Dune: Good and based or bad and reactionary?
Dune: Good and based or bad and reactionary?
This is the official hexbear Dune discussion thread (not really)
I watched the new Dune and enjoyed the films from a cinematic/fantasy perspective but wasn't super on-board with the politics as I thought the message was simply 'leaders bad', but what didn't come across (imo) from the movies and what I'm learning from discussion of the books is that the message is more nuanced than that: Herbert's message wasn't "don't blindly follow leaders because they're evil", but "don't blindly follow leaders because movements based on blind belief are a force of their own and can sweep everyone up into a mess, even if that was not at all the intention", and there are of course examples of that happening throughout human history. I want to hear all of your thoughts on the books, the films, and the messages. Thanks. 
You're viewing a single thread.
I just finished reading the first book, haven't seen the movies. Sorry I wrote this so awkwardly.
your questions
These are some of the most consistent themes. Individuals are subject to the political forces that bind them, no matter how cruel, just, powerful, or special they are. Religion and culture are things that are beyond the scope of one person. Religious leaders that go against the tides of their faith are far more likely to be swept up in it than change it. Our environments shape us. We cannot stop ourselves from being changed by our circumstances. Power doesn't make you happy. Power makes us less human. Our individuality is something that needs to be maintained, especially when religion and law mix.
my issues with it.
I didn't like the whole hard times make hard men bit. "Hard Men" don't win wars, military training, equipment, resources and doctrine win wars. It helps, sure, having more resilient soldiers more willing to die helps. But in the real world that comes more from religious fanaticism, national identity, desperation, or the simple fact that some assholes want to burn your house down and kill your family.
I felt like much of fremen culture is not possible for the human psyche to handle. I don't think that grief and resentment can be bottled up so easily without consequence.
I have a problem with some of the gender stuff. Most of my issues were in the first half of the book, and I read the first half, set it down for a year and then returned to it. But, I remember having a lot of issues with how Jessica was written in the first half. All of Jessica's character development comes from her relationships with the Dukes. Jessica only moves past the training of her dark sisterhood through seeing the power of a man. I felt what women were in the story were often wrote as accessories to men. 90% of chani's character is basically just "Paul's wife."
things I like about it.
I love the ecology bits. I love the focus on how people and culture and ecosystems are things created.
I love how the great man myth is thoroughly refuted. I love how tropes about great heroes are subverted.
I love how the magical powers that are so coveted are ultimately a tragic thing for the people who have them. Seeing a future he cannot change tears at Paul. It denies Alia the life she deserves. Jessica loses her opportunity to be truly maternal to her son.
Most of all I love the writing. How within each page there are references to multiple philosophies, religions, themes, science, or deeply grounded world lore. Its suspenseful, dreadful, and beautiful.
Thanks for posting this right after I finished reading the book!
I agree with you completely except for this pair of lines:
I felt like much of fremen culture is not possible for the human psyche to handle. I don't think that grief and resentment can be bottled up so easily without consequence.
... because there was, in fact, a massive consequence to the Fremen's bottled-up grief and resentment: they went on a genocidal, galaxy-spanning jihad before being driven extinct by their supposed white saviors.
Thats true! It certainly has narrative consequence. But it doesn't effect their personal lives or relationships at all. Humans are social creatures, and grief doesn't have a schedule. Part of what Herbert does is assume that the fremen could exist, given an environment like arrakis, and given the collective memory of the reverend mothers and a history of strife and oppression. I just sorta disagree. I don't think humans could be pushed that far. But, this point is the one I feel least strongly about.
If you like the stuff about Paul and his prescience, you should read the second book! It takes a lot of those themes around foresight and power and spends more time fleshing them out, I thought it worked really well as a counterpoint to Dune.
Can't speak for the other sequels, but it seems like they get a bad rep
i can't speak to anything specific but i am up to heretics of dune and post-messiah, call it a vibe, but i feel like the general quality is declining with each additional book