Talk:Gaius Helen Mohiam
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gaius Helen Mohiam article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Many hold the information in these prequels to be apocryphal, although the writers Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson may have been working from notes by Frank Herbert himself on events concerning Mohiam. Even the 1986 Dune Encyclopedia (which is not considered canon, even by Frank Herbert), hints that Mohiam was Jessica's mother. Dune itself hints this, as Alia contacts Mohiam in a way that is not telepathy, but something between her ancestors and the preborn.
I took this out. It needs citation for some and the rest is explanatory of that statement. Also, it seems that the explanations given afterword make the first statement worthless. If the DE hints at it, and the first Dune alludes to it then why should we doubt it. Konman72 19:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
But the DE also has many non-canon and unusual(even wierd) to the Dune universe materials, so it can't be trusted as a canonical source for Dune information, and thus is irrelevant to strengthen the point of Mohiam being Jessica's secret mother. Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson(authors of the Dune prequels) only explained Mohiam's secret identity as Tanidia Nerus after being presented with their contradiction of the Dune canon in that regard. Moreover, if it wasn't included in the finished version by Frank Herbert then he had a reason and he probably just changed his mind about this possible parentage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Further, why would Leto II have named Mohiam using her alias? Ninja housewife (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Prelude to Dune perhaps clarified?
"She exacts her retribution by infecting him with a disease that later causes his obesity."
I wasn't sure how to note the direct contradiction this has with both Dune and (if I recall correctly) God Emperor of Dune, so I'm posting this instead. In the former, Margot Fenring explicitly states "This is one who won't let himself go to fat." concerning Feyd-Rautha (and implying that the baron allowed himself to become fat rather than being the victim of a disease). Being a Lady of the Bene Gesserit, Fenring would definitely be in a position to know of any disease affecting the baron, especially if it was administered to him by a Reverend Mother, considering his role in the breeding program. In God Emperor of Dune, during a discussion with Moneo, Leto II states that the Baron was a "lover of sensation" or something along those lines and that he grew fat because it offended and that perhaps he liked to offend. This, yet again, strongly implies that the Baron's obesity is of a more mundane sort than that caused by some exotic disease.
I believe that, however possible, it is made clear that although it is said that Herbert and Anderson are working from Frank Herbert's notes, that we are not privy to those notes (as far as I know), and flat-out contradictions like this never happened in the Frank Herbert Dune universe I knew.
Again, note that these implications that the Baron became fat as a consequence of his actions, as opposed to being afflicted with disease, come from people who would both almost certainly know of the administration of any such disease; a Bene Gesserit Lady and the nigh-omniscient God Emperor, within whom the Baron himself dwelled.
- I don't think the designation has to be made here; the Prelude stuff is separated as such, and the nature of the Baron's obesity in the original series has nothing to do with Mohiam and so doesn't belong in this article. However, you will note that in the Vladimir Harkonnen article, Margot's statement is noted in the opening section, and the Mohiam/disease part is noted in the Prelude section, for this exact reason. Actually stating "this is a contradiction" is OR, because that conclusion requires speculation and interpretation, as you've shown above. — TAnthonyTalk 06:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly why I posted here instead of just changing the article; I wasn't sure how it worked within the framework of Wikipedia. Thank you for addressing the issue. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)