He was a lib idealist with zero historical materialism, so his 15000 years of human history are unavoidably carricatural. Also had this iritating manner, especially in last two books of being circular in most thoughts, where nearly no question or problem is ever asked straight and never answered straight, just with more circular non-answers to appear deep.
You know the good narration method of "show, do not tell" which a lot of authors violate by telling and not showing? Herbert neither show nor tell (but was good in that).
You know the good narration method of "show, do not tell" which a lot of authors violate by telling and not showing?
"Show, don't tell" in its correct form is about pacing economy and the use of scenery and practical effects in theater: it's better to literally, physically show a visual detail than to try to have actors take the time to mention it so you know that it's a stormy night or whatever. "Show, don't tell" as it's taught to authors is vapid nonsense about obfuscating and dancing around messaging instead of being blunt. It's this idea that meaning is a special clever good boy treat as a reward for readers educated enough to get the references you're using as allegory, instead of something integral to the purpose of a work which needs to be clear and make its point in an unambiguous fashion.
In fact, I'd almost say a proper interpretation of the original meaning of "show, don't tell" to writing is nearly the opposite of its literal original use: you need to think about pacing economy in what gets a full "showing" treatment vs what's simply "told" about as a passing detail, since strictly speaking everything a novelist is doing is "telling" in prose form and you have to prioritize what gets talked about the most.
He was a lib idealist with zero historical materialism, so his 15000 years of human history are unavoidably carricatural. Also had this iritating manner, especially in last two books of being circular in most thoughts, where nearly no question or problem is ever asked straight and never answered straight, just with more circular non-answers to appear deep.
You know the good narration method of "show, do not tell" which a lot of authors violate by telling and not showing? Herbert neither show nor tell (but was good in that).
"Show, don't tell" in its correct form is about pacing economy and the use of scenery and practical effects in theater: it's better to literally, physically show a visual detail than to try to have actors take the time to mention it so you know that it's a stormy night or whatever. "Show, don't tell" as it's taught to authors is vapid nonsense about obfuscating and dancing around messaging instead of being blunt. It's this idea that meaning is a special clever good boy treat as a reward for readers educated enough to get the references you're using as allegory, instead of something integral to the purpose of a work which needs to be clear and make its point in an unambiguous fashion.
In fact, I'd almost say a proper interpretation of the original meaning of "show, don't tell" to writing is nearly the opposite of its literal original use: you need to think about pacing economy in what gets a full "showing" treatment vs what's simply "told" about as a passing detail, since strictly speaking everything a novelist is doing is "telling" in prose form and you have to prioritize what gets talked about the most.