I feel like I'm swimming upstream in polluted water when I read other works out there for purposes of trying to see how something I would want to write might fit in.
It's bad.
A lot of what I skimmed over were Mass Effect clones, but somehow further right wing than Mass Effect already was, with the names changed and the numbers filed off.
A lot of what's left involves "humanity fuck yeah" space imperialism, grizzled tough guys with cold piercing stares and powerlifter physiques well into old age and their adventures with brilliant and hot scientist women that are defined more about who their father is/was and less by their actual job, that try to prove they are Independent Strong Willed Women but of course swoon for the timeless grizzled ego insert's blandly stoic charms. Also, a space bureaucracy usually interferes with the grizzled tough guy's very important imperialistic mission and his only chance to save humanity is to go rogue with a ragtag bunch of renegades and kill those filthy aliens before they threaten colonial interests. Or something.
I got some pretty harsh negative feedback for my inclusion of ideas in my own work. The idea that billionaires wanting to colonize Mars aren't actually going to save humanity by doing that and it would be an insatiable resource sink that would further accelerate Earth's decay was especially incendiary. Maybe I should have already become a rich and influential writer first before trying something like that, but that seems like it might have involved writing one of the above reactionary works instead and hoping another off-brand Mass Effect got more traction instead.
I'm demoralized, but I'm also nearly done with the third book in my self-published trilogy. It's a weird place to be.
EDIT: I may as well post a link to the website my wife and my friend helped set up. It has the first five chapters available for free and some other stuff.
https://www.tulpatrilogy.com/
I think it's important to distinguish between the Atreides being "better" than the (admittedly cartoonishly evil) Harkonnen and them being "good". the film very clearly portrays where their interests lie. we're shown how Leto isn't careless with the lives of his subjects (at least when he has the opportunity to intervene directly) and that's well and good, but we're also shown how his willingness to cooperate with the Fremen is entirely self-serving ("cultivating desert power") and how they're willing to run deep psyops to facilitate that. we're also shown how the Fremen view them as just another clan of outworlders come to exploit the land and fuck with their right to self-determination and you and I would probably agree that their assessment is correct.
conversely the Fremen will execute you and turn your body into a dry raisin if they judge you incapable of surviving the desert. they're not exactly "good" either (and without getting into major spoilers, this is putting it lightly). Dune isn't a black and white story.
reasonably speaking, you're likely expected to sympathize with Paul, who is a teenager forced into strenuous circumstances and who has little to no agency for most of the story. that's about it. the rest is what you affixed, and while that's perfectly normal, it's also not canon.
Yeah I agree with all of this. I was responding to the point that the film doesn't try to influence you into sympathising with atreides, but the film spends a disproportionate amount of time showing them performing sympathetic actions and stating their 'better' moralities even if it does also show they have other motives, which is all set against the backdrop of some cartoonishly evil alternative. Like I do get it and agree with what you're saying, but the majority of people i.e. non-marxists watching this film will have taken away that house atreides are the "goodies", and I just wish that more care was taken to not let that happen
it does give the audience plenty of room for confirming their own biases, that's true. I wouldn't put it past Herbert or Villeneuve to believe in such a thing as "good imperialism" either. with that said I feel like the goals of writing a credible story and coaxing readers into adopting a single objectivist interpretation of it are in conflict with each other. that, and "death of the author" as a concept is useful not just in experiencing stories with sufficient detachment as to examine them astutely, but also in allowing yourself to enjoy them.
Oh yeah for sure. I'm just very interested in reception studies, so usually when I'm talking about any type of art it's through that perspective. It's hell
:kitty-cri-screm: