Big difference in outlook and writing between a scientist like Isaac Asimov and Gene Roddenberry. Gene Roddenberry's vision was shooting for utopia, any grounding in reality was in passing at best.

Don't get me wrong, I was and am a Star Trek fan, but its fundamental disconnect from reality is obvious. And the longer Star Trek continued the more disconnected it became.

Sci-fi based on honest projection or scientific speculation is one thing, sci-fi based on vapors and fantasy is something else.

Start another thread about that though. Every time we go to Star Trek or Star Wars it becomes a monster thread on its own.

No idea Jan. I have heard that reference since at least 1980.

The story itself was pretty good. Though I do think the outline was already created by the elder Herbert.

I think he will quickly progress once he realizes what NOT to say, rather than adding everything to say.

I jumped right on the link!

Thank you for the correction.

Jan

Actually, according to your logic, they may be defeated by the truth. (You have described the characteristics of 'one army' (the one who is unarmed of truth, hence an army of lies) but not the character of the other army (which therefore could be armed with either truth or with even stronger lies).

Jan

Yes. The editor of a libertarian magazine gave me one to review. After reading the book, I did not want to write the review. I do not like to denigrate artistic works. If it did not work for me, well, that's me, but it has to really bad on many grounds for me to tell everyone else not to read it. And this was that bad.

"How could people be different?" There's a lot to be said for the creative amateur who makes their own rules, but it is pretty much a rule in science fiction (and fantasy, etc.) that non-human beings are meant to provide a comparison and contrast with human nature. It probably started with Jonathan Swift.

In that sense, us-in-the-future is in the same mode. Meeting a newly-thawed 21st century capitalist, Capt. Jean-Luc Picard cautions him that here in the future we care more about the improvement of self, than in the acquisition of things. On the other hand, later on, we met the Ferengi. Arch-capitalists, their greed can be comical. However, in one tet-a-tet, Quark tells Cmdr. Benjamin Sisko: You dislike us because we represent your own worst view of yourselves, but you what, planet Ferengaran never had world wars, genocides, or slavery.

You might say that the writers invented (and then improved) the Ferengi in order to make everyone less afraid of capitalists, but that would be a stretch.

Jan, I had to update that. You got there quickly. Here in Texas, all guard components now can carried concealed weapons. (Changed 17 December 2015 after the Chattanooga shootings.) However, regardless of our new "open carry" law, no guard soldier (army, air, or state) can display any weapon not assigned by their command. Moreover, no commander can demand proof of licensing. Only a peace officer (defined by law) or a magistrate may do that.

That being as it may, the duties of the state guard here certainly do not require that we carry weapons. Even in times of "civil unrest" our roles are to free up other people who do carry weapons (openly).

Wow. That swings too far the other way for me. My point is aimed at 'job descriptions' not 'armies' - the Chaplains and Medics are good examples of roles that can be filled by someone with a religious/philosophical aversion to combat but who wanted to serve in the military. 'Drone pilot' is the new role for someone who is willing to be in combat but who cannot physically do so, such as an elderly person or someone who is young but physically handicapped.

The state guards being unarmed is just bizarre. I would not want to be a part of a group that had me playing a role for which carrying arms were appropriate (eg dealing with civil unrest) but which forbade me from carrying them.

It would be interesting to see what would happen to the makeup of the military if the age and 4F rules were deleted and those people were allowed to volunteer.

Jan

"Armies Without Weapons" here:
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...

Yeah. They call them Mustangs now. Do you know when that label changed?

Jan, puzzled and interested

Interesting...it has been 40 years since I have last read Stranger. Let me see what it costs on Kindle...

Jan

I hope, one day, that Herbert's son realizes what a botch he did of the books he wrote, and tries to rewrite them.

Yep.
I like a some of the morals in L.E. Modisett's books making the diligence and hard work of the protagonist, typically against an oligarchy, the message.

Ingrained and hidden in the subconscious until needed (e.g.,election day), not lost.

Considering the popularity of Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey, etc. That shouldn't be a problem, they already have an audience.

(any principles being illustrated would be lost on most)

Hollywood will make it into a royalist propaganda piece. (grin)

+1 Mustangs were always the most grounded officers.

Which Clarke works in particular?

Really? An excellent series of books. Enough of them for several seasons of a tv series.

It was not a story hollywood has the ability to tell wee.

Exactly the reason Stan Lee retains control of his properties.