While I'm not going to deny what occurs in latter novels, my focus is on trying to recreate my reading experience both in 2001 and in 2010 with the first book alone. I'll doubtless will get to issues you mention here in the other reviews. However, I will note that for the first novel, there is a heavy referencing of the influences that environment (and this encompasses not just ecology, but also human social environments) has on shaping religious/moral beliefs. The mercantile part I consider to be minor to the other two.



It's there, just in passing and euphemisms. Considering that I was pointing out that Herbert's conflation of pedophilia and homosexuality in the person of the main villain may be offensive to modern-day readers (it only raised a metaphorical eyebrow for me, since I'm straight), it was worth a passing mention, especially since the attitude implied within such a casual connection is related to the more important issue of how the author portrays female characters in this setting.



Before I can consider your point, what "errors" besides disagreeing with the passing comments on a few issues do you think I made? Because your statements really don't provide anything in the way of supporting your stances. At least I did provide some references to the novel itself



Interesting viewpoint, considering it runs counter to what I noted about the influence the novel had on others, as well as what I said above about the Baron's sexuality. But tell me, are you making a connection between homosexuality and "deviant behavior" here? Because your comments would seem to suggest so.



Several of those themes doubtless will be addressed in future reviews of the series. And the "creating new themes whole cloth" wasn't my intent nor what I did; I made passing comments with references to the texts themselves, without those being the focus of the commentary.

And perhaps I subscribe to the Author is Dead school of thought? ' />



Hey, I like the challenges to what I wrote, by the way, even if I disagree with them