I dunno, I just couldn't stand Herbert's compulsion to explain anything and everything, even when it meant putting the plot on hold for a few dozen pages, or the fact that you essentially need a glossary to know what he's talking about anyway. I have the nasty habit of writing SF the same way, so I can understand how he wants to do it, but it makes for a terrible narrative. In my book, SF universes are one thing, and good SF stories another. A little realism or detail can be sacrificed to just get the goddamn story going- and you can invariably work in the important details anyway. Gibson managed. Bester managed. Most of the true science fiction greats did.
I liked the Dune universe, I more or less liked the Dune plot. But the book was by no means a good piece of writing, and the movie, while mediocre, was still better. IT explained what needed to be explained, working it into the narrative rather than interrupting it.
Maeg: You saw the uncut version, which was, indeed, terrible. Saw it on TV once- you know, there's really a reason movies are edited.
