Page 2 of 2

Re: Desertification Discrepancy

Posted: 18 May 2010 22:52
by Feydakin
This is another frame of reference that I haven't seen mentioned (yet):

The worms before Leto were witless beasts. After Leto, they contained a "pearl of awareness"...prescient ability inclusive. Could it not be possible that the worms themselves had not only oracular power, but the capacity to react to their visions? And that, upon need pressing, they could react to the need of humanity (particularly a joint effort between them and the weather control of the Bene Gesserit) by adapting and overtaking a planet more quickly than normal?

That's how I read the books. I also got the impression the Spice they produced was consistent with their vision, i.e., it affected the users and thus gave his Golden Path scope even after his death.

It has been over 2 years since my last full readings, though. So I could just be babbling.

Re: Desertification Discrepancy

Posted: 18 May 2010 23:26
by SandChigger
But ... sandworms don't produce the spice. (Not the spice that humans harvest and consume, at any rate.)

The spice is blow-blenderized, sun-and-wind-dried, fermented sandtrout shit and piss. The only way for the composition of the spice to have been altered would be for the composition of the sandtrout excretions to be different. (I don't remember Leto saying anything about a change in the spice itself, though. Quote?)

The Golden Path didn't need any help or maintenance after The Scattering took place; it was de facto in effect as long as any humans remained alive anywhere in the universe (multiverse?).

I personally think the whole "pearls of awareness locking humanity into Leto's vision" is a Bene Gesserit misunderstanding, born of their continuing fear of the Tyrant they had helped create.

(By the way, worms with oracular power ... that's another McDune Heresy introduced in Sandworms: the sandworms of Rakis "see" the Honored Matre attack coming and burrow down deep into the planet, where they "hibernate" and wait for conditions to improve on the surface. :roll: )

Re: Desertification Discrepancy

Posted: 18 May 2010 23:58
by Feydakin
I don't believe I've read more than three of the prequels. I quit reading them at about the third.

My thought of oracular worms comes from the pearls of consciousness part and as far as I know was my own thought before the prequel (sequel? the literary equivalent of feces?) you mention was ever written.

If your view is based on the pearls of consciousness being a misunderstanding; it will necessarily clash with any view that sees the pearls of consciousness as literal truth. I imagine that's the fundamental difference between the viewpoint I expressed and yours.

Why do you think it was a misunderstanding?

Re: Desertification Discrepancy

Posted: 19 May 2010 00:29
by SandChigger
No, I said that I think the view that the pearls of awareness (the books never say "consciousness", by the way) CONTROL human destiny is a BG delusion.

Basically, I think the idea that the simple act of viewing the future through prescience in some way creates that future is nonsense. Either way, the new worms may carry a "pearl of awareness", but they are by no means conscious. How then can they act to alter events and control all of humanity throughout the universe?

One of the points of The Scattering, by Leto's design, was to prevent humanity from ever again falling under the control of a single prescient being like himself. It makes no sense at all if even after The Scattering he is still controlling them through the new worms, now does it?

Re: Desertification Discrepancy

Posted: 19 May 2010 01:02
by Hunchback Jack
Just a minor thought, but Leto said it would take 300 years for worms to "reign" - i.e. become the dominant life form. Presumably they appeared much sooner than that.

HBJ

Re: Desertification Discrepancy

Posted: 21 May 2010 09:46
by A Little Galach
SandChigger wrote:McDUNE HERESY!!! :angry-screaming:

(Sandworms DO NOT produce the spice. :twisted: )


Shut it, old man. The worms are a necessary part of the cycle that produces spice. No worms, no spice. Correct?

Re: Desertification Discrepancy

Posted: 21 May 2010 11:15
by SandChigger
Actually, no, if you really think about it.

The sandtrout propagate on their own. (Otherwise the introduction of only a few would never be enough to change a planet, or those that were freed when Leto died would never have been able to redesertify Arrakis, or achieve the transformation on Chapterhouse.) If someone could be on hand at every spice-blow and destroy any cysts formed by surviving sandtrout, there would never be any worms. But there would be spice. ;)

Re: Desertification Discrepancy

Posted: 24 May 2010 00:14
by SandRider
consider yerself schooled ....

:cylon101:

Re: Desertification Discrepancy

Posted: 08 Nov 2011 23:02
by tenfingersofdoom
skipping the heresy, there was a bit in chapterhouse about weather control for optimization of the environment for worms. i dont have PDF's to quote from either, sorry.

Re: Desertification Discrepancy

Posted: 29 Mar 2012 23:31
by Freakzilla
Huh??

Re: Desertification Discrepancy

Posted: 30 Mar 2012 07:07
by lotek
A Little Galach wrote:My impression was that the worms had been back on Rakis for a while (Hundreds of years) because the "art" of the dancing by the peasants and the "translating" of people by the priests was pretty ingrained in the culture, and the skill of the pioneers in avoiding the worms by Sheeana's village was pretty adept. I would also imagine that for the priesthood to have any real sway on Rakis they would need to actually have sandworms to showcase a tangible Divided God and sandworms producing spice in order to accumulate wealth.


the worms came back because the desert grew, no desert no worms.

What peasants dancing ?
The dance was done by street artists.
What does "translating of people" mean ?

The pioneers in Sheeana's village were all wiped out in a single worm attack, I wouldn't call that skilled.

The priesthood already had power on Rakis, remember how Sheeana not being scared of them is a rare occurrence (people disappeared when they displeased the priests)

And I don't see why they would "need a worm to showcase the divided god" when there were already worms on Rakis, even if less than before they were still there and proof enough for the faithful.

Finally, sandworms don't produce spice as you were explained.

Re: Desertification Discrepancy

Posted: 30 Mar 2012 08:07
by SadisticCynic
lotek wrote:
A Little Galach wrote:My impression was that the worms had been back on Rakis for a while (Hundreds of years) because the "art" of the dancing by the peasants and the "translating" of people by the priests was pretty ingrained in the culture, and the skill of the pioneers in avoiding the worms by Sheeana's village was pretty adept. I would also imagine that for the priesthood to have any real sway on Rakis they would need to actually have sandworms to showcase a tangible Divided God and sandworms producing spice in order to accumulate wealth.


the worms came back because the desert grew, no desert no worms.

What peasants dancing ?
The dance was done by street artists.
What does "translating of people" mean ?

The pioneers in Sheeana's village were all wiped out in a single worm attack, I wouldn't call that skilled.

The priesthood already had power on Rakis, remember how Sheeana not being scared of them is a rare occurrence (people disappeared when they displeased the priests)

And I don't see why they would "need a worm to showcase the divided god" when there were already worms on Rakis, even if less than before they were still there and proof enough for the faithful.

Finally, sandworms don't produce spice as you were explained.


Just one thing, the 'translating of people' was the priests way of disposing of people they didn't like i.e. they fed them to the worms.

Re: Desertification Discrepancy

Posted: 30 Mar 2012 08:10
by lotek
SadisticCynic wrote:Just one thing, the 'translating of people' was the priests way of disposing of people they didn't like i.e. they fed them to the worms.


Thanks, I forgot that !
(obviously)

But wait a second, wouldn't that count as showcasing worms ?

^^

Re: Desertification Discrepancy

Posted: 11 Apr 2012 22:23
by NotOnasander
Sandchigger, by your logic then, the aquaworms are impotent and will never produce spice. Clearly your wrong, KJA wouldnt of overlooked something that critical.

Spice Eels.

Re: Desertification Discrepancy

Posted: 13 Apr 2012 10:16
by Freakzilla
NotOnasander wrote:Sandchigger, by your logic then, the aquaworms are impotent and will never produce spice. Clearly your wrong, KJA wouldnt of overlooked something that critical.

Spice Eels.


To the contray, Keith looks for things he can change to put his mark on it, like a dog pissing on a tree.

Re: Desertification Discrepancy

Posted: 13 Apr 2012 10:59
by lotek
Why are we still talking to this ?

Re: Desertification Discrepancy

Posted: 13 Apr 2012 17:12
by SandRider
we're waiting for it to say something amusing,
or delusional, again ....

Re: Desertification Discrepancy

Posted: 13 Apr 2012 19:07
by Serkanner
SandRider wrote:we're waiting for it to say something amusing,
or delusional, again ....


If I would have stopped shaving after this announcement, I would have a beard long enough to make G. jealous.

Re: Desertification Discrepancy

Posted: 14 Apr 2012 06:57
by SandChigger
NotOnasander wrote:Sandchigger, by your logic then, the aquaworms are impotent and will never produce spice. Clearly your wrong, KJA wouldnt of overlooked something that critical.

Spice Eels.

Obviously you haven't read the books, have you, fuckwit?

Re: Desertification Discrepancy

Posted: 03 Jun 2013 05:44
by inhuien
^^^ likes to splamalot :cat fight: