Fred wrote:
> Bastard Toadflax said,
>
>
>>
>>Tony wrote:
>>
>>>Is it im****tant to consider the 60s when interpreting Dune?
>>
>> Not really. Because, even now, it reads like a new release. Not dated,
at all.
>>It would be interesting to contrast how FH was affected, and therefore
his
>>writing, by the times, but wouldn't really bring much to the table in
>>ultimately understanding Dune, IMO. Of course, with the caveat that I've
been
>>reading it off and on for 30+ years and I don't totally understand it.
>>
>>BT
>>
>>
>>>
>
> I can agree. I have read through the series at least three times in the
last 20
> years. Every time brings out something new that I had missed on previous
reads.
Later, after thinking about it more, I would add that, in school,
teachers do provide some historical backdrop to reading classics so that
there is better understanding of customs, language, etc. However, such
background doesn't really effect the story, which is generally about
human actions that transcend the time period. In fact, I would argue
that the stories are still being read because they can be lifted from
that moment in time and still be applicable.
BT
>
|
