• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Frank Herbert: Dune

HBinjection, I don't think that the cause of the difficulty with finishing Dune is the made up language. It is vital that in a science fiction book non-existing notions sound natural to the reader, I mean that a name of an animal is 'animalish'. That helps a reader to familiarize himself/herself with a new world. To my mind in Dune it is done pretty well, though I couldn't stand Duke's Leto name. Such a name exists in Greek mythology - but it is female. For instance, Leto was Apollo and Artemis' mother.

As for the parallel to the situation in the Middle East, I think that the book rather refers to the fight for power, its influence on people and ruthlessness of the rulers in general. I can't see any details that would connect the book with the Middle East more than any other part of the world with military conflicts ever going on.
 
Middle East

I guess it's mostly the desert setting that brings the Middle East to mind, and the struggle for the spice [read oil].

It's the same way with Lord of the Rings and World War II for me. It's not allegory, but connections can be made, whether the author intended them or not.

When I read about these fierce, technologically advanced but still somehow old-fashioned desert folk with bright blue eyes, I though of Israelis. And then I though of Berbers, or any number of Islamic tribes across the Middle East. But Israel was my first impression.

That's my style of enjoying literature. I either draw connections between a character and myself [or a fictional situation I can identify with] or I draw connections between social or political events in fiction and real-life.

Actually, that's my thinking style. I don't try to pick them out. It's just the way my brain works. Maybe I'm schitzotypal.

I agree that Herbert does of good job of creating an alien culture, including bits of language. Some knock-offs of Herbert and Tolkein get tiresome with their made-up languages.

But no matter how well an alien culture is drawn, some people don't enjoy reading it. It's annoying for them.

For me, It's only annoying when it's poorly done. And when it's well done, like in LOTR, I find it very gratifying.
 
Also Idun, since you've read on past the first book, do you recommend me reading more?

I've finished Dune, but I've heard its the best of the lot, and I've got a lot of other stuff I'd like to read.

I liked Dune, but I don't think it's as good as a lot of people make it out to be. Maybe that's why so many in this thread are unhappy with it. It's been built up as such a classic.
 
On the question of getting annoyed by an alien culture, it depends on the fact if someone likes the genre of science fiction and fantasy, or not. If not, it's better not to start reading at all, because the meaning and artism of the book will undoubtedly be not appreciated. If yes, it's then a matter of quality of language and idea, not the existence of imaginary details.

As for the Middle East connection, the surroundings are certainly similar. But fights on the Middle East have roots also in ethnic, traditional and religious reasons - there is no such stuff in the book. Besides, to my mind there is no oil on Israel territory. What's more, I think that the spice was introduced mainly due to the its matching to the vision of Dune world as a whole, but the reason for war could be anything else. Being situated in the important strategical point in the galaxy, for example.

It's a good idea to compare a book to the real life, if that's make reading more intresting for you and encourages you to use the wisdom from a book. On the other hand, it may lead to dangerous misinterpretations. If you really want, you can find in any book anything you want. I read once a serious review written by a communist critic in which he stated that LORT praises communism, that Gandalf is like Lenin - forever alive. That was absurdity, but is surely not alone.

I agree that the content of Dune doesn't live up to its fame. Nonetheless, if you liked the first part, you should go on. Until of course the beginning of the third part, because I didn't get any further and I can't say if it's worthy to read to the very end.
 
Points to discussion connected with Dune just came up to my mind:

1. What do you think about Paul's change of character throughout the book?

2. I can't figure out what did Herbert think about Fremen. Did he praise them or rather condemn?
 
Idun,

I don't mean to say that I read such literal parallels between Mid-East politics and the novel. For another example, Olaf Stapledon's "The Last Men" would not have meant as much to me if I just took it as a flight of fancy as to what would become of man. As clever a work of fantasy it is, it means much more to me for what it says about people now. He seemed to me to be making an argument in favor of socialism. I'm no socialist, but it was interesting to read what OS had to say.
Maybe I'm misguided in my opinions, but that's why we have this board, so that we can see what other people think.
Social interaction helps keep us in line.
Thanks, though, for your thoughtful response.

As to your questions...

I think the greatest change I noticed in his character, was when he stopped just using the Fremen mythology for political purposes, and started believing in it.

I think this ties in with Herbert's opinion of the Fremen. I think he portrays them in a very positive light.

I noticed, though, that some of the portrayal seems less than flattering, but I think that is just an artifact of Duke Leto and his clan being imperialists. It's the same way Indians and native Americans were portrayed in the literature of imperialist England.

But I don't think Herbert feels "the white man's burden" like Kipling. He is just aware of those very human attitudes, and reflected them.
 
I'm not a big lover of Sci-Fi but I did try reading Dune after watching the recent adaptation on TV.

Unfortunately the book wasn't, for me, as interesting. I found the detail and history drew the book out to much. I got fed up of the internal battles between houses and families. And the style of writing was hard going for me.

There is a good story under all the detail, but I got bogged down in the plot and didnt enjoy this book.

rune
 
HBinjection, when I'm reading fiction, particularly science fiction, I also like to draw parallels to the real world. Your comments reminded me of what Ursula K LeGuin said, "Science fiction is not predictive; it's descriptive." and goes on to say, "All they (writers) can tell you is what they have seen and heard, in their time in this world, . . . ." In general, I believe she is right. I've found the books that have moved me and made me think the most are those where I can see the parallels in our own state of human folly.

So, back to Dune and my thoughts. I read this many, many years ago, so although the details have faded somewhat, my overall impressions are still quite strong. I saw the Fremen as a group of marginalized people, living on the fringes of the civilized world - but with access to what everyone else wanted. The Fremen uprising seemed an inevitable event particularly when the imperial family realized they were in danger of being controlled and squashed by the Space Guild (forgot their exact name) and sent Paul off to join them. Therefore, you have a group of disenfranchised, ignored people who want to control what they feel is rightfully theirs, mix with a good dose of religious fervour, a myth-proving messiah and you have the makings of any number of uprisings and wars in our history books. This of course, is overly-simplistic and Herbert's, Dune, is much more complex, but you get the gist of what I mean.

Idun, you asked, "What do you think about Paul's change of character throughout the book?"

I think he went from a fairly naive young man, born into nobility and with the notion he would be a leader someday, but not really knowing what it meant; to a man who slowly realizes the ramifications (sacrifices and pain) that go along with true leadership. He also experiences a significant spiritual awakening as he transcends the reality he took for granted all his life. He learns to live on both planes - i.e. the spiritual (with the help of the spice) and the real world (man, the desert, war, etc.).
 
I finished reading Dune just now, and I have to admit that after the first 100 pages I really got into it. I'm afraid I did miss out on some deeper meaning by reading this in English though, a few subtleties here and there... So in a couple of years, I might want to read this again, be that in Dutch or English (if it's improved by then)

I can see how HBinjection would draw some parallels between the situation in the Middle East and the Arrakis-situation. For me, however, it was the (religious) fanaticism of the Fremen that struck me most. And since fanaticism is of all times, you can draw parallels with various other situations as well, both in the present and the past (and most probably in the future as well).

As far as Paul is concerned... I couldn't really bring myself to like him. Don't get me wrong, I admired him, in a way, but he sure as hell won't make it to my favourite character list. :)

And on the subject of language: I don't mind the invention of new languages as much as I mind my inability to know immediately how to pronounce the words... Every instance of those new words I come across, I find myself wondering (and I get more and more agitated with each new word) how on earth it's supposed to be pronounced.
 
lies, talk more about the Fremen religious fanaticism.

What is your take?

Is their religion false?

Do you think they are portrayed in a positive light?
 
That depends on what you think is "false".

I do think they're sincere in their religion: they really do believe the myth that has been created, even their leaders (at least that's the impression I got), whereas the off-world leaders think of religion as "opium of the people": something that's useful to keep the rabble in check.

Plus the Fremen are more than prepared to die for it--for their religion, and for the ideal of a new Arrakis (the kamikaze pilot is one example of that fanaticism), when the Guild's and the Harkonnen's only ambition is power and wealth.

I'm not too sure if they are portrayed in a positive light or not... In one way yes, I guess, but in another: no. I think I'll have to get back to you on that one.
 
lies or anyone,

I can't remember who's idea it was to begin the uprising. Was it Paul's or the Fremen? As I recall, the Fremen viewed Paul as their saviour (as foretold by their myths/religion). I guess what I'm also asking is whether the Fremen convinced Paul that he was the saviour or did Paul figure this out for himself and step into the role. (I think I'm going to have to re-read the book, after all :) ).

I agree with lies that from the Fremen's point of view, their religion was true - and that's all that mattered to them, not what others might think. Just as today, various religions view their own religion as the "true" religion and others false. It doesn't make any of the religions any more true or more false. What matters is that the followers believe it to be true - enough that they're willing to die for it.
 
Originally posted by Ell
I can't remember who's idea it was to begin the uprising. Was it Paul's or the Fremen? As I recall, the Fremen viewed Paul as their saviour (as foretold by their myths/religion). I guess what I'm also asking is whether the Fremen convinced Paul that he was the saviour or did Paul figure this out for himself and step into the role.
Click to expand...
I guess it must've been "fate". The Bene Gesserit laid the foundation, created the myth, Paul used it to have the Fremen do his bidding, and in the end, he becomes his own creation... Or is that wrong?
 
I'd like to state my opinion about the Fremen. I may be alone in my assessment, but for me they behave more like a herd of wild, thoughtless animals, not like feeling people. I don't claim that the author portrayed them as such - I just got that impression on the basis of objective facts described by Herbert. The main value for the Fremen is survival, that's why all their life is restricted by severe, ruthless rules. These include, for example, killing each person, who they came across on the desert, and who doesn't belong to the tribe, or killing the present leader to become entitled to take his place, or murdering the wounded by children after the battle. The rules seem to be derived from an idea, that the stronger is a winner, and the weaker must die. I know that the severity of the Arrakis environment was the main reason for making the cruel laws obligatory, but that way of living doesn't seem very humane. Not to mention their fanatic religion.

As for the Fremen's beliefs, it's said somewhere in the book, that it was one of the Bene Gesserit who instilled them long time ago, to prepare place for the later actions of the order. However, if Paul really was the promised One, it rather couldn't be in accordance with the mothers' will. They couldn't breed the genetic line for hundreds of years (or whatever time did it take) to help some tribe.So maybe, surprisingly, there was some sense in the story, which they had made up.
 
I don't agree with your idea of the Fremen being "animals". They just behaved like they had to, in order to survive. It's not the environment of Arrakis alone that threatens them, it's every off-worlder ever to set foot on their planet as well... They're guerilla after all; they have to protect what is theirs.
 
Originally posted by Idun
I'd like to state my opinion about the Fremen. I may be alone in my assessment, but for me they behave more like a herd of wild, thoughtless animals, not like feeling people.
Click to expand...

[I know that the severity of the Arrakis environment was the main reason for making the cruel laws obligatory, but that way of living doesn't seem very humane. Not to mention their fanatic religion.
Click to expand...

Idun, lies, Ell,

I'm surprised at your reactions to the Fremen because they are so different from mine. As I read Dune, I saw the Fremen as heroic. They were strong and tough, but wise, too.

I wonder if when you watched Zulu Dawn or Shaka Zulu, you thought the same of the Zulu people?

I don't mean to call any of you racists with that last statement. I'm not trying to draw an analogy between racism and your opinions on the Fremen, but to get you to try and pinpoint for me what exactly about the Fremen seems so backward or bad to you.

Is it the relative primitiveness of their lifestyle, living as nomads with a theocracy. Or is it solely their religious conviction.

If it is their conviction, why not dislike the Bene Geserit as well, since they cling to their beliefs as well, and they certainly have a lot of hocus pocus.
 
I'm not saying I disliked the Fremen at all. I just wanted to point out that I could understand their "cruelty"... For them it was a necessity, just like water... they needed both to keep their people from becoming extinct, as it were. I admired how they were able to do the things that needed to be done, even if the things themselves weren't all pleasant.

(And Shaka Zulu -- I was just a kid when I saw that... I really can't remember any of it)
 
I'm surprised at your reactions to the Fremen because they are so different from mine. As I read Dune, I saw the Fremen as heroic. They were strong and tough, but wise, too.
Click to expand...
Yikes! HB, you misunderstood me. I thought they were heroic, too and I view them in a very positive light. I was answering your question about whether their religion was 'false'. And answered theoretically, that it doesn't matter what others believe, it's what the followers of any religion believe that makes it valid for them.

I neither think the Fremen were cruel within the context of their lives and culture nor do I think they were backward or bad. Much of what they did, made perfect sense within their beliefs and environment. Unless, I'm mis-remembering again, I thought they valued each life greatly and the removal/taking of the water from the dead became a sacred ritual.
 
Ell, lies and HBinjection,

all that you wrote sounds very logical to me and I think you all are right in a way. But that doesn't change my mind at all. I still don't like them at all, due to the reasons I mentioned above. I wouldn't condemn them totally, because they didn't know any alternative to the life on Arrakis, being a primitive tribe cut out from the rest of the space, even though they controlled most of the spice. Very ironic. Nonetheless, I'm far from admiration.

By the way, I also didn't like the Bene Gesserit. Why? Cause they would do anything, and they try to do it, to get power.
 
Well, I think one of the reasons why I admired them (both the Fremen and the Bene Gesserit--although "admiration" is probably too big a word) is because they could do things I could never do. And with that, I'm not talking about the fighting, or the fact that the Bene Gesserit had the Voice or something... Just that they were capable of being ruthless to go about achieving their respective goals... I'd never be able to manipulate other people like that, use other people to do my bidding.

But that's just my take on this. Maybe that my view on it will change as I read on...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top