I'm another who read the first book and loved it but stopped after four. The fourth book really just grossed me out. Actually, anything that didn't involve Paul directly turned me off.

Years later, I feel just incredibly turned off by the series, rather like how I now feel about Thomas Covenant.

Cassa wrote: "OK, then my question to you would be the following: If I fall in love with the original series, where do I go from there? Wikipedia had a chart giving the series chronology, involving short stories..."

I read the Butlerian Jihad trilogy first, then the House trilogy, then the original series again and then Hunters and Sandworms. That's just because that's the order I got my hands on them. I'd recommend reading Hunters and Sandworms after reading the original series, though, they depend heavily on Chapterhouse Dune.

OK, then my question to you would be the following: If I fall in love with the original series, where do I go from there? Wikipedia had a chart giving the series chronology, involving short stories and prequels all mixed together; is that how I should be reading the series, or should I stick to published order?

Cassa wrote: Would you say it's not worth branching out past the original six? I'm the sort of girl who plays video games for months looking for 100% completion; will forging past the first six to shoot for that 100% lead to disappointment?
It depends on how into the series you get. I got so involved in the original series I went on to read all of the Dune series (plural series) except "Paul of Dune" and I've loved them all. But then I'm a sucker for both well-plotted intrigues and space operas.

Sounds good; I'll stick to the first six and see how far I get. Thanks!

I don't know, Cassa. I'm usually a completest too, but I didn't even make it through all of the original six. I think Dune works well as a standalone novel. If you really enjoy it, the prequels might be worth reading since they invent a backstory for the characters. But like I said, I didn't like them enough to continue after the first prequel trilogy.

Would you say it's not worth branching out past the original six? I'm the sort of girl who plays video games for months looking for 100% completion; will forging past the first six to shoot for that 100% lead to disappointment?

I'd say certainly start with Dune, not with the prequels co-written by Herbert's son.

I stopped after the first 3 or 4 of the original books. I love the first novel - I started reading Dune when I was too young to understand it, and read it repeatedly over the years (I also love the Lynch movie) but I wasn't crazy about the rest of them.

I read the first three of the prequels when they were published, and they were okay; interesting only because they were about characters that I already cared about. And I don't think I'm particularly squeamish, but by the time I got to House Harkonnen I was tired of reading about torture and atrocities.

It is, actually; I'll add the first six to my to-read list and if I like them, I'll go from there in regards to the rest. Thanks!

I read the first two and was satisfied, didn't feel the need for more. That's not very helpful, is it?

I'm afraid I can't help you. I stopped after the first 3 or 4. I'll be curious to see the responses.

I'm so lost trying to figure out the Dune series; should I start with the original six, or should I try to parse the chronology? Is the stuff outside the original six worth reading? Basically, where do I start and where do I go from there?