Dune- The Letdown

[Jerol]

I first read Dune when I was a teenager and was blown away. The sequels never worked for me, I think I gave up somewhere in God Emperor. When I re-read the first book as an adult, my faith was a little shaken. What worked: plot, world-building, main characters, the villians. What didn't work: wretched dialogue, an ending that just ground down to a whimper, the sexism, and some truly gawdawful stiff prose. Herbert could tell a story but he sure couldn't write one. I will always treasure my hardcover copy of Dune but it is definitely not a faultless piece of work.

[Tears of Lys]

Now that's two that have mentioned the sexism. I gotta admit - I missed it entirely.

[salinea]

Would you mind going more into your reasoning about this?

Okay, it's been a long time since I read it so bear with me on the fuzziness of the details

Bene Gesserit = manipulative, shadowy women who use reproduction to try to control the world, it's something of a sexist stereotype. Anyway despite being all female and stuff, looking for a messiah which is, of course, male. Not enough by itself but there's also all the female characters

Jessica = the good woman because she loved her husband enough to give him a son even if it was against the Bene Gesserit she belonged to.

whatshername, Paul's Fremen wife = non entity, apart that she's pretty and devoted to her husband.

whatshername, the imperial princess = mostly depicted in contemptuous terms, but still totally fascinated/in love Paul

the Abomination = OMG a woman with as much power if not more as Paul, must be evil and/or uncontrollable and/or mad. Oh wait, she is.

Leto II's twin sister = actually tells in the text that she wouldn't have been strong enough to do what Leto II did. He had to do it. She was but a poor, weak woman, I guess.

Leto II's object of love/lust/obsession = non entity in terms of personnality apart from being a caricature of gothic good, innocent, pure woman. A completly ridiculous one at that.

that only from what I remember.

[Kalbear]

That continues in the future books as well with Heretics/Chapterhouse. The BG are pretty cool as a villainous entity, but they're remarkably sexist. Furthermore, the future is hugely sexist; it is essentially a medieval hierarchy where women are always secondary to men. The only place that this isn't entirely true is ironically with the Fremen, but even they're strongly patriarchal in scope.

It's not outright sexist, but it's certainly sexist given that there's no good reason for a highly patriarchal society to evolve in the next 40K years, at least none reasonably given by Herbert.

[duchess of malfi]

I have always viewed it more as more of a Roman Empire sort of society (at least in terms of the first three novels) than a medieval one.

You have the Emperor with his legions; the lot of the little persons is hardly addressed at all but it is probably safe to guess that their lives suck; you have all of that hedonism and barbarism going on with the Harkonnen; the Landsraad sounds as powerless as the Roman Senate; the Great Houses and nobles jostle for wealth and power; women have little to no power other than as religious/mystic figures (the Bene Gesserit or Vestal Virgins depending) or as breeders/concubines.

God Emperor is a novel I have huge mixed feelings about. On the one hand I despise all of the characters; on the other hand it is a very different take on the Genesis myth of expelling mankind from paradise. You have your god/Satan in one being (Leto even looks like those old Satan paintings of the Garden of Eden with a serpent body and a human head). He has kept humans bottled up for thousands of years (in both physical space and in high tech) to the best of his ability while he creates a new sort of human through his breeding programs. Only after that new mankind arises in the body of the new Eve, Siona, can mankind be free to leave the old empire worlds in the Skattering. It could have been a truly great book but there are a heckuva lot of flaws there.

(edited for spelling errors)

[JCoj]

Hmm. I thought that Herbert went to great lengths to explain that Leto II's goal was to stifle that growth and development, recognizing that it cannot be stopped completely. Leto II created, for the ultimate purpose of his Golden Path, a relatively stagnant society.

I didn't care for the last two books, but I simply don't agree that the characters were simply puppets with a backstory.

Realistically, though, can any being stifle creativity that long? Are the Fish People (?) that prolific? Does Leto control every single planet with a human settlement? Herbert didn't portray Leto as that powerful, and even if he did, it would be unrealistic in the extreme. Also, I was thinking about the Golden Path, and creating a...population of humanity exempt from presceince (sp?) doesn't seem to be a realistic goal. Would you turn yourself into a giant slug for however many years for a goal that is impossible to determine? Sure, he may have wanted to free humanity from presceince, but why exactly is presceince such a bad thing?

And as for puppets with a backstory, can you honestly say any of the characters in Herectics/Chapterhouse were made in depth?

[duchess of malfi]

The only character that interested me to any degree in either Heretics or Chapterhouse was Miles Teg, and I thought he was not used enough.

I wanted to cheer when he sent that one Bene Gesserit on her way when she wanted to have sex with him.

You know, I thought the last two books were sexist in both directions in that the women were pretty much souless sexual manipulators (la belle dams san merci) and in that nearly all of the men were all led around by their private parts.

Sorry, but humans of both sexes are a lot more than that.

[Crates of Thebes]

Here're my thoughts about Dune: When I read it, I felt that it was utterly predictable. Star Wars and The Wheel of Time were both strongly influenced by Dune, but after reading Dune I felt that both of them did what Dune tried to do, only much better. In terms of theme, characterization, and style, I feel that both later series are much more engaging than George Herbet's.

[Tears of Lys]

Realistically, though, can any being stifle creativity that long? Are the Fish People (?) that prolific? Does Leto control every single planet with a human settlement? Herbert didn't portray Leto as that powerful, and even if he did, it would be unrealistic in the extreme. Also, I was thinking about the Golden Path, and creating a...population of humanity exempt from presceince (sp?) doesn't seem to be a realistic goal. Would you turn yourself into a giant slug for however many years for a goal that is impossible to determine? Sure, he may have wanted to free humanity from presceince, but why exactly is presceince such a bad thing?

And as for puppets with a backstory, can you honestly say any of the characters in Herectics/Chapterhouse were made in depth?

I'd have to reread the series to be actually be able to argue how Leto II was able to control the universe effectively. But regarding prescience being a bad thing, wasn't that what the first three Dune books were all about?

Re: In-depth characters - I read different books for different reasons. I love Martin for his characters, but Herbert for his stunning imagery and concepts. It's possible to be a fan of both.

[Mazrick]

I loved Dune. The sequels not so much. My friends scared me off of the prequels with the further exploits of one KJA.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Loved god emporer, far more than the titles preceding it in fact.

Clearly you people were not smart enough to enjoy it.

Edit: I really think the Dune series only failure was it never delivered cliched crap so common in the genres of sci fi and fantasy. God Emperor had no clear protagonist and people hated that. People hated losing Paul and having no one to latch onto.

I always liked Duncan though. I thought he was a great character and felt he was cut out too quickly in the original. Herbert must have felt the same way.

[lokisnow]

I've always felt Dune was perfect, from the first time I read it when I was eleven, to my most recent reread last summer.

Dune - perfect

Dune Messiah - excellent

Children of Dune - damn near perfect

God Emperor of Dune - verdict is out, by far the most intriguing of the Dune novels, by far the most difficult book I've ever read (I was 13 or 14 at the time), but I don't hate it, in fact I really want to reread it and get a new perspective of it. The most haunting of the Dune books I'd say

Heretics of Dune - Very Good (I don't remember much specifics about this one)

Chapterhouse Dune - Excellent (seriously needing a reread.

Honestly, I'd just prefer to read Herbert's outline for the final book and be satisfied, I read the first prequel, House Atreides, and it taught me what truly inept writing was like, really hammered that lesson home better than any other example experience has taught me. Despite my love of all things Dune, I've never had the slightest interest in reading the others, though I wouldn't mind a couple paragraph summaries of them. I imagine they just fucked up everything as badly as they did in House Atreides, and I imagine they severly botched the concept of the final book.

[oba]

Realistically, though, can any being stifle creativity that long? Are the Fish People (?) that prolific? Does Leto control every single planet with a human settlement? Herbert didn't portray Leto as that powerful, and even if he did, it would be unrealistic in the extreme.

Well, we don't really get a glimpse that creativity's been completely stifled. I will say, though, that one can look at the Dark Ages as an example in human history in which growth has been stunted/stifled. So, again, I don't think it's really "fair" to pick this out as being that unrealistic.

Also, I was thinking about the Golden Path, and creating a...population of humanity exempt from presceince (sp?) doesn't seem to be a realistic goal. Would you turn yourself into a giant slug for however many years for a goal that is impossible to determine? Sure, he may have wanted to free humanity from presceince, but why exactly is presceince such a bad thing?

Dune:Messiah, Children of Dune, and God-Emperor point this out. Muad'Dib, by increasingly relying on prescience, locked himself, and by extension humanity, onto a course determined by his prescient visions. It's a loop of sorts.

And as for puppets with a backstory, can you honestly say any of the characters in Herectics/Chapterhouse were made in depth?

Miles Teg, Darwi Odrade, and Murbella, for starters. It's been a while since I've read either book, so those are the only three that immediately come to mind. That being said, I never felt that character depth was one of the strong suits of the original novel.

[duchess of malfi]

Beyond the Dark Ages, most of human history has actually been rather stagnant when it comes to innovation. As a species we have existed some 100,000 years or so. Pretty much all of our big breakthroughs have occurred only in the last 10,000 or so of those, since the advent of agriculture and cities. The time we live in - one of great innovation and rapid change - is actually the exception and not the rule when one looks at our history as a species overall.

Since Leto II was more or less able to control space travel via his control of the Spacing Guild, even if innovations had been made, he might very well have prevented their spread.

Also - that culture had a strong religious bias against high tech. And that can retard research and/or acceptance of its applications - just look at how long it took people to accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than vice versa due to religious reasons or how many people reject evolution on religious grounds today.

I do not think that Herbert lived long enough to fully explain all of the implications of Leto's breeding program. I cannot help but think that the new style humans are somehow important in the coming war against the machines (as seen in Siona's vision in God Emperor).

The Dune Houses books were pretty gawd awful in my opinion. They were so bad that I have not been able to bring myself to read the Legends trilogy yet. Hunters of Dune was better than those terrible Houses books, but I still felt like I was reading Dune for Dummies.

[Arwen]

So do we have a consensus? I'm not counting, but the general feeling seems to be that

most people did like the original Dune novel

quite a few people loved the original Dune novel

some people liked the next 3

most people didn't like the prequels

a few people hated them all including the first book

I loved the original novel. The characters, the story. It was very different from anything I had read, and the world he built, the ecology and cultures, was utterly believable. And it also had that bit of historic mystery with the Fremen and their legends. I am in with those who believe it's one of the best sci-fi novels ever written.

[Eponine]

I hope I'm not too late to say that I hated the first book (and therefore never read any of the others). A lot of people told me that it was the best book ever, and I still feel like- did I read the same book as these people? The plot was predictable, the dialogue horrible and the characters boring. I had already read the first three books of aSoIaF and the first 5-6 books of WoT before I read Dune. I may have liked it better if it were the first fantasy book I'd ever read or something like that.

[snake]

I just finished Dune a few weeks ago and I found it OK. It wasn't great but it didn't suck either. I agree with those who think the story itself was decent but the Herbert is not that great of a writer. Still, it was my first sci-fi novel so perhaps it's just sci-fi that bothers me, although i don't think that's it. Perhpas it had something to do with it being highly recommended here and my expectations might have been too high.

[Galactus]

Well, we don't really get a glimpse that creativity's been completely stifled. I will say, though, that one can look at the Dark Ages as an example in human history in which growth has been stunted/stifled. So, again, I don't think it's really "fair" to pick this out as being that unrealistic.

The "Dark Ages" actually lead to a lot of innovation in many areas that the romans had neglected (while neglecting areas the romans had emphasized) Three-field systems, better plows, etc. etc.

[Mackaxx]

You are thinking WAY too short term when you talk about he dark ages and shit like that. The last 10,000 years are a blip on the arse of humanities time on this planet.

What enormous advances did we make in the preceding 100,000 or so?

[Galactus]

You are thinking WAY too short term when you talk about he dark ages and shit like that. The last 10,000 years are a blip on the arse of humanities time on this planet.

What enormous advances did we make in the preceding 100,000 or so?

Domestication of a whole bunch of plants. (Diamond gives a pretty good overview) which is an extremely long and tedious process, especially if you have no idea what you're doing.