Conference noted::sf

I read the magazine version of _Destination Void_ (I think it was
called "Do I Wake or Dream?" or "When Shall I Awake?", but that
could be wrong), and also one of the early paperback editions
(which included some additional padding).  I liked both, although
the story was mostly a conceit to allow Herbert to spin out some
philosophical ideas about the "problem of consciousness" (there
were some interpersonal dynamics in the close quarters that were
worth following too).  Indeed, you could look at the four
characters in search of a consciousness as the four aspects of
the Jungian concept of consciousness.  Definitely no "action",
though, and very little hard science.

I read _The Jesus Incident_ too, but I had pretty much soured
on Herbert at that point and I wrote it off as another one of
his bad sequels and didn't bother with "Lazarus".  Herbert's
cynicism about people and power was refreshing in the early
books like _Dune_, but it got very wearing as he kept repeating
it (and with less and less sympathetic protagonists).

The practice of issuing a revised copy of a science fiction
novel with "updated science" seems pretty dubious (if not
dishonest) to me.  Why not let readers in later years get
the original flavor of the work, with all its assumptions?
Chances are the science in the revision will get out-of-date
too, so why not just write a new work rather constantly
rehashing the old?
						paul

    I have an old paperback edition of D:V, but I don't know if it's
    the "prerevised" version.  I recall being terribly disappointed
    by it.
    
    len.
    

    Y'know, I read it in the '60s, and can recall nothing about it except
    the cover.  Left a deep impression.
    
    							Don

    I read D:V a few years back, and liked it enough to go out and get
    TJI and TLE, but I was never able to get through the former, and
    I've tried on a couple of occasions....  It's on my list of books
    to try to read eventually.
                                                               -John.
    

    hmmm...for sf it was as exciting as taking thorazine and try to
    untie your shoes. for a critique of dated ai theories it was as
    exciting as taking thorazine and trying to study a critique of
    dated ai theories...
    pete 

    I agree with .5!
    
    All talk, no action, and meaningless results.
    
    A far cry from _Dune_.
    
    Bill

    I'm glad it wasn't just me ... I thought maybe I'd missed something
    by not getting a chance to read the original edition.
    
    As far as the interpersonal dynamics referred to in .1, the "new
    edition" read as though they'd been edited out (if they were ever
    there) - characters would be having a conversation that would build
    tension and then the chapter would end; the next chapter would start
    10 or 20 shifts later.  The high point of the book was the prologue.
    
    Oh well - guess I'll re-read Dune.                                  

    I guess it was just me... After reading the previous replies it's
    tempting to say "I tell thee, I know him not", but for the record
    - I thought it was the best SF book I'd ever read, back in 1967.
    
    Today... it's still in my favourite dozen out of the 500 or so on
    my shelves and the thousands more I've read. I have about six copies
    as I like to give them away to friends. (I may stop doing that now
    :-{ ).
    
    Although it may make you laugh, I doubt if I would have got interested
    in computers if I hadn't read D:V. In fact it seems to me a fairly
    good microcosm of the industry as well as the technology... that's
    usually how results are achieved, by one or two people who just
    won't stop or quit - like John Bickel. Stop and think - is there
    someone you know in DEC who reminds you of Bickel? Of Flattery?
    Of Timberlake? Or Weygand? I can find instantiations right away!
    (Of course, Flattery is any reasonably well-educated Personnel guy:
    they can never "understand the way you engineers think"!)
    
    Certainly, the technology was watercolour, not ink - but it still
    seemed very exciting back then. Nowadays, it's the ideas that I
    find more compelling. I can pick that book up any time and within
    five minutes I can find something profound to meditate on. Just
    as I can pick up "Lucky Jim" and be laughing in 5 minutes, no matter
    how I felt before.
    
    I guess Frank Herbert doesn't agree with everyone, but there are
    some of us who feel he did really great work.
    
    --Tom

    It's been many years since I read it, but I enjoyed it at the time.
    My impression was that the characters were kind of flat, but the
    interest in the story was in their efforts to meet the challenge
    of survival. Perhaps the science was lousy, but who at the time
    could have been fairly critical? Most people at that time would
    have been hard put to imagine even today's environment, with the
    power available on our desks and networking such as we're enjoying
    here, never mind what would be available in some indeterminate future.
                                                
    - Richard

    Re .8:
    
    Do you have 6 copies of the original version or of the newly revised
    edition?  Have you read both?  That was my original question.  I
    have no complaint against Herbert; in fact, that's why I read the
    book (besides having already read the two sequels).  I assume that
    the book originally had to be somewhat successful to generate sequels
    but it seemed that something was missing in the version I read.
    
    Virginia