Monday, June 2, 2014

Do the Dune prequels really suck or is it simply purist hate?

This is a question that has been running through my mind a lot over the years.  I was a big fan of Frank Herbert's Dune series and have put off reading all of the Brian Herbert/Kevin J. Anderson volumes until they were all released so that I could read them all at once.  One thing that I have noticed over the years is the absolute seething hatred that a large number of people have for these "prequels".  And yet, go on Goodreads or Amazon and you will also find a good amount of positive reviews as well.  As someone who tries to remain objective at all times, I find it interesting that most of the bad reviews are also accompanied by what can only be described as personal animus toward one or both of the authors.  I understand the whole purist argument.  I absolutely hated what George Lucas did to my beloved Star Wars movies from the 70's and early 80's.  He green-screened the later movies to the point of unwatchability.  Not to mention Jar-Jar Binks (let's not go there).  That being said, I have read a good amount of Kevin J. Anderson in my lifetime and can only say glowing things about him as a writer.  And as I delve into the first two hundred pages or so of the Butlerian Jihad, I'm not seeing the complaints so far that most of the bad reviews are trumpeting.  I'm more than intrigued if all of these bad reviews are just an agenda of the purists to purposely tarnish anything that is not original Dune.  As I said before, I get it.  However, what I don't condone is not allowing these books a chance to stand on their own as a companion (not a replacement) to the original series.  I will be reviewing the Butlerian Jihad when I am finished and it will be fascinating to see how I feel about it.  So far, I'm liking it a heck of a lot.  To be continued.....