|Dune (novel) was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication:
'Stephenson said in an interview that this material is an extension of what many science fiction and fantasy novels already offer.
“I can remember reading Dune for the first time, and I started by reading the glossary,” he said. “Any book that had that kind of extra stuff in it was always hugely fascinating to me.”'
http://venturebeat.com/2010/08/31/writer-neal-stephenson-unveils-his-digital-novel-the-mongoliad/ --Gwern (contribs) 15:07 1 September 2010 (GMT)
In popular culture
A comedy that kicks off with a failed suicide attempt and follows it up with a beardy bloke in a dog suit lifting quotes from Frank Herbert’s Dune is practically cocking its leg and spraying its self-conscious wackiness all over you....Luckily for him, salvation came in the shape of his next-door neighbour’s dog, the eponymous Wilfred, who Ryan is alone in seeing as a strapping geezer with an Aussie accent.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the portrayal of a homosexual character (whether negatively or positively) as a "gender issue", unless this is one of the frequent misuses of "gender" as a "euphemism" (as if one were needed) for "sex(ual)". Sexual orientation has little to do with gender. Even more to the point, it was Frank Herbert himself that chose to make the sole homosexual character in the book so repulsive, thereby confirming one of the abiding anti-gay prejudices (that gay men are often ugly, old and paedophile). Another 1960s male sci-fi writer who put down gays as a group was Robert Heinlein in "Stranger in a strange land": his sexually promiscuous "Martian" character Michael turned down advances from men on the grounds that he "grokked (i.e. sensed) a wrongness" in their sexuality.
Lynch would surely have been quite wrong to adapt Herbert's implicit views on sexual orientation to ones that only became current a couple of decades later. Of course, one might have hoped that Herbert, being a sci-fi writer, was sufficiently prescient/iconoclastic to present a future world in which homosexuality was accepted as normal - but it seems he was sufficiently mid-20th-century American (and male) not to. In any case, his then publishers would almost certainly have shot down any such suggestion on commercial (or obscenity?!) grounds.126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
On the subject of gender issues, It's worth the time to note that the Spacing Guild and Bene Gesserit represent masculinity and femininity respectively. Also worth noting, but much harder to reinforce, is the notion of the Kwisatz Haderach. It seems that this figure represents the complete person. We all have masculine and feminine tendencies and that's obvious because of the biological fact that every body has testosterone and estrogen. The Kwisatz Haderach is a person that utilizes both those parts. Herbert's decision to make the KH male is open to interpretation but, and this is just my opinion, because of biochemical differences and the psychological consequences those differences create, (forgive me if this sounds sexist) it seems more likely a man could wield and use his femininity than a woman could wield/use her masculinity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC81:C660:EDAE:9A4F:A38A:532E (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Use of "excise"
The last paragraph of the article's "Reception" section reads:
"Writing for The New Yorker, Jon Michaud praises Herbert's "clever authorial decision" to excise robots and computers ("two staples of the genre") from his fictional universe, ..."
Isn't that a completely idiotic and incorrect use of the word "excise"? Did whoever wrote that actually mistake it for "exclude", or am I missing something?