based upon..." Both are preferable to the suggestion in my post of 8 May 2008, above. Mangajunglist (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Reading my last comment I realize I came off a little snarky, and I don't want you to think I'm actually mad at you for bringing this up or anything, LOL. My basic point is just, by the simplest WP policy, every statement requires a source, and in particular anything putting across an idea that contradicts another or may advance an opinion. To my knowledge there is not a single review of any of the BH/KJA novels that has suggested that the notes may not exist, or even reported the fact that "many fans don't believe the notes exist." Is this because reviewers are afraid of being sued by the authors? Is this because the number of people disputing the notes is not notable? I really don't know. But I have seen nothing to convince me that any significant amount of people really challenge the existence of the notes compared to the amount of books that have been sold, and even if we could use forums and message boards as sources, I don't know that they would impress me from a demographic point of view. It's like asking people who love an exclusive clothing designer (and who post on his website) whether they prefer his regular line or the line he's going to design for WalMart. You know the answer you're going to get, and you'd probably get a different one if you opened the question up to a larger group of people. Even if a majority of members of a particular Dune website doubts the notes, is that percentage of readers in general enough to be notable? I don't know. But I'm curious what gives you and others the impression that a notable amount of people disbelieve, I mean, how many people do you know that have voiced this opinion? How many posts have you read? I personally think Grey's Anatomy is stupid, I have friends who agree, and could probably find a bunch more online. I won't fool myself into thinking I'm part of an anti-Grey's movement worth noting somewhere. Or I can say that the last few Sue Grafton novels have sucked, and I'm convinced she must have gotten lazy and hired some college student to write them for her; if I get a large enough group of her disappointed fans to agree with me, can I write: "T" Is for Trespass is a 2007 novel which Sue Grafton states she wrote? And you know what, if you had a plausible explanation for how you came upon Frank's outline, like you were his editor or his assistant, how could we challenge it? People could still say your book sucks and you've executed Frank's ideas poorly, rather than say you made them up. I'd defend your position dude, I swear! Hahaha

LOL, you got me going again! Anyway, we'll never agree and as much as I hate to admit it, mine is not the only opinion that matters ;) So I can concede to "the authors state," which is less suggestive than "the authors claim," and wait until the next person comes along to change it. Thanks for the fun debate! — TAnthony^Talk 04:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'd forgotten all about this. The problem with your argument was that it failed to acknowledge the difference between a positive claim of fact and scepticism thereof. Argued through to its conclusion, it would have left you claiming as fact the existence of Robocop on a unicorn if you were unable to locate a source expressing doubt. Your threshold of plausibility sat uneasily with your argument, since it necessarily implied what was, in your view, the use of unsourced editor POV in order to apply it.

No one suggested that that the existence (or otherwise) of a movement denying the claims of Herbert fils ought to be acknowledged. But even if there is no movement, that doesn't mean that an encyclopaedia editor of whatever description should immediately abandon common sense and disregard all of the tools that one would normally apply in evaluating the credibility and reliability of a source of evidence. Regardless of the number of times in which it has been reported (I note the seven citations and guess that there are thousands more) there are only two ultimate sources of this information. Whether or not it is true, both have a very clear financial interest in maintaining their position. (And pretty much any online book store will give you a source supporting that assertion.) Although you're correct that the notes would be diputed by some even if they were released, the fact that the two people supposedly in possession of them haven't placed them in the public domain doesn't assist them in any evaluation of credibility. The fundamental point is that it would be impossible for an informed, fair-minded observer to come to the conclusion that the pair's claims are certainly true. the only thing that the observer could be reasonably certain of is the fact that BH and KJA have made statements endorsing the authenticity of the notes. If that's the case, the NPOV position is to acknowledge the claims in those terms. Mangajunglist (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I edited this for npov. The existence of the notes is not in question, nor is the fact that there are two floppy disk with F Herbert's handwriting on them (for all we know, these are his backups of his zork games). What cannot and has not been established, and thus, can only be claimed, is that the sequels are faithful to the intent of the notes. A true npov can only state the claims made by the author's in question, given that they have purposefully withheld the contents of evidence that could prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. QED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.2.214 (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks for the laugh dude, I haven't thought of Zork in decades!— TAnthony^Talk 03:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is there a correct pronunciation for 'Matres'? Is it mah-trays or does it rhyme with taters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.226.146 (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Is there a correct pronunciation for 'Matres'?" -- seems not.