Jump to content

Talk:Brian Herbert

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.67.82.230 (talk) at 14:37, 12 January 2020 (→No criticism? No controversy?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Published works

Maybe Dreamer should be moved to a new category (Published Non-Fiction?) or the title changed to "Published Works"? Also, no mention yet of The Road to Dune? (I haven't read the biography but am now reading Road; would consider editing but don't trust myself: I'm one of the hardcore FH fans who consider the prequels (and upcoming sequels?) to be pure crap.) RJCraig 05:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to he a hardcore Dune fan to think these books are crap, you just have to have some kind of (quite low) standards for literature generally.129.215.4.8 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The parts of Road actually written by FH are interesting, but make up too small a percentage of the book; I never finished the BH/KJA sections and so haven't added anything here. (The usual dross, as expected, if the bits I have skimmed are representative....)

[Question originally here moved to new section below.] RJCraig 08:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is no one going to address the organizational problems? Where to stick Road? Under works by Frank Herbert, by Brian or Kevin Anderson? Or under all three? RJCraig 10:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All three, with proper comment (especially under Frank) about its mixed nature. And no, I have heard of no proof of this "concordance", I assume it is mostly a publicity stunt, naming their hastily taken notes from their equally (it seems) hasty reading of the original books. Lundse 12:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...makes the concordance like Voltaire's God then: it will be necessary (or at least useful?) to create it if it does not already (really) exist.
Of course, such a thing could never be made public, given Childe Brian's greedy little right grip.... RJCraig 15:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing like Tolkien's Son

Somebody, is really down on this guy. Chistopher Tolkien is not a writer (he's a money grubber) but these books are brilliantly done and great reads. I like them better than the origials by Frank Herbert who was too technical for his own good. Frank Herbert was confusing and as a result very hard to read... I like Brian Herbert's stuff. Its more accessable and more interesting. I've read each of them twice for pleasure, not because it didn't make any sense if I didn't. --merlinus 11:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reinserted the edits mentioning the controversy, whether you like the guy or not does not matter regarding the fact that many Dune fans do not. There is a controversy and a huge change in style, some prefer the new, some the old. Those prefering the old tend to be hardcore SF and Herbert fans, their opinion matters on the subject and is certainly notable. Lundse 19:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De gustibus non est disputandum. All a matter of taste, isn't it? Some prefer a fine, full-bodied wine (Herbert Senior), others grape cool-aid. Sure, the latter won't give you a headache, but the sugary aftertaste is a bit sick-making. RJCraig 23:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be summed up as "Frank herbert writes litrature, Brian Herbert writes popular fiction". Frank will be a main entry into the history of SF, brian will be a little side note. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.89.54.207 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
"There is a controversy (over the) huge change in style, some prefer the new, some the old. ....(These) opinion(s) matter on the subject and (are) certainly notable."
Valid. Can you geeks not find some way to at least mention the controversy on this page? Maybe a link to a credible website with a review or a magazine article. I'd do it but my geek level isn't high enough as I (generally) only use the internet for billpaying and e-mail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.6.40.2 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Was the reason he and Kevin stopped writing the Heroes of Dune series because of it's low rateings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.45.26 (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone answer my question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.207.123 (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to ask your question on one of their sites. We have no special access to information regarding your question. Also, this page is for discussion of this article, not for speculation on why a particular series may have been ended or if it might continue, unless such discussion or speculation has already occurred in one or more reliable sources. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Not a regular contributor to wikipedia, don't have an account or anything. But seriously? No mention of the contempt with which Brian's Dune books are held by lots of people? A common assumption is that they are nothing but a money grab that profanes, what is for many, a spiritual work of art. Good grief, google "Brian Herbert ruined Dune". There's even a comic strip about it on Penny Arcade. There have been images made to express the contempt and hatred people feel for Brian Herberts ham-fisted ruination of the Dune mythos. I get that some people like the Star-Wars easier read. It should really be acknowledged, though, how many hardcore fans are pissed.

Must be astroturfing going on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.94.254 (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say 9 out of 10 Dune fans hate the Expanded Dune and say it isn't cannon. --124.148.84.69 (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dune Concordance

In the article it states

He has also ... created The Dune Concordance, massive notes for the Dune universe, so far unpublished.

On March 18 I asked

Question: Is there any evidence that The Dune Concordance really exists, besides BH's claims to have created it? Anyone else (besides KJA, of course) ever seen it?

I'll concede that something like what they describe must exist, but I think the following is relevant re the wording of the above from the main article. I've just found this in an interview with BH & KJA:

Are there any plans for DUNE CONCORDANCE in near or far future?
Brian compiled a concordance of the original Dune books for ourselves, which we use to ensure accuracy in our novels. It needs to be greatly expanded to include all of our prequel novels and the two volumes of DUNE 7, and because of the work involved to put it into a publishable form, it-s not likely we would ever be able to do that.

In light of this, shouldn't we change the "so far unpublished" to something like "unlikely to be published"? RJCraig 12:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent posts to the blog written mainly by Kevin J. Anderson indicate they may be planning to publish the concordance. Hmm. SandChigger 17:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle writer

Brian Herbert is listed as a "Seattle Area" writer in the PI's Northwest Science Fiction list [1]. So I added appropriate category tags. Brianhe 04:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Brian Herbert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian Herbert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No criticism? No controversy?

It is simply not believable that among all the well-elaborated revulsion of BH and KJA's Dune-brand collaborations from committed and articulate fans that NONE of that would have filtered into their Wikipedia entries. This lacuna is another clear indicator of interested parties manipulating and sanitizing Wikipedia. (It's too bad, but Jimmy Wales' grand project has become a morass of perception management.) I can think off-hand of multiple sources that speak to the low regard in which these works are held; how could no-one more motivated and interested before me have failed to do so?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_Herbert&oldid=935428995"