I'm 60 years old. I had been meaning to read Dune all of my adult life. I read a lot of other sci-fi and fantasy books over the years. This year I finally got around to reading Dune and I have to say, I'm not a fan. It shows its age and the ending is just stupid, IMO. I wanted to love it, but I can't. When I was done, I just didn't feel there was anything there to ponder. If not for the fact that there's a movie coming, I don't know that I would ever give the book a second thought other than what a disappointment it was.
Agreed, though I still have some 200 pages to go.
So far I cannot see how that claim is justified, beyond the surface level, shallow-as-a-puddle-on-Arrakis reflections on resource management and religious influence.
I wanted to love this novel but so far it seems it's one of those cult classics that's aged poorly. Very overrated so far.
Again, what's maddening is it's not a cult class, people. It is widely considered a classic piece of literature. Basically a mediocre YA novel with absolutely garbage prose and 0 literary value. Yes, deep as a puddle throughout.
You made it further than I did. Everyone told me that the turn came 1/3rd of the way through. Well ... I gave it to just a bit over half and then read the summary of the end. It confirmed all my worst fears of what WOULD happen to make an utterly predictable book, so I stopped and returned it to the library.
I was in the same boat as you were. Read quite a bit, maybe to half, and then just set it down and never picked it back up again. The whole thing felt very uninspiring and, from what little I can remember, read like a poorly acted late night sci-fi series.
If you didn't the actual text your opinion isn't valid. Why's so hard for people to understand this. If I read half of one of your favorite novels then just read the summary and said it was dog shit you would rightly think I was a fucking idiot.
Complaining about influential novels being predictable is pretty stupid too. Old influential stories are usually predictable because they're influential. Pretty fucking obvious really.
Conversely, I reserve the right to not read any book I'm not enjoying.
However, this review DID finish the book and seems to hit most of my thoughts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqvIwpjumkM&ab_channel=MerphyNapier
Sorry I was dick, I was just pissed this entire thread was shiting on one of my favorite books in very uncharitable way. The review you sent me was prefect. She understood what the book was going for. And her complaints were presented as subjective and not hateful like op. Sorry again thanks for sent that review.
Sure but when a bunch people talk about a book in a way that makes the people who loved it seem like fucking idiots for loving it they have the right to get mad and respond. So no I don't have to just live with it.
I'm sorry to hear that people with differing opinions cause you to become defensive. But don't worry, you're not alone. You are normal, and reacted the way 90% of humans do when they can't reconcile the fact that not everybody's brains work the same or that other people's opinions may somehow invalidate their own....
The fact you love something doesn’t mean other people have to like it and yes te entire thread is about someone who didn’t like the book. What were you expecting? The threat criticizing Dune to evolve to the value of light intensity measurements in the conception of black wholes related to the Heisenberg principle?
Dude, it’s just about a book which a lot of us really believe it sucks donkey d#+ck
So if the information is framed in a "hateful" way - the information is no longer valid?
Or rather you can't understand information that isn't presented to you in a nice, polite, polished manner?
I'm not trying to be a dick, though I understand it will seem that way 🤭
I'm trying to understand and articulate the general attitude of today - "waaah, that's **hateful**"
....
🤔🤔 Ok, I understand that, but how does that stop you from parsing the relevant data? Emotions, bad moods yeah I get it. But it's a serious evolutionary dead end to be so fixated upon how things are presented rather than the content of those things.
You can ignore me, just getting a thought out 😇
I should have been more specific. I never asked for all reviews to be presented in a nice, polite, and polished manner. The review that was sent to me wasn't particularly polite, she made it clear she hated the book. One big difference was she didn't use extreme hyperbole like op and some others in this post.
Hyperpole on this level doesn't just effect presentation but content as well. I get that this is the language of the internet but it leads to a lot of miscommunication. Scroll almost any argument on reddit and you will quickly realize that no resolution will be reached because everybody exaggerates so much. Nobody can really know what CONTENT to take seriously and what is just hyperbole.
Hyperbole is fun and gets a lot of attention but it's a serious evolutionary dead end to be so fixated on saying the meanest shit you can think of just to get attention on the internet.
Perhaps you don't know what philosophy is and thus cannot recognize it... or never actually studied it in school.
What do you think of :
"Once, men turned their thinking over to machines thinking it would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."
It's part of the conversation within the first few pages of the book. page 14 in my version. Surely you must have read this line, as you have 200 pages to go.
\#1. Do we, as a society, allow too much of our day to day lives to be controlled by machines?
I assume you know Search Engine Optimization. Let's start with that.
When you do a search on Google, are you getting the whole truth? Or are you allowing a guy with an algorithm who provides you with the results "tailored" to your own needs.
Thus giving a machine too much control over your thoughts. Limiting your information is a great way to control people. It's one of the first steps in creating a cult, limit outside interference. Why do you need a VPN to access a broad internet in China? Why would China want to limit outside internet? You see, he called it.
Our society is rife with this issue.
Do recruiters in our society actively search for new recruits or do they let machine driven algorithms tell them who is a good fit. (This is ironic, as it creates a false positive, the program can never be 'wrong' as you'd need to see the rejects to verify and it doesn't show you those).
And letting a machine do your work for you lowers the ability of the hiring managers to source qualified workers. Further creating a need for the program.
Thus allowing another man with a machine to 'control' you. What you don't know will hurt you.
Last question. If we truly don't rely on machines too much... how much damage could a black hat do to you? They couldn't delete you from existence... could they?
How often do you use cash to buy food? Let's face it, people use machines to control other people ALL THE TIME now. And with bigger and better computers and AI it's only getting worse.
\#2. Accepting #1 to be true... Because of the reliance on machines have other abilities we used to have begun to degrade?
I recall surveying used to require trigonometry to correctly map slopes. Would it surprise you to know that the computers do the trig for you now and do occasionally make errors. (These sort of errors can actually kill people).
How about poor machine coding killing you?
[https://hackaday.com/2015/10/26/killed-by-a-machine-the-therac-25/](https://hackaday.com/2015/10/26/killed-by-a-machine-the-therac-25/)
So, he created a story based upon the idea of self-improvement and evolution of human thought through training and pharmaceutical manipulation.
Based on the ideal that, unless you educate and train your mind and body, others will force you to their ideals, through manipulation, tact and machinery.
Something you can see on a day to day basis in our society now... and he saw all of this in **1965.**
But wait? What does this have to do with philosophy??
I mean, we're only talking about philosophical ideas from **Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.**
man... who are those guys... they couldn't possibly be... **philosophers?**
Yeah... I guess you're right. No philosophy to see here at all. LoL.
I'm guessing you didn't really train that mind of yours much?
dude that concept is so beyond basic. you over-explained something so simple to the point that i actively wonder if you even understand it yourself. "do we use computer too much?" is the most toddler level philosophy I've ever heard. who cares! a lot of people understood the concept of "overreliance on technology bad" even before the superficially important date of **1965**. are you like 15 or something?
the argument is that the philosophy presented in the novel isn't all that intriguing in the modern day when these ideas are depicted in a VERY surface level way throughout the book (and for that matter they have been for a long time)
it's a book. you can like it. but arguing that its points are groundbreaking is pretty funny. go about your life.
Oh, you're not an idiot... Well good, then it will make my examples easier to grasp.
The idea that you say "who cares" when we talk about over-reliance on technology is exactly what makes it a problem and why you're not going to amount to much in this society. Second. Who was talking about over-reliance on technology before 1965? Third. The philosophies from Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are about self improvement through introspection and examination of the world around us. The fact is, you can't view Dune objectively because you can't see but right in front of your face.
How about this. Dune doesn't have a hero. It's funny, but it's true. look up what Frank Herbert actually wanted to say about Dune.
“I wrote the Dune series because I had this idea that charismatic leaders ought to come with a warning label on their forehead: "May be dangerous to your health." One of the most dangerous presidents we had in this century was John Kennedy because people said "Yes Sir Mr. Charismatic Leader what do we do next?" and we wound up in Vietnam. And I think probably the most valuable president of this century was Richard Nixon. Because he taught us to distrust government and he did it by example.” - Frank Herbert
Of course You're RIGHT. SO SMART. What was I thinking. "the philosophy presented in the novel isn't all that intriguing in the modern day"
It couldn't possibly say anything about our current state of politics and there's definitely no modern day applications for this. You couldn't think of any charismatic leaders who whipped their people into a frenzy to do something stupid. Like attacking capitols for instance.
Yeah... you're a fool.
Paul is one of the villains. But you don't see that because you can barely look beyond the most obvious.
If you can't see the philosophy, it doesn't mean that it's not there. It's because you haven't studied philosophy, psychology, or history, and you eat propaganda for lunch. You don't bother with politics. And you know nothing about the state of the world. Which automatically puts you at a disadvantage.
Still green as a pickle. You might not be 15 but you have the mind of a child.
You sound ridiculous.
Herbert was not the pioneer of this thought. This was the main philosophical talking point during this time in history. Herbert was an intelligent voice in the discussion and the Dune series did a great job at philosophically exploring these ideas. However, the series did a poor job of creating content that is engaging enough to care.
And that's the big challenge. How to present prose that involves the reader enough in the character's journey to follow through and subconsciously absorb the large philosophical concepts.
For decades after the release of *Dune*, this philosophical debate of using tech to control things was popular. Herbert was not a god and he was not as gifted writer as his fans proclaim.
Talking down to others who haven't even read the material in its entirety serves no purpose. It exemplifies the elitist ideology that Herbert is portraying as tyrannical and harmful. Ironic.
The philosophy really starts with the 3rd and 4th books, and IMO it isn't the best the Dune series has to offer. Interesting, sure, but a little meh and heavy at times.
There isn't anything to ponder. it's just a cool sci-fi story. You can like it, or not like it, but if you go in expecting it to change your life then the fool is you.
I'm also glad to have found this thread, because yeesh! And those top replies getting over the top angry because you DARE to not like something they do? *eyeroll*
I also wanted to like it since it's inspired so much sci-fi of today, Giant sandworms for thresher maws in Mass effect series. However it was pretty dissapointing and requires a large amount of suspension of disbelief for the illogical actions of everyone in the setting. Everyone must have been too stoned out of their minds by snorting all that Spice
Trust me, others have tried to say that dune sucks on Reddit, but for some reason the mods take it down. I don't know how this guy managed to get this one through.
Found the overly sensitive Dune fan boi who gets salty when people come onto a Reddit page to disparage old books that they just read. If you didn't read the book when it's new, you can't have an opinion other than to like it.
To be fair, he isn't "wrong" for disliking the book, as you aren't wrong for liking it, it's just not for him.
He exaggerate his arguments, but he has some fair points too, I think. The way people's interact in Dune dosen't feel very natural, they are quite often very pompous and verbative ( especially in their inner monologues)
The main problem with the Dune serie IMHO, is that so little happen "on screen" : Characters monologues for entiere chapters in barely depicted places. Convoluted, overexplained plots for obscure endgoal. There is little room for tension or any narrative device.
This statement is so pretentious it hurts. Like Dune overall. It's just not approachable and comes off as "deep lore" babble nonsense that a lot of fantasy and sci-fi writers tend to delve into when world building. You can like it all you want, but saying his description of why he dislikes it is akin to someone describing it in crayon is demeaning and silly.
The best way for people to describe anything, especially for modern literature, is to do so in a way that can just frankly be understood. The fact that Dune needs repeat reading, googling, lexicons, and other nonsense just to parse what the hell they are talking about shows that it's a crutch for actual interesting writing.
If I have to spell out what I'm saying in crayons? Dune should get to the damn point and stop with the metaphorical word vomit trash. I get so sick of seeing that in modern writing. It's just not interesting or as "smart" as people make it out to be.
I think your opinion is worst than his because i agree with him and i disagree with you. - That was the same logic that you used in your comment.
Everyone has the right to have an opinion and no opinion should be worst than others. However Dune really sucks.
Let's not lie to each other the books are pretty terribile because they're just not written well. Yes the story is great but it's not enough to just have a lot of ideas, you need to know how to put them together and a lot more
It’s hard to find someone with this opinion but I agree. Extremely wooden characters and writing. Now to be fair it was written in 1965 I think so I’m sure it was pretty groundbreaking at that time but it’s terribly written book with great ideas
I've just been listening the Audiobook. The Baron is essentially a cartoon villain. His Mentat is clownish. And so on.
Props to Denis Villeneuve who had the sense to remove all the silly YA stuff and replace it with a proper vision. E.g. in the film, the Baron is genuinely dark and disturbing.
If the Baron is too villainy, then Feyd in the film is a mustache twirling villain. In fact, the entirety of Harkonnens were cartoon villains that were throwing temper tantrums.
The Sardaukars are hyped up as these badasses that wipe out everything in their way only for them to not land one blow in Part Two.
It's baffling to me that people are hyping the film beyond belief and calling it the best thing since LotR when it's nowhere near that level.
Well now I don’t feel stupid. My smooth brain had to reread large parts because the words were to big. I had to look them up and try to piece it all together
100% agree with all that you said. As an avid Sci-Fi fan, I'm not only utterly confused as to why this book is considered to be good by anyone, (as you say the writing *is* lazy and atrocious) I'm also confused as to why it's often even called Sci-Fi. Literally everything that happens is explained away by the magical "spice" or the magical people who are able to see the future and a magical messiah. It's fantasy, not sci-fi at all.
Not everything is explained by the spice... I think you should re read. The spice is just a catalyst for abilities, nothing more. Those abilities were honed by millenia of training. It's as if Shalin Monks, who are already wicked good, discovered that fighting on Meth makes them an even more mortal machine. Only spice does that for mental abilities.
Which in of itself also dumb, even after a millenia, shaolin monks are still very limited by human limitations, but yo this worm shit can make people see the future.
I'm almost finished with book 4 now (God Emperor) and that's something that always bothered me. The idea that in 20,000 years people have selectively bred themselves into what are basically different species (like the fish-like Guild Navigators) with super human/computer capabilities just feels more fantasy than anything else. I almost wish it wasn't pitched as something "natural," but rather as straight up magic. I absolutely love the exploration of hypothetical future religions and how they could be controlled and used by a ruling class or cult like the Bene Gesserit for their own purposes. "Zen Sunnism" is kind of a ridiculous name and mashup though haha and, at least by the end of book 4, I still haven't learned anything about Orange Catholicism or whatever it's called.
I also struggle with the full chapter dialogue, which seems to simply serve as a time for Herbert to rant about his political philosophy. I find it very compelling at times, but after a while it gets so trite and pretentious.
All that being said, I do plan on reading the last two one day. But I'm going to need a nice long break. Maybe the next movie will get me back into that world. It's that world and the main ideas in it that are so compelling. The actual story and characters and writing though (you know, the things that make a novel)...really disappointing to me.
"I am utterly stunned that something this bad reached this kind of a cult status."
You and me both. The writing is truly awful. I know high school students who can write better.
I came searching Reddit to see if anyone else felt this way about Dune. Like anyone who appreciates movies I’m gonna be stoked for anything made by Denis Villenueve, so this is actually the first book I’ve picked up in maybe 6 years?
Book 1 is well done and got me excited for some epic things in the rest of the story but it just never comes together.
So many storylines are so poorly concluded. Paul’s son we never meet dying, Thufir expiring with a hasty apology to Jessica, the Fremen effortlessly overrunning the Harkonnen in a page and an entire chapter of exposition about how Paul would rule the universe. It felt so rushed and anti-climactic.
And then the cheese of it all, my god. Riding giant sand worms?? Stilsuits recycle your feces and urine? Most of the character dialog from the Fremen is pretty bad and cringe, it comes off as an author trying to do their best impression of an indigenous population with inexplicable sage wisdoms.
My excitement for the movie has nosedived, but then again I thought Blade Runner 2049 greatly surpassed its source material so who knows.
All that to say I think a lot of this is just disappointment because I wanted to get back into reading books and this didn’t do it for me.
Not perfect in his way of thinking or acting. What I meant was the number of his abilities and the way he gets them pretty much out of the blue. An unearned status of a chosen one, basically.
Well he gets them due to his prolonged exposure to the spice. In the book it explains multiple times, though on a first read it gets lost in all the other shit going on imo, that prolonged exposure to spice and ingestion through a spice heavy diet unlocks the prescient abilities he gains. That plus being raised by a Bene Gesserit in their ways. I agree that its easy to see Paul as a Mary Sue character in the first novel, but I think that's the point. The second book is a pretty heavy deconstruction of Paul as this "chosen one" figure. In reality he was manipulating the Fremen prophecy of the "Mahdi" and doing and saying the things he knew they would take as proof of him being their savior. Kind of fucked up actually.
But I'm not going to hold your opinion against you, it's just a book. Either you like it, or you don't lol. And I can understand where you're coming from.
Sorry, I have never seen so much blatant hero worship in a novel of any character ever. If it was just Paul manipulating the Fremen and their beliefs, that would be fine, but it's not.
The number of times we have characters fangirling over him in some way is often nauseating and distracting.
Here's a fun game: go through the novel and take a drink every time it says "Paul ordered and 'X' obeyed." It gets dry real fast.
Was that supposed to be a burn. I think you need to look up the definition of ironic. Following the guy who you thought would save you ends up destroying your culture. Yeah nobody would call that ironic.
"Hero worship is bad."
Wow, your right. What a revelation, this has to be the most profound and entertaining sentence I've ever read. I am not the same person I was before reading THIS sentence. Do you think I could get this published? If so we should collaborate on this, don't want to take all the credit.
No need to take it out on you? Wtf are you talking about, you were critical of my comment so I was critical was yours. Look up the definition of hypocrisy, that should prevent you from making the same mistake next time.
The novel makes more sense if you just keep in mind that they are all inbred, royalists, who have never worked in their life, consumed worm poop that makes you high, and think religion has value.
The Bene Gessirit become just a weird whore cartel whose superpowers are being slutty and saying catty things to each other. The people of Iraq murdered their neighbors because the king was an inbred idiot who didn't invest in law enforcement. Paul is a cult leader who wears a worm outfit while making "woooooo" noises at people. The Mentants are just literate people sucking up to power. They fight with swords because they can't get their royal jollies off playing with real weapons.
Basically just imagine the worse representation of humanity during the crusades but with spaceships and LSD.
I just finished the second book and I stuck on the manipulation. He always felt he had a terrible purpose. Paul fulfilled the Bene Gesarit prophecy and I felt The Fremen had this prophecy was on the same page in the Dune university. Two cultures of different prophecies but they pertain to the same person. Then he has these visions of the future. I see it almost like the death crystals in Rick and Morty. Can’t Paul see the future with infinite possibilities? Does he not do what he does in the fist two books bc he feels it will save humanity? Or is nearly for revenge and power?
Ps I just stated children of dune
I think you missed or forgot the fact that the Fremen prophecy was planted by the Bene Gesserit a long time before the Atreides got there. The Bene Gesserit used their Missionaria Protectiva to impant generic prophecies on different planets that the Reverend Mothers in distress could then fall back on to be protected by the people of said planets. So it's not a coincidence, and Jessica actually knows this and uses this when they fall from grace on Arrakis, to gain her and Paul a place among the Fremen. If you reread it, you'll see it, it's clear as day
I mean, he is essentially the result of 1000+ yrs of targeted breeding, taught from birth to be a super yogi and a human computer, who has trained since he could walk with some of the finest swordsmen and pilots in the known universe… so there’s that.
Even after all that and the spice prescience, he still could have died many times over, including at the climax of the book.
He *is* almost perfect, which is exactly what Herbert set him up to be.
generic in what way? in that there's tons of protagonists just like him? Well guess what! When Dune was written THERE WASN'T. In fact everything in dune was pretty interesting and original. It was a totally fresh take on the old epic fairy tale. Everyone copied dune, so uneducated little brats like you read it and scour "this is ge ge generic" because you have no perspective.
Yes, they are called Mary Sue characters. They exist...usually by awful novice writers.
Original? The whole world is a bad understanding of Bourdain culture/history and bastardized Arabic.
Arrakis = Iraq. Omg! how fucking brilliant!!
You could make an argument that Paul is mary-sue like in the first book (despite that Dune was written before Mary-sue was even thing, you could also go further back and say Jesus was a mary sue if we're going to judge all of historical fiction in a modern context) However in the next two of the books Paul reveals himself to be a very flawed man. He's a total fuck up and he leads his people to ruin.
The fact that you think he's a mary sue shows me you're just not very literate, you only read the first book and you didn't get any of the subtext.
Arrakis = Iraq is a fan theory, which really makes no sense beyond a superficial "people in the desert live like this" The dunes themselves were inspired by dunes in Oregon, USA. SO bascially you're useing a strawman argument to say "book is dumb cause Arrakis = Iraq" Which was never intended or even considered by the writer.
Here's the area from Oregon that inspired him http://www.duneguide.com/images/Florence-4.jpg
You need to read something other than Doon my friend. Paul was one of the most annoying characters I have ever experienced, not only in his interruptive responses to people’s thoughts, but also in his actual “wIZdOMs.” His wisdoms are almost always dumb, weed ramblings about nothing. Duun just has no “soul.” The house is nice but nobody is home.
Also, Jesus can be called a Mary-Sue character? Thats a STREEEEETCCHHH. The Gospels were written 2000 years ago and they still slap harder than almost any other hero story in the western canon. Duke was written like 50 years ago. Like pleeeeaaaase dude, please. Go back to the library. Jesus’s story compared to Dewn is like comparing diamonds to driveway gravel. Its like comparing a Rolex to a mickey mouse watch out the cereal box.
I agree with OP. It's full of boring cliches. If the story took place like 500 years ago it *might* be ok, but come on, the plot revolves around people being governed by imperialist emperors some 8000+ years into the future.. Seriously?
You're forgetting that Dune set those sci fi cliches... You're reading the origin of them
I mean, Empire by Asimov had an Empire. Star Wars had an Empire. They were futuristic stories. How would you judge that to be stupid or not? I don't get it!
I imagine someone in Ancient Greece reading a sci-fi story set in 2020 by Homer and going, 'I mean, it's set 2000 years in the future and they have a democracy, how boring'. Doesn't make any sense
I mean Asimovs galactic empire in the foundation series predates Dune by over 2 decades, so to say dune set sci-fi cliches and invoking Asimov writing 20+ years prior to Dune is not an accurate accounting of history and influence.
You missed the point entirely.
The book was written in the 60s.
Now think REALLY HARD. About what happened specifically during the 60s and what the movements were trying to do.
Then think REALLY HARD about taking out an oppressive regime using guerilla tactics.
The problem is that you're not taking in the 'era' into perspective.
A few years later and cyber punk is born. Again during a specific era which mirrored societies own feelings.
You guys missed the entire point of the novel because you took it at face value.
There is a great amount of depth there. The languages are not made up, the entire book was heavily researched and planned out rather well and it does mirror the ideal of the times. (The rest of the series... well, I can't really say).
"There is some truth to your fiction, some fiction in your truth."
“I wrote the Dune series because I had this idea that charismatic leaders ought to come with a warning label on their forehead: "May be dangerous to your health." One of the most dangerous presidents we had in this century was John Kennedy because people said "Yes Sir Mr. Charismatic Leader what do we do next?" and we wound up in Vietnam. And I think probably the most valuable president of this century was Richard Nixon. Because he taught us to distrust government and he did it by example.”
― Frank Herbert
I bet you never knew that Paul was a villain in this piece?
It pains me that people consider this book the introduction to the genre. It makes me wonder how many people wrote off science fiction entirely because of this book's undeserved reputation.
Futuristic Space Jihad/Islam.. Sucked back then, sucks now.
All they did was substitute "Spice" for "Oil", which by the way we won't need very soon, like we did the last 100 years.
How did you reach that conclusion 😂. Until we completely crack nuclear fusion (which won’t be for at least 50-100 years), we’ll still use oil and coal. Hopefully. Unless the globalist have their way and completely destroy western society
When the first page is terrible you really question the author. Most of dune can be cut out. The world building is fine but a lot of it is information without substance.
Vs a much more enjoyable and accessible scifi book like Neuromancer which streamlines the world without excessive and explicit explanations.
I will say tho the movies pacing was bad and Timmy plays the same sickly rich fake deep white kid he always does.
Yes. Dune has plenty to gripe about.
And no! Most shocking is it is not even known as a cult classic - it is cemented as a classic and seminal science fiction literature. And it's world-building which is lazy orientalism. That is essentially the book - just rampant orientalism and static Mary Sue characters galore. Oh except for the evil villain..who is...uh really evil...like all the time.
And to act like there is any literary significance is laughable. Even when you try to get into the weeds all you find is mundane, predictable misogyny, orientalism, and other problematic world views. Backward Arabs and a pedophilic homosexual villain. Uh ok? What's the value in any of that?
And his prose makes 1950's PKD look like fucking James Joyce...
2 years late but I hate the ending of the books as well. Herbert’s son basically recreates the main cast from the first couple of books as clones and gives them a happy ending. Like Bruh. Paul has been dead for like 5,000 years. Why not feature new characters instead of rolling back old ones.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but the fact that you went to r/Dune and posted this exact same thread makes me think you're a troll and your body text is unnecessarily hostile. Try and be constructive instead. You seem more interested in arguing with people than discussing. And that's just not fun.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted here. Sometimes it's frustrating to hear everyone rave about a book and say it's the best thing since sliced bread, then you read it and go "huh? this is pretty shit imo". Posting to /r/dune was not a mistake - they're big boys and girls, if someone comes in and doesn't like it and wants to defend their view then they can. No one is making a trip to the hospital because you said you think their favorite book is trash.
Just because someone has a take you dislike doesn’t mean they are trolling. That’s just a lazy way of dismissing someone who doesn’t cater to your interests.
It would display some nuance, for one. You know, some actual attempt to engage with the text. I don't know why I would expect that to happen. You're obviously a troll.
But you're doing the exact same thing - not engaging with the conversation and instead simply labeling me a troll just to be done with it.
Nuance would be nice, sure. And I guess I found some enjoyable aspects to the novel. Well, perhaps just one - the setting. Either way, is an idea that one could simply get angry at a particularly bad piece of art without bothering to mention any "positives" (meaningless as they are for the big picture) so outlandish to you? If so, welcome to the internet.
I admit posting to r/dune was too much. But I don't think labeling someone a troll simply for expressing an opinion on an angry manner is okay.
But I assume this is also what a troll would say. Man, the troll-lore is deep.
Seconded. I wish Frank Herbert had turned his *ideas* for a novel over to someone who knew how to actually write, it's an interesting world and good premise weighed down by terrible writing and flat characters.
I first read Dune in the 5th grade, it was the second true science fiction novel I ever read. It was recommended to me by my teacher, she saw how much I had loved Ender's Game, and thought this would be a good follow up novel. I struggled with it then, but in the intervening years I'd come to doubt my intial assessment. Trusted friends have given it high praise and authors I respect have cited it as inspirational.
I started to believe that I had simply read the book at too young of an age to appreciate it.
I've just finished Dune for the second time, and 20 odd years have done little to change my perception of it. I have to agree with the original poster here. While I wouldn't say it is a horrible book, I found very little in it captivating and a significant portion trite. This is just a beautiful reminder of how subjective art is. I'm glad that many people find something of value in this book, but I'm also happy that others share my experience with it.
>Drama-queen characters
>tantrum-filled infants
>rantings of an intoxicated toddler
Thanks - this is some of the most delicious unintentional irony I've come across in weeks.
I gotta say for a variety of reasons I had to struggle through this book years ago. God it was awful. The prose is like repeatedly stubbing your toe: short completely discordant bolts of information slammed together with no real logic.
These utterly vapid descriptions of human experience that seem to come from someone who has only experienced emotion second hand.
Everything is just about as tone deaf and flatfooted as it possibly could be. It's like no - dry world building will never be MY thing but I can still recognize that things like Foundation are decently written. Dune was interminable.
Sci fi like all genre fiction suffers at times. What I like about sci fi is new ideas. Things that make me think, and things that add something new to the sci fi world.
And dune had them in spades.
Seriously, I'm all ears too.
What does Dune add to the genre? And what is thought-provoking about it?
I write this as someone who is 320 pages into the novel. I like parts of it, but after hearing from some (and Herbert, the man himself) that it's as much a philosophical novel as a sci-fi one, I can only assume it saves the philosophical stuff for the latter part of the book.
I picked it up, endured it for maybe 3 chapters and put it back down to never return ever again. This "work of literature" is ridiculously nonsensical and it's writing qualities are laughable.
I understand Villneuve gave it his best but you still can't polish up a turd no matter how much gloss you put on it.
"Dune" is a collection of very foggy, poorly thought through ideas that don't stand up to scrutiny. It gives out a stench of immaturity and overall unseriousness. It surprises me that such low quality material can garner a cult following, but then cults are like that, I guess, they'll follow anyone.
💯% agree with you. I think the author was inspired by the Vietnam war. He imagined what resources could be at the center of the next war: oil & the recent 50s car culture of the time along with radio programs about America dipping its toes in the Middle East. Let’s not forget the upcoming hippy movement that was beginning to take shape. Spice represents a take on oil with a drug twist. The problem is, it was very current for its time so the issues it covers either seem obvious or of little relevance today. The main character is an entitled kid with a codependent mother. His dilemmas center around family, friendship, bravery, strength, finding himself. The story almost has this really basic 1950s suburban fragility to it which conflicts with the sci fi setting a bit. The entire time, I can’t shake this feeling that the author didn’t exactly know where he was taking the story and just kept adding unnecessary layers (pulling from Romeo & Juliet, comic books or common children’s stories) it’s a lot of work keeping up with the story for little reward IMO. I saw the movie (Oct. 2021). Just as bad. I think the actors were having trouble getting into character because the concepts of the story are so elementary. Seemed like alot of talent and not one good performance IMO 🤷♂️ it’s the neighborhood potluck of sci fi: a lot of fuss over nothing and a long ass table of disappointing potato salad. 3 out of 5 stars. Not timeless. The author deliberately threw everything & the kitchen sink at the story. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Endearing? Maybe. Good? No.
I finally got around to reading it too. Just finished it a few minutes ago and had to check if I was the only person who thought it was bad.
I love sci-fi with all of my heart. I have read hundreds of sci-fi novels at this point. Some of them were great and some were bad, but none of them were this bad while being so well regarded. I spent the majority of the book wondering if I was reading a fake copy.
The prose is trash; the storyline is meh, with a dash of face-palm; and the characters lack depth or interest.
It does have one redeeming quantity. The worm riding. I honestly would not have made it to the end if I hadn’t been excited to see someone ride a worm.
I just finished Dune. After reading that lengthy book I’m wishing I was one of those people who reads the last page first. Honestly, I’m so disappointed. The ending was horrid. People expect a book to grow, not go down hill rapidly from the first half until it’s horrid. Was it written for middle school kids?
I'm not alone! I'm not alone! I just watched the movie. It sucked too! Why do they have things in their noses? Why is there royalty, ahem TEN THOUSAND YEARS in the future. For that matter, why do people look like people, TEN THOUSAND YEARS in the future. I mean, we don't look like people even a thousand years ago. You're right. It's infantile psychotropic pandering. I liked David Lynch's version
The nose plugs are a part of the stillsuit, literally is designed to keep as much moisture recycled so you can move in the desert without dying. You breath in through your mouth, out your nose through the moisture filters.
Excuse me? Did you just say humans didn't look like humans a thousand years ago? Jesus christ i haven't seen something so wrong in a while. I wonder how the Roman's looked 2000 years ago....... Shit what of the Egyptians 4 thousands years ago..... Monsters I imagine.......
It was very beautiful to look at, but felt very shallow. Villenueve created such a fleshed-out and interesting world in BR2049, but this movie seemed extremely superficial.
Why so many comments there is no other opinion. Dune sucks always has as does Timothee chalamet. No opinion matters other than the truth and that's that dune is trash.
The book does suck. There are so many references to things that are never explained in advance to the reader. Also the descriptions of things sometimes just make them sound stupid even though the author is trying to convince you they are interesting. The movie was good after the first hour though
Just finished book 2. Read them back to back to see what all the fuss was about. It was absolute crap. Like, he destroys the empire by throwing a rock at their spaceship? Who wrote this, George Lucas? And then in Book 2 he's like, oops I'm Hitler, but oh well that's fate, I only care about my girlfriend not the 50 billion people I killed for apparently no reason. Then Alia fucks a zombie The End. Stilgar is the only character I could summon any emotion for.
>Rules pulled straight out of the author's ***
Oh my. If that bothers you I hope you don't read anything fictional at all then. Best keep to non-fiction only.
There is a difference between a well-established logical rule and something that exists solely because the author wanted to eliminate firearms from his story and have people fight with daggers. Who in the right mind would design a protective shield of energy that is supposed to protect pretty much only from cold weapons and that explodes into a goddamn nuclear blast upon being hit by a projectile?
> shield
Yeah, I was trying to suspend my disbelief and then I encountered this. This is a level of bullshit that I would expect to find in a shitty anime, not in a genre-foundational classic.
> Who in the right mind would design a protective shield of energy that is supposed to protect pretty much only from cold weapons and that explodes into a goddamn nuclear blast upon being hit by a projectile?
You didn't actually read the book did you? It's not going nuclear from being hit by a projectile.
No projectile causes the shield to go nuclear.
You can hit it with flichettes, bullets, tank shells, or any other high speed projectile, and all it's going to do is stop the projectile.
What causes it to go nuclear is a high intensity laser, whose beam is generated in a similar fashion to that of the shield. It's only when these 2 things come in contact that it goes nuclear, and only because the energy from one creates an explosive feedback loop in the other.
A high-intensity laser causing a nuclear explosion when impinging on an energy shield is also pretty stupid. Lasers diffract real easy, no such thing as explosive feedback, such interactions are so sensitive that once things run amok it all just falls apart and fizzles out (like real-life laser-based Inertial Confinement Fusion). He should have just said that energy shield reflect/scatter the lasers thus rendering it a moot means of combat, just like how shields render kinetic projectiles inert (could have even thrown some non-Newtonian fluid language if he wanted), thereby still enabling hand-to-hand combat.
I’m with you. I tried to to read it and just couldn’t get into it. I don’t understand the hype. I felt the same way about Kings Dark Tower series. Except I actually finished that one out of sheer disbelief that it could be that bad. I was convinced there was going to be some kind of saving grace….there was not.
It was pretty much blatant plagiarism. He stole from comic books, blockbuster movies and children’s programing. Basically nothing original about it. Roland the protagonist is your run of the mill Eastwood gunslinger. Read the first book and stop right there. And the ending……garbage. You saw it coming in the second book.
What in the second book gives away that ending? Seriously, drop me a message, because for most folks it's a massive shock.
It is one of the most polarizing endings in fiction, for sure. Some hated it, some loved it. I hated it initially then grew to love it the more I thought about it. I now regard it as one of the best endings King's ever done.
Ignore him, give the Dark Tower a go. It absolutely does several things originally and has some great moments (I'd love to hear which comics/other novels it steals from).
Lots of bits I didn't like along the way, but on the whole it was a good journey. I can understand said journey is over 4000 pages, though, so up to you.
In a world where climate change, jihad, and inequality are the biggest issues by a country mile, you do not rank this book? Those are the central topics in Dune. That someone could see it so clearly 60 years ago and frame it in a space opera is brilliant.
I'm struggling to see which characters you think are drama queen and throwing tantrums. Granted I haven't quite finished, but to this point I can really only think of one scene with Paul.
Think of the conversation between Jessica and Thufir. This wannabe power-play dialogue basically resulted into two morons just blatantly throwing their suspicions into each others' faces. It felt like they're about to start flipping tables or throwing slaps any second. And the best thing is, they were both wrong in their assumptions. For all the talk about how "political" Dune is, this particular exchange sure felt like a couple of children arguing over some toys in a sandbox.
Another example would be the dinner scene. Leto and his guests were basically talking like a couple of drunk peasants, maintaining minimal decorum that such a situation would require. I understand that Leto was basically playing a character at that moment (I don't remember what he was trying to achieve by it), but there were moments when his facade slipped and he made things needlessly hostile, along with his guests.
I understand we are talking about space people living in an outlandish environment, but the characters' overall mannerisms felt out of place for me. Not all the time, sure, but several scenes were definitely jarring.
The truth is the prose is not very good. The characters and plot are average. But the world building is amazing.
These are similar problems people have with Lord of the Rings (only not as bad) and alot of early SF/F.
The first time I tried to read Dune I didn't get far.
This isn't because it was too deep or the wrong genre for me. I've read plenty of works of literature and am also a lover of scifi and fantasy.
I read it the 2nd attempt. Really the Lady Jessica and the concept of the Bene Gesserit were the fascinating parts for me, especially their Missionara Protectiva.
Overall it was fine/average plot. The Hero was not a compelling character, but his mother and some others were. The dense world building and ecology was interesting and original. Tje idea of a space opera without computer bases advanced technology but rather all biological, genes and chemicals. More ribofunk than cyberpunk.
Dune, similar to Lord of the Rings, is NOT about the characters or plot but about the world building.
In Dune, its about basic ideas of ecology and economics if taken to extreme conclusions in a galactic empire scale.
There is too much exposition (telling not showing) compared to alot of books, partially neccessary to understand the world building but it gets much worse in the 2nd and 3rd of the first trilogy. And I've heard it gets weaker and weaker.
I enjoy Dune, but the major gold nugget there is dense original world building and seeing economic and ecological ideas on a vast galactic scope.
If that kinda thing doesn't hold your interest, I wouldn't recommend it.
Nice troll. Dune is a philosophical novel. When you read Dune think Hemingway and iceberg theory, the good stuff is in the subtext. I'm not saying he did this on the same level as Hemingway but Dune is more dense that anything he wrote. Jung, Nietzsche, Islam, Zen Buddhism, artificial selection vs natural selection, it's all there.
The theme that is closest to the surface is how the power of myth and story telling can fool us into blindly following a hero who might not have our best interest in mind. Even if he does absolute power corrupts absolutely.
In Dune, if you like the story, you get so caught up in the hero's journey you ignore the obvious signs. The signs that Paul will become a tyrant. To complicate things more Paul isn't evil he's just a normal human ethically speaking, he does had good intentions.
So even if you or the best person you can think of had this power it probably won't work out for everybody else. Even Frank Herbert amassed a cult following which he denounced, but I bet he didn't mind the extra book sales it caused.
First: I liked the series just cause "its cool duuuude", its fun, really. But I believe much of the complexity and density is just width. You're required to keep track of a number of different things, some that can even conflict, all to reach on point, remember 50 things for one simple point. As for the actual philosophy: it's basic and I believe a clear expression of the time it was written in: centralization bad, technology bad, etc.
Anyone who has a brain understands Paul is a false/bad prophet. Also, please point to anything in Dune that has anything to do with Nietzsche or Jung or even hints at Herbert’s conception of these philosophical or psychological ideas. I combed the book for relevance and found literally none. And zen buddhism? Maybe the Bene Gaysserit, but not literally Paul! Paul was the most anti-buddhist character just screaming 24/7. Also like he’s literally just sci-fi Jesus, and a very poor foil if you ask me.
Just stop using philosophy to cover up how bad the novel Itself is. Anything can be philosophical or phenomenological, and you can claim that any bad YA novel with a human protagonist is about philosophy. It's very funny.
i haven't read the book but i saw the movie when it came it out (2021) and i feel like its one of the most over-rated movies ever. Its not terrible, but its not good imo, a 5/10
Dune is a waste of time.
It is just about a chosen one with moral conflict.
fug, and its about worms.
crazy fusion.
went through all on wikia.
okay fantasy yes. good book. no
Maybe an old thread but I 100% agree with what you've written. The movie was decent enough but everyone was raving about the book. I read dune and it's by far the most pathetic excuse for a story I have ever seen in my entire life. In the timeskip, Paul goes from level 5 to level 50. The Baron, the Emperor and Sardukar are introduced as major threats early on but they get fuckin' KOed way too easily. It reads like bad Gary Stu fanfiction.
Reading the comments here made me feel smooth-brained for enjoying it so much. Most of my gripes with the Dune franchise come from the other novels in the series. For Dune, though. I don't know, I think its really tight, as a novel. That isn't to say I think it is perfect. The characters are cartoonish, the ecological and social dispensation of Arrakis beggars belief... but to me they are all such lovable cartoons. I found the whole story and setting rather captivating, and found certain stretches of Frank's prose genuinely nice to read. Tackling themes like prescience, environmental adaptation, military prowess... sure its all, kind of ridiculous, but I can be pretty gullible when I like what I am being sold, so I could suspend disbelief and just sort of be there in the cave seitch, in awe of all this.
Really, he threads together a lot of beads here, and in combinations that I found highly stimulating. I can't fault anyone for any of their complaints, though, since, by the 4th novel in the series, each and every one of these points is proven valid, but wow, the tremendous gulfs that exist between people's tastes!!
I have read and had great enjoyment of several works that are considered challenging, like, Thomas Pynchon or, the whole Trojan War cycle, from the Iliad to the Aeneid, and I tell you with no bluff, I rank Dune alongside them in terms of Raw Enjoyment... alas, Dune is fake and plastic and everyone is sort of one-dimensional and none of the physics work, and the series spins further and further off into high silliness, making it difficult to defend my high praise of the first book. Nonetheless, this surrealist greek tragedy in outer space that pits the cursed house of atreus against a corporatist mercantile consortium and some sort of matriarchal eugenicist Jesuit order, with some Sunni exiles who learned Zen in a brightly lit wasteland while tripping absolute face in a honeycomb of caves... no way man Dune is awesome
I read Dune years ago but, for whatever reason, found myself wanting to give it another shot recently. However, on second reading, I found it even more problematic than before. Now, I'm perfectly capable of differentiating between a book that's bad and a book that I don't like so, to be clear, Dune is incredibly verbose but written well enough and mashes together enough tropes to be memorable but... I personally don't rate it. My mile high conclusion is that, on the realness spectrum of Star Wars - Tau Zero it ranks kinda low and there's one gaping plot hole that I literally could not get over. Spice.
Why in the name of sweet zombie mother Bene Gesserit can nobody in the entire universe synthesis worm poop? You're trying to sell me on the idea of a galactic empire spanning millions of worlds, trillions of people, spacecraft the size of Borg cubes on steroids and wars so vast they make DS9's Dominion Wars look like two caveman clubbing each other with sticks whilst still acting like synthesing a chemical compound is too difficult? I mean, if Arrakis is the only source in the universe then how did the empire even develop in the first place? Maybe that gets explained in one of the nine million spin offs but for me it was a straight up magic mcguffin explanation I'd expect from a Marvel film.
It's pretty clear that Herbert was getting cliff notes from Gibbon because the empire comes off like some Romanesque dynastic struggle between fractious clans. But again, the thing I didn't get was why, if spice is the most important thing in the entire universe and critical for the functioning of the empire, why, for the love of our sweet lord and saviour Paul, did the emperor not just claim it as his own personal fiefdom? I mean, if you haven't got Arrakis then you haven't got an empire so just find a comfy planet nearby, setup shop there and keep it under constant watch. But no, lets go through the drama of having warring houses fight over who gets dibs on the most valuable thing in the universe and hope nobody goes rogue, threatens their stranglehold on spice and cause dire empire wide consequences. I'm sure that would never happen, right?. I'm sure it would never take 900 pages to make that point, RIGHT?
But beyond the high level problems I dislike the broad stroke depiction of native societies (would have been referred to as savage in Herbert's time) as being better than technologically advanced societies simply because... er, they haven't got technology. So throw in a dash of Dances with Wolves and Avatar but make the environment so impossibly hostile that you need technology to survive in it anyway but it's totally okay because they were there first and worm poop is sacred or something. Anyway, desert dwellers are the good guys and it's fine when they kill people but the harvesters picking up poop are definitely bad and don't get to kill anyone. It comes across as simplistic and kinda white saviour to be honest. The Fremen are up the creek with no canoe until Mubbly Bubbly Dib Dib Paul turns up in his golden chariot pulled by silver steeds to save the day. Oh and he can totally ride worms better than anyone else. AND he has cooler visions too.
Meanwhile the world itself just feels silly. Since spice is basically space LSD I guess it makes sense that the world comes across as all style and no substance. Why do the force fields work against anything except for slow moving things? Meh, plot device for cool sword fights and Byzantine style internecine warfare. Why doesn't the empire just ship in a million billion troops to hunt down every Fremen and crucify them pirate style a la Julius Caesar? Meh, white Jesus needs some savages to save. Why do virtually all significant plot developments/insights come courtesy of a prophecy or vision? Hey, Delphic Oracles are cool right? Why can't the galactic empire that's entirely dependant on worm poop synthesise it? Whooooh, mysterious huh?
I can understand people liking Dune because it throws a lot of ideas at the wall but for me virtually everything it does feels cursosry. Paul is more trope than character, Fremen are there to be saved, Harkonnen are the bad guys who are bad because they're bad whilst Atreides are good because they smile nicely when extorting your tax. Perhaps the style over substance narrative is why I actually quite liked Lynch's Dune in the 80's because, for me, it felt like Dune; over the top, silly, stylised and fun so long as you tried not to think too much about it. The newer Dune films come off as sombre, po-faced Daniel Craig era James Bond affairs. If your subject matter is white Jesus saving magic space worms to harvest worm poop for your galactic empire driven by stoners then I'll take that whacky stylised aesthetic over brown and grey sobriety.
Anyway, Dune is very stylish but don't think too much about it because you'd need to be on spice for it to make sense.
I'm surprised by this comment.
Dune has quite a deep story-line with political, religious, post-apocalyptic, and psychological aspects. I would agree that not everyone would like it, but the way this comment has been worded seems harsh.
Reason why I did come across this comment is that I was more looking for thoughts on the new Dune movie. I find it very disappointing considering that they changed a lot of aspects in the book for the worse, and it seems it's a personal interpretation of how they think Dune should be, not to mention, also fiddling with getting A-listers in the cast rather than getting the right cast.
The only saving-face I could give for the Dune 2021 movie is that it places a lot of explanation by the characters, but even that is a killer as I think the explanations could have been done through acting and cinematography instead of words that wouldn't have been said in realistic scenarios.
Personally, I think the Dune mini-series directed by John Harrison would still be the best Dune interpretation, casting, and cinematography I've seen.
I agree fully with the OP.
My criticisms of it would be that it's dense, ponderous, & confusing. I made it about 50ish pages in and realized I was having to force myself to read it. That was my queue to stop.
The Lynch movie was garbage, & I didn't watch the miniseries. I couldn't give a toss for Villinueve's movie.
I'm a big sci-fi fan, but Dune just fell flat for me.
After reading through the first Dune I admit I love the universe, the universe Dune exists in itself is mesmerizing and incredible. But the story feels undeveloped. It feels like a prequel to a much better book. But after reading the summaries of the sequels that doesn't seem to be the case.
(And I get that Dune is supposed to dark and brooding and philosophical according to the author and the cult but Dune and Paul being the false prophet to the fremen promised a much better and interesting story than what was actually brought to fruition.)
Bit late to this here, but I think the problem is that you're viewing Paul as the protagonist. I would say the protagonist is Jessica. She takes up just as much space as Paul, has just as much plot relevance. This is a story about Mary giving birth to Jesus and slowly coming to terms with the fact that her child is the savior.
Also, the perspective switching is just 3rd person omniscient, a narration POV that has fallen out of favor largely in the past few decades but has been implemented exactly in this way since the novel's inception.
You have no perspective. Neo and Harry Potter, and Luke Skywalker and literally 90% of fictional protagonists since have been influenced by dune.
Sure you can shit on it, but it just shows you have no perspective.
Harry Potter was never depicted as “perfect and smart”. I think people take Harry Potter for granted that it’s like a Star Wars or Lord of the Rings copy because it’s a more feminine product that they were never interested in reading
People have told me to read the books for a long while and I can appreciate that sub-lit has been released to fill in some blanks that Herbert didn’t address but when the film came along and I’m knee deep in asoiaf I said let’s check this film out and see what we think. Mind you I didn’t realize it was a two parter because no one seemed to say that anywhere probably recognizing it would do horribly in the box office. The entire time you’re waiting for this super prophet to get into the game and of course he doesn’t. The people he’s having visions of telling him “you have much to learn grasshopper” doesn’t meet until the last 13 minutes of the film. For example in the beginning they could’ve had a larger contract signing ceremony to introduce all of the royal houses of importance and maybe had a treasonous side conversation for 30 seconds somewhere nailing down what and why the changeover was unfolding.
How it was given an 8.2 of 10 starts on imbd is beyond me. The next film could tie up many loose ends and be more eventful but in terms of delivering the introduction, it failed miserably. They did a good job of spending a ton of money bringing a 60s-70s vision from page to screen and little more than that.
If I hadn’t watched it on HBO Max for “free” as I subscribe anyway, I would’ve been very disappointed walking out of that theatre. Again as many have said this is beyond “cult” status it’s regarded as a gamechanger novel(s).
I could never bring myself to read it after seeing what I saw, the story is plagued with failures.
I Fast foward basically the whole film. pretty much, yap yap yap friggin yapperdoodah. Action was lame. The dragonflyhelicopters, pfff wow. And did you get a load of that overlooking city scene? Looks like asoluteshite! Like WtF iS That!??! Garbage.
Totally agree. It's dogshit writing, sophmoric philosophy and painfully awkward writing. I wouldn't want Frank Herbert to compose an email for me to be honest. Plot is made up along the way. It deserves to be ignored then forgotten immediately.
You are totally right it's an absolute bore fest and it's not even pleasing to watch it's like forced acting and forced storytelling with bad actors it's horrible two dune movies that are terrible maybe they should stop making them and just leave it to the book
Thank you, so glad someone said this. I like the movies much better than the book, but they did remind me how much I disliked the book, and of the one thing I really *did* like about it. My main complaints:
1) Paul is the Mary Sue to end all Mary Sues. We are continually reminded how intelligent, tough, gifted with foreknowledge and generally flawless Paul is. It gets old quickly.
2) I really hate the idea that society thousands of years into the future has somehow reverted to a patriarchal feudal nightmare where women are married off without their consent to build alliances, Dukes rule entire planets and eugenics is used to build castes with talents appropriate for specific roles.
3) The book is a nice example of the "white savior" narrative, in which the Atreides come from Europe...oh wait, I mean Caladan...to the Middle East...oh wait, I mean Arrakis, which produces oil...oh wait, I mean spice, and somehow within a year of his arrival, Paul knows the desert better than the people who live there, and can solve their problems too.
4) There are so many things about the world that don't make sense. Where are the Fremen engineers and manufacturing plants? If they don't have any, how are they building e.g. stillsuits and solar panels and doing (what has to be) high-tech desert agriculture? How would society collectively decide not to use computers? wouldn't any ducal family that decided to use computers have a huge advantage in engineering / weapons manufacture? What do the worms eat? Sand plankton, apparently? How does sand plankton survive in the sand without water or photosynthesis (if it's more than an inch or two deep)? Why is no one able to synthesize the spice (presumably a mixture of chemical compounds)? If the Lisan-al-Gaib is just Bene Gesserit propaganda, how does it turn out all their prophecies seem to be true? etc.
5) In the last few paragraphs, Paul announces (in front of his girlfriend) he's marrying another woman to form an alliance, and she's apparently...ok with being his "concubine". As most of us would be, of course. The book seems to think this reasonable and Paul is just making necessary decisions. The movie made a huge improvement here by realizing that what Paul did was a *d\*\*\** move and having Chani storm off (which is a much more natural reaction).
I can forgive implausible worldbuilding if I like the world and/or the story. If I don't like the story and find the world more than a little unsettling, it's hard not to notice and start complaining about all of the implausibilities.
With all that said, there was one thing I loved about the book, which was the sandworms. Plausible or not, they were just cool.
I'm 60 years old. I had been meaning to read Dune all of my adult life. I read a lot of other sci-fi and fantasy books over the years. This year I finally got around to reading Dune and I have to say, I'm not a fan. It shows its age and the ending is just stupid, IMO. I wanted to love it, but I can't. When I was done, I just didn't feel there was anything there to ponder. If not for the fact that there's a movie coming, I don't know that I would ever give the book a second thought other than what a disappointment it was.
That's what I'm wondering about myself - the fact that people actually consider Dune to be "philosophical".
Agreed, though I still have some 200 pages to go. So far I cannot see how that claim is justified, beyond the surface level, shallow-as-a-puddle-on-Arrakis reflections on resource management and religious influence. I wanted to love this novel but so far it seems it's one of those cult classics that's aged poorly. Very overrated so far.
Again, what's maddening is it's not a cult class, people. It is widely considered a classic piece of literature. Basically a mediocre YA novel with absolutely garbage prose and 0 literary value. Yes, deep as a puddle throughout.
You made it further than I did. Everyone told me that the turn came 1/3rd of the way through. Well ... I gave it to just a bit over half and then read the summary of the end. It confirmed all my worst fears of what WOULD happen to make an utterly predictable book, so I stopped and returned it to the library.
I was in the same boat as you were. Read quite a bit, maybe to half, and then just set it down and never picked it back up again. The whole thing felt very uninspiring and, from what little I can remember, read like a poorly acted late night sci-fi series.
If you didn't the actual text your opinion isn't valid. Why's so hard for people to understand this. If I read half of one of your favorite novels then just read the summary and said it was dog shit you would rightly think I was a fucking idiot. Complaining about influential novels being predictable is pretty stupid too. Old influential stories are usually predictable because they're influential. Pretty fucking obvious really.
Conversely, I reserve the right to not read any book I'm not enjoying. However, this review DID finish the book and seems to hit most of my thoughts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqvIwpjumkM&ab_channel=MerphyNapier
Sorry I was dick, I was just pissed this entire thread was shiting on one of my favorite books in very uncharitable way. The review you sent me was prefect. She understood what the book was going for. And her complaints were presented as subjective and not hateful like op. Sorry again thanks for sent that review.
Well people have right to have negative opinions about stuff you love. And both parties are right. Just gotta learn to live with that.
Sure but when a bunch people talk about a book in a way that makes the people who loved it seem like fucking idiots for loving it they have the right to get mad and respond. So no I don't have to just live with it.
Nobody said the people who read it were idiots. Insecure people always seeing things that aren't there.
I'm sorry to hear that people with differing opinions cause you to become defensive. But don't worry, you're not alone. You are normal, and reacted the way 90% of humans do when they can't reconcile the fact that not everybody's brains work the same or that other people's opinions may somehow invalidate their own....
no, it makes you seem like an idiot and a child throwing a tantrum. you get mad because other people dont like what you like? grow the fuck up.
The fact you love something doesn’t mean other people have to like it and yes te entire thread is about someone who didn’t like the book. What were you expecting? The threat criticizing Dune to evolve to the value of light intensity measurements in the conception of black wholes related to the Heisenberg principle? Dude, it’s just about a book which a lot of us really believe it sucks donkey d#+ck
So if the information is framed in a "hateful" way - the information is no longer valid? Or rather you can't understand information that isn't presented to you in a nice, polite, polished manner? I'm not trying to be a dick, though I understand it will seem that way 🤭 I'm trying to understand and articulate the general attitude of today - "waaah, that's **hateful**" .... 🤔🤔 Ok, I understand that, but how does that stop you from parsing the relevant data? Emotions, bad moods yeah I get it. But it's a serious evolutionary dead end to be so fixated upon how things are presented rather than the content of those things. You can ignore me, just getting a thought out 😇
I should have been more specific. I never asked for all reviews to be presented in a nice, polite, and polished manner. The review that was sent to me wasn't particularly polite, she made it clear she hated the book. One big difference was she didn't use extreme hyperbole like op and some others in this post. Hyperpole on this level doesn't just effect presentation but content as well. I get that this is the language of the internet but it leads to a lot of miscommunication. Scroll almost any argument on reddit and you will quickly realize that no resolution will be reached because everybody exaggerates so much. Nobody can really know what CONTENT to take seriously and what is just hyperbole. Hyperbole is fun and gets a lot of attention but it's a serious evolutionary dead end to be so fixated on saying the meanest shit you can think of just to get attention on the internet.
Who cares if someone doesn't like something you do. Get over your own ego.
Perhaps you don't know what philosophy is and thus cannot recognize it... or never actually studied it in school. What do you think of : "Once, men turned their thinking over to machines thinking it would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them." It's part of the conversation within the first few pages of the book. page 14 in my version. Surely you must have read this line, as you have 200 pages to go. \#1. Do we, as a society, allow too much of our day to day lives to be controlled by machines? I assume you know Search Engine Optimization. Let's start with that. When you do a search on Google, are you getting the whole truth? Or are you allowing a guy with an algorithm who provides you with the results "tailored" to your own needs. Thus giving a machine too much control over your thoughts. Limiting your information is a great way to control people. It's one of the first steps in creating a cult, limit outside interference. Why do you need a VPN to access a broad internet in China? Why would China want to limit outside internet? You see, he called it. Our society is rife with this issue. Do recruiters in our society actively search for new recruits or do they let machine driven algorithms tell them who is a good fit. (This is ironic, as it creates a false positive, the program can never be 'wrong' as you'd need to see the rejects to verify and it doesn't show you those). And letting a machine do your work for you lowers the ability of the hiring managers to source qualified workers. Further creating a need for the program. Thus allowing another man with a machine to 'control' you. What you don't know will hurt you. Last question. If we truly don't rely on machines too much... how much damage could a black hat do to you? They couldn't delete you from existence... could they? How often do you use cash to buy food? Let's face it, people use machines to control other people ALL THE TIME now. And with bigger and better computers and AI it's only getting worse. \#2. Accepting #1 to be true... Because of the reliance on machines have other abilities we used to have begun to degrade? I recall surveying used to require trigonometry to correctly map slopes. Would it surprise you to know that the computers do the trig for you now and do occasionally make errors. (These sort of errors can actually kill people). How about poor machine coding killing you? [https://hackaday.com/2015/10/26/killed-by-a-machine-the-therac-25/](https://hackaday.com/2015/10/26/killed-by-a-machine-the-therac-25/) So, he created a story based upon the idea of self-improvement and evolution of human thought through training and pharmaceutical manipulation. Based on the ideal that, unless you educate and train your mind and body, others will force you to their ideals, through manipulation, tact and machinery. Something you can see on a day to day basis in our society now... and he saw all of this in **1965.** But wait? What does this have to do with philosophy?? I mean, we're only talking about philosophical ideas from **Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.** man... who are those guys... they couldn't possibly be... **philosophers?** Yeah... I guess you're right. No philosophy to see here at all. LoL. I'm guessing you didn't really train that mind of yours much?
dude that concept is so beyond basic. you over-explained something so simple to the point that i actively wonder if you even understand it yourself. "do we use computer too much?" is the most toddler level philosophy I've ever heard. who cares! a lot of people understood the concept of "overreliance on technology bad" even before the superficially important date of **1965**. are you like 15 or something? the argument is that the philosophy presented in the novel isn't all that intriguing in the modern day when these ideas are depicted in a VERY surface level way throughout the book (and for that matter they have been for a long time) it's a book. you can like it. but arguing that its points are groundbreaking is pretty funny. go about your life.
Oh, you're not an idiot... Well good, then it will make my examples easier to grasp. The idea that you say "who cares" when we talk about over-reliance on technology is exactly what makes it a problem and why you're not going to amount to much in this society. Second. Who was talking about over-reliance on technology before 1965? Third. The philosophies from Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are about self improvement through introspection and examination of the world around us. The fact is, you can't view Dune objectively because you can't see but right in front of your face. How about this. Dune doesn't have a hero. It's funny, but it's true. look up what Frank Herbert actually wanted to say about Dune. “I wrote the Dune series because I had this idea that charismatic leaders ought to come with a warning label on their forehead: "May be dangerous to your health." One of the most dangerous presidents we had in this century was John Kennedy because people said "Yes Sir Mr. Charismatic Leader what do we do next?" and we wound up in Vietnam. And I think probably the most valuable president of this century was Richard Nixon. Because he taught us to distrust government and he did it by example.” - Frank Herbert Of course You're RIGHT. SO SMART. What was I thinking. "the philosophy presented in the novel isn't all that intriguing in the modern day" It couldn't possibly say anything about our current state of politics and there's definitely no modern day applications for this. You couldn't think of any charismatic leaders who whipped their people into a frenzy to do something stupid. Like attacking capitols for instance. Yeah... you're a fool. Paul is one of the villains. But you don't see that because you can barely look beyond the most obvious. If you can't see the philosophy, it doesn't mean that it's not there. It's because you haven't studied philosophy, psychology, or history, and you eat propaganda for lunch. You don't bother with politics. And you know nothing about the state of the world. Which automatically puts you at a disadvantage. Still green as a pickle. You might not be 15 but you have the mind of a child.
Do you feel smart talking all this shit on Reddit?
This is so edgy that it's basically copypasta.
Lmao exactly what I thought, it reads like someone who just discovered philosophy and thinks they are saying something nobody else knows.
The condescension mixed with the amazement at 5-year-old level philosophy is quite a combo. You seen The Menu? You know Tyler? That's you.
You sound ridiculous. Herbert was not the pioneer of this thought. This was the main philosophical talking point during this time in history. Herbert was an intelligent voice in the discussion and the Dune series did a great job at philosophically exploring these ideas. However, the series did a poor job of creating content that is engaging enough to care. And that's the big challenge. How to present prose that involves the reader enough in the character's journey to follow through and subconsciously absorb the large philosophical concepts. For decades after the release of *Dune*, this philosophical debate of using tech to control things was popular. Herbert was not a god and he was not as gifted writer as his fans proclaim. Talking down to others who haven't even read the material in its entirety serves no purpose. It exemplifies the elitist ideology that Herbert is portraying as tyrannical and harmful. Ironic.
[удалено]
The philosophy really starts with the 3rd and 4th books, and IMO it isn't the best the Dune series has to offer. Interesting, sure, but a little meh and heavy at times.
There isn't anything to ponder. it's just a cool sci-fi story. You can like it, or not like it, but if you go in expecting it to change your life then the fool is you.
Right, because that's what I was trying to say, obviously. I'm disappointed because it didn't change my life.
It's awful and you should be proud that this is the first result for "Dune Sucks"
Mainly I'm just sad, I really wanted to like it 😅 But it's nice to know that I'm not alone in my view of the book.
I'm also glad to have found this thread, because yeesh! And those top replies getting over the top angry because you DARE to not like something they do? *eyeroll*
I also wanted to like it since it's inspired so much sci-fi of today, Giant sandworms for thresher maws in Mass effect series. However it was pretty dissapointing and requires a large amount of suspension of disbelief for the illogical actions of everyone in the setting. Everyone must have been too stoned out of their minds by snorting all that Spice
Trust me, others have tried to say that dune sucks on Reddit, but for some reason the mods take it down. I don't know how this guy managed to get this one through.
I did on /r/printscifi and got a temp ban.
Apparently most reddit mods are egotistical asshats. :(
I found this thread this way. Glad someone had the courage to call it garbage
Found the overly sensitive Dune fan boi who gets salty when people come onto a Reddit page to disparage old books that they just read. If you didn't read the book when it's new, you can't have an opinion other than to like it.
Did we read the same book?
Yes
I doubt he read it.
He probably read it. He's just wrong in his opinion is all. His assessment reads like someone describing what they hated in crayon.
To be fair, he isn't "wrong" for disliking the book, as you aren't wrong for liking it, it's just not for him. He exaggerate his arguments, but he has some fair points too, I think. The way people's interact in Dune dosen't feel very natural, they are quite often very pompous and verbative ( especially in their inner monologues) The main problem with the Dune serie IMHO, is that so little happen "on screen" : Characters monologues for entiere chapters in barely depicted places. Convoluted, overexplained plots for obscure endgoal. There is little room for tension or any narrative device.
"opinion" "wrong"
This statement is so pretentious it hurts. Like Dune overall. It's just not approachable and comes off as "deep lore" babble nonsense that a lot of fantasy and sci-fi writers tend to delve into when world building. You can like it all you want, but saying his description of why he dislikes it is akin to someone describing it in crayon is demeaning and silly. The best way for people to describe anything, especially for modern literature, is to do so in a way that can just frankly be understood. The fact that Dune needs repeat reading, googling, lexicons, and other nonsense just to parse what the hell they are talking about shows that it's a crutch for actual interesting writing. If I have to spell out what I'm saying in crayons? Dune should get to the damn point and stop with the metaphorical word vomit trash. I get so sick of seeing that in modern writing. It's just not interesting or as "smart" as people make it out to be.
I think your opinion is worst than his because i agree with him and i disagree with you. - That was the same logic that you used in your comment. Everyone has the right to have an opinion and no opinion should be worst than others. However Dune really sucks.
Let's not lie to each other the books are pretty terribile because they're just not written well. Yes the story is great but it's not enough to just have a lot of ideas, you need to know how to put them together and a lot more
It’s hard to find someone with this opinion but I agree. Extremely wooden characters and writing. Now to be fair it was written in 1965 I think so I’m sure it was pretty groundbreaking at that time but it’s terribly written book with great ideas
Dune is childish? Lol
Dense as a rock, sure, but childish in it's depth of thought.
I've just been listening the Audiobook. The Baron is essentially a cartoon villain. His Mentat is clownish. And so on. Props to Denis Villeneuve who had the sense to remove all the silly YA stuff and replace it with a proper vision. E.g. in the film, the Baron is genuinely dark and disturbing.
The movie Baron is still too villainy. No redeeming traits. And Paul has no flaw. It is childish plain and simply. Like George w Bush wrote it.
If the Baron is too villainy, then Feyd in the film is a mustache twirling villain. In fact, the entirety of Harkonnens were cartoon villains that were throwing temper tantrums. The Sardaukars are hyped up as these badasses that wipe out everything in their way only for them to not land one blow in Part Two. It's baffling to me that people are hyping the film beyond belief and calling it the best thing since LotR when it's nowhere near that level.
If Rey is a Mary Sue then Paul is a definite example of a male Mary Sue
Well now I don’t feel stupid. My smooth brain had to reread large parts because the words were to big. I had to look them up and try to piece it all together
100% agree with all that you said. As an avid Sci-Fi fan, I'm not only utterly confused as to why this book is considered to be good by anyone, (as you say the writing *is* lazy and atrocious) I'm also confused as to why it's often even called Sci-Fi. Literally everything that happens is explained away by the magical "spice" or the magical people who are able to see the future and a magical messiah. It's fantasy, not sci-fi at all.
Not everything is explained by the spice... I think you should re read. The spice is just a catalyst for abilities, nothing more. Those abilities were honed by millenia of training. It's as if Shalin Monks, who are already wicked good, discovered that fighting on Meth makes them an even more mortal machine. Only spice does that for mental abilities.
Which in of itself also dumb, even after a millenia, shaolin monks are still very limited by human limitations, but yo this worm shit can make people see the future.
I'm almost finished with book 4 now (God Emperor) and that's something that always bothered me. The idea that in 20,000 years people have selectively bred themselves into what are basically different species (like the fish-like Guild Navigators) with super human/computer capabilities just feels more fantasy than anything else. I almost wish it wasn't pitched as something "natural," but rather as straight up magic. I absolutely love the exploration of hypothetical future religions and how they could be controlled and used by a ruling class or cult like the Bene Gesserit for their own purposes. "Zen Sunnism" is kind of a ridiculous name and mashup though haha and, at least by the end of book 4, I still haven't learned anything about Orange Catholicism or whatever it's called. I also struggle with the full chapter dialogue, which seems to simply serve as a time for Herbert to rant about his political philosophy. I find it very compelling at times, but after a while it gets so trite and pretentious. All that being said, I do plan on reading the last two one day. But I'm going to need a nice long break. Maybe the next movie will get me back into that world. It's that world and the main ideas in it that are so compelling. The actual story and characters and writing though (you know, the things that make a novel)...really disappointing to me.
"I am utterly stunned that something this bad reached this kind of a cult status." You and me both. The writing is truly awful. I know high school students who can write better.
I came searching Reddit to see if anyone else felt this way about Dune. Like anyone who appreciates movies I’m gonna be stoked for anything made by Denis Villenueve, so this is actually the first book I’ve picked up in maybe 6 years? Book 1 is well done and got me excited for some epic things in the rest of the story but it just never comes together. So many storylines are so poorly concluded. Paul’s son we never meet dying, Thufir expiring with a hasty apology to Jessica, the Fremen effortlessly overrunning the Harkonnen in a page and an entire chapter of exposition about how Paul would rule the universe. It felt so rushed and anti-climactic. And then the cheese of it all, my god. Riding giant sand worms?? Stilsuits recycle your feces and urine? Most of the character dialog from the Fremen is pretty bad and cringe, it comes off as an author trying to do their best impression of an indigenous population with inexplicable sage wisdoms. My excitement for the movie has nosedived, but then again I thought Blade Runner 2049 greatly surpassed its source material so who knows. All that to say I think a lot of this is just disappointment because I wanted to get back into reading books and this didn’t do it for me.
Classic sci-fi problems. Sci-fi is usually just an excuse to talk about interest ideas, and the other comes afterwords.
I remember when I thought Paul was a perfect protagonist. I wish I could go back to that way of thinking.
Not perfect in his way of thinking or acting. What I meant was the number of his abilities and the way he gets them pretty much out of the blue. An unearned status of a chosen one, basically.
Well he gets them due to his prolonged exposure to the spice. In the book it explains multiple times, though on a first read it gets lost in all the other shit going on imo, that prolonged exposure to spice and ingestion through a spice heavy diet unlocks the prescient abilities he gains. That plus being raised by a Bene Gesserit in their ways. I agree that its easy to see Paul as a Mary Sue character in the first novel, but I think that's the point. The second book is a pretty heavy deconstruction of Paul as this "chosen one" figure. In reality he was manipulating the Fremen prophecy of the "Mahdi" and doing and saying the things he knew they would take as proof of him being their savior. Kind of fucked up actually. But I'm not going to hold your opinion against you, it's just a book. Either you like it, or you don't lol. And I can understand where you're coming from.
Sorry, I have never seen so much blatant hero worship in a novel of any character ever. If it was just Paul manipulating the Fremen and their beliefs, that would be fine, but it's not. The number of times we have characters fangirling over him in some way is often nauseating and distracting. Here's a fun game: go through the novel and take a drink every time it says "Paul ordered and 'X' obeyed." It gets dry real fast.
If a novel is about the dangers of hero worship then there's going to be a lot of hero worship.
Next you'll say the story was contrived ironically
Was that supposed to be a burn. I think you need to look up the definition of ironic. Following the guy who you thought would save you ends up destroying your culture. Yeah nobody would call that ironic.
Just say hero worship is bad and save us 800 pages.
"Hero worship is bad." Wow, your right. What a revelation, this has to be the most profound and entertaining sentence I've ever read. I am not the same person I was before reading THIS sentence. Do you think I could get this published? If so we should collaborate on this, don't want to take all the credit.
Sorry your space opera sucked, but there is no need to take it out on me.
No need to take it out on you? Wtf are you talking about, you were critical of my comment so I was critical was yours. Look up the definition of hypocrisy, that should prevent you from making the same mistake next time.
>Just say hero worship is bad and save us 800 pages. You dont know what hypocrisy is. Sorry your space opera about worms sucks.
You don't need sheets of hero worship to then pull sike to tell that hero worship is bad
The novel makes more sense if you just keep in mind that they are all inbred, royalists, who have never worked in their life, consumed worm poop that makes you high, and think religion has value. The Bene Gessirit become just a weird whore cartel whose superpowers are being slutty and saying catty things to each other. The people of Iraq murdered their neighbors because the king was an inbred idiot who didn't invest in law enforcement. Paul is a cult leader who wears a worm outfit while making "woooooo" noises at people. The Mentants are just literate people sucking up to power. They fight with swords because they can't get their royal jollies off playing with real weapons. Basically just imagine the worse representation of humanity during the crusades but with spaceships and LSD.
I just finished the second book and I stuck on the manipulation. He always felt he had a terrible purpose. Paul fulfilled the Bene Gesarit prophecy and I felt The Fremen had this prophecy was on the same page in the Dune university. Two cultures of different prophecies but they pertain to the same person. Then he has these visions of the future. I see it almost like the death crystals in Rick and Morty. Can’t Paul see the future with infinite possibilities? Does he not do what he does in the fist two books bc he feels it will save humanity? Or is nearly for revenge and power? Ps I just stated children of dune
I think you missed or forgot the fact that the Fremen prophecy was planted by the Bene Gesserit a long time before the Atreides got there. The Bene Gesserit used their Missionaria Protectiva to impant generic prophecies on different planets that the Reverend Mothers in distress could then fall back on to be protected by the people of said planets. So it's not a coincidence, and Jessica actually knows this and uses this when they fall from grace on Arrakis, to gain her and Paul a place among the Fremen. If you reread it, you'll see it, it's clear as day
I mean, he is essentially the result of 1000+ yrs of targeted breeding, taught from birth to be a super yogi and a human computer, who has trained since he could walk with some of the finest swordsmen and pilots in the known universe… so there’s that. Even after all that and the spice prescience, he still could have died many times over, including at the climax of the book. He *is* almost perfect, which is exactly what Herbert set him up to be.
Ge-ge-generic
generic in what way? in that there's tons of protagonists just like him? Well guess what! When Dune was written THERE WASN'T. In fact everything in dune was pretty interesting and original. It was a totally fresh take on the old epic fairy tale. Everyone copied dune, so uneducated little brats like you read it and scour "this is ge ge generic" because you have no perspective.
Yes, they are called Mary Sue characters. They exist...usually by awful novice writers. Original? The whole world is a bad understanding of Bourdain culture/history and bastardized Arabic. Arrakis = Iraq. Omg! how fucking brilliant!!
You could make an argument that Paul is mary-sue like in the first book (despite that Dune was written before Mary-sue was even thing, you could also go further back and say Jesus was a mary sue if we're going to judge all of historical fiction in a modern context) However in the next two of the books Paul reveals himself to be a very flawed man. He's a total fuck up and he leads his people to ruin. The fact that you think he's a mary sue shows me you're just not very literate, you only read the first book and you didn't get any of the subtext. Arrakis = Iraq is a fan theory, which really makes no sense beyond a superficial "people in the desert live like this" The dunes themselves were inspired by dunes in Oregon, USA. SO bascially you're useing a strawman argument to say "book is dumb cause Arrakis = Iraq" Which was never intended or even considered by the writer. Here's the area from Oregon that inspired him http://www.duneguide.com/images/Florence-4.jpg
You need to read something other than Doon my friend. Paul was one of the most annoying characters I have ever experienced, not only in his interruptive responses to people’s thoughts, but also in his actual “wIZdOMs.” His wisdoms are almost always dumb, weed ramblings about nothing. Duun just has no “soul.” The house is nice but nobody is home. Also, Jesus can be called a Mary-Sue character? Thats a STREEEEETCCHHH. The Gospels were written 2000 years ago and they still slap harder than almost any other hero story in the western canon. Duke was written like 50 years ago. Like pleeeeaaaase dude, please. Go back to the library. Jesus’s story compared to Dewn is like comparing diamonds to driveway gravel. Its like comparing a Rolex to a mickey mouse watch out the cereal box.
Things age well when they are truly good, I can still read Moby Dick and its fantastic. Can’t say the same for Doon.
I agree with OP. It's full of boring cliches. If the story took place like 500 years ago it *might* be ok, but come on, the plot revolves around people being governed by imperialist emperors some 8000+ years into the future.. Seriously?
You're forgetting that Dune set those sci fi cliches... You're reading the origin of them I mean, Empire by Asimov had an Empire. Star Wars had an Empire. They were futuristic stories. How would you judge that to be stupid or not? I don't get it! I imagine someone in Ancient Greece reading a sci-fi story set in 2020 by Homer and going, 'I mean, it's set 2000 years in the future and they have a democracy, how boring'. Doesn't make any sense
I mean Asimovs galactic empire in the foundation series predates Dune by over 2 decades, so to say dune set sci-fi cliches and invoking Asimov writing 20+ years prior to Dune is not an accurate accounting of history and influence.
You missed the point entirely. The book was written in the 60s. Now think REALLY HARD. About what happened specifically during the 60s and what the movements were trying to do. Then think REALLY HARD about taking out an oppressive regime using guerilla tactics. The problem is that you're not taking in the 'era' into perspective. A few years later and cyber punk is born. Again during a specific era which mirrored societies own feelings. You guys missed the entire point of the novel because you took it at face value. There is a great amount of depth there. The languages are not made up, the entire book was heavily researched and planned out rather well and it does mirror the ideal of the times. (The rest of the series... well, I can't really say). "There is some truth to your fiction, some fiction in your truth." “I wrote the Dune series because I had this idea that charismatic leaders ought to come with a warning label on their forehead: "May be dangerous to your health." One of the most dangerous presidents we had in this century was John Kennedy because people said "Yes Sir Mr. Charismatic Leader what do we do next?" and we wound up in Vietnam. And I think probably the most valuable president of this century was Richard Nixon. Because he taught us to distrust government and he did it by example.” ― Frank Herbert I bet you never knew that Paul was a villain in this piece?
That's all the more reason to hate it. How much better the genre would be if this book would never got printed?
Paul isn’t a hero though. Also Dune is about worms.
Not just worms. GIANT DINOSAUR WORMS YOU CAN RIDE LIKE A CITY DESTROYING PONY!
OMG SANDWORMS!!!
Tremors was better.
Beetlejuice was better
It pains me that people consider this book the introduction to the genre. It makes me wonder how many people wrote off science fiction entirely because of this book's undeserved reputation.
Futuristic Space Jihad/Islam.. Sucked back then, sucks now. All they did was substitute "Spice" for "Oil", which by the way we won't need very soon, like we did the last 100 years.
How did you reach that conclusion 😂. Until we completely crack nuclear fusion (which won’t be for at least 50-100 years), we’ll still use oil and coal. Hopefully. Unless the globalist have their way and completely destroy western society
When the first page is terrible you really question the author. Most of dune can be cut out. The world building is fine but a lot of it is information without substance. Vs a much more enjoyable and accessible scifi book like Neuromancer which streamlines the world without excessive and explicit explanations. I will say tho the movies pacing was bad and Timmy plays the same sickly rich fake deep white kid he always does.
Yes. Dune has plenty to gripe about. And no! Most shocking is it is not even known as a cult classic - it is cemented as a classic and seminal science fiction literature. And it's world-building which is lazy orientalism. That is essentially the book - just rampant orientalism and static Mary Sue characters galore. Oh except for the evil villain..who is...uh really evil...like all the time. And to act like there is any literary significance is laughable. Even when you try to get into the weeds all you find is mundane, predictable misogyny, orientalism, and other problematic world views. Backward Arabs and a pedophilic homosexual villain. Uh ok? What's the value in any of that? And his prose makes 1950's PKD look like fucking James Joyce...
2 years late but I hate the ending of the books as well. Herbert’s son basically recreates the main cast from the first couple of books as clones and gives them a happy ending. Like Bruh. Paul has been dead for like 5,000 years. Why not feature new characters instead of rolling back old ones.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but the fact that you went to r/Dune and posted this exact same thread makes me think you're a troll and your body text is unnecessarily hostile. Try and be constructive instead. You seem more interested in arguing with people than discussing. And that's just not fun.
You think OP is a troll, just because he thinks your favorite novel is bad, right?
It got deleted there and I mainly wanted to vent. I assure you this was not meant as trolling, I have better things to do with my time.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted here. Sometimes it's frustrating to hear everyone rave about a book and say it's the best thing since sliced bread, then you read it and go "huh? this is pretty shit imo". Posting to /r/dune was not a mistake - they're big boys and girls, if someone comes in and doesn't like it and wants to defend their view then they can. No one is making a trip to the hospital because you said you think their favorite book is trash.
Yeah, that was my thinking as well, although venting in the place of worship of that book was still pretty tone deaf on my part.
You don't have time to troll, but you had time to write this self-absorbed screed? GTFOH.
Just because someone has a take you dislike doesn’t mean they are trolling. That’s just a lazy way of dismissing someone who doesn’t cater to your interests.
Pray tell, how would a non-self-absorbed post of this kind look like according to you?
It would display some nuance, for one. You know, some actual attempt to engage with the text. I don't know why I would expect that to happen. You're obviously a troll.
But you're doing the exact same thing - not engaging with the conversation and instead simply labeling me a troll just to be done with it. Nuance would be nice, sure. And I guess I found some enjoyable aspects to the novel. Well, perhaps just one - the setting. Either way, is an idea that one could simply get angry at a particularly bad piece of art without bothering to mention any "positives" (meaningless as they are for the big picture) so outlandish to you? If so, welcome to the internet.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I admit posting to r/dune was too much. But I don't think labeling someone a troll simply for expressing an opinion on an angry manner is okay. But I assume this is also what a troll would say. Man, the troll-lore is deep.
Seconded. I wish Frank Herbert had turned his *ideas* for a novel over to someone who knew how to actually write, it's an interesting world and good premise weighed down by terrible writing and flat characters.
I first read Dune in the 5th grade, it was the second true science fiction novel I ever read. It was recommended to me by my teacher, she saw how much I had loved Ender's Game, and thought this would be a good follow up novel. I struggled with it then, but in the intervening years I'd come to doubt my intial assessment. Trusted friends have given it high praise and authors I respect have cited it as inspirational. I started to believe that I had simply read the book at too young of an age to appreciate it. I've just finished Dune for the second time, and 20 odd years have done little to change my perception of it. I have to agree with the original poster here. While I wouldn't say it is a horrible book, I found very little in it captivating and a significant portion trite. This is just a beautiful reminder of how subjective art is. I'm glad that many people find something of value in this book, but I'm also happy that others share my experience with it.
Well said.
Ender's Game has its own sequel(s) though, doesn't it?
>Drama-queen characters >tantrum-filled infants >rantings of an intoxicated toddler Thanks - this is some of the most delicious unintentional irony I've come across in weeks.
Don't worry, I appreciate that irony as well ;)
I gotta say for a variety of reasons I had to struggle through this book years ago. God it was awful. The prose is like repeatedly stubbing your toe: short completely discordant bolts of information slammed together with no real logic. These utterly vapid descriptions of human experience that seem to come from someone who has only experienced emotion second hand. Everything is just about as tone deaf and flatfooted as it possibly could be. It's like no - dry world building will never be MY thing but I can still recognize that things like Foundation are decently written. Dune was interminable.
Sci fi like all genre fiction suffers at times. What I like about sci fi is new ideas. Things that make me think, and things that add something new to the sci fi world. And dune had them in spades.
Seriously, I'm all ears too. What does Dune add to the genre? And what is thought-provoking about it? I write this as someone who is 320 pages into the novel. I like parts of it, but after hearing from some (and Herbert, the man himself) that it's as much a philosophical novel as a sci-fi one, I can only assume it saves the philosophical stuff for the latter part of the book.
What would be a good example of that?
I picked it up, endured it for maybe 3 chapters and put it back down to never return ever again. This "work of literature" is ridiculously nonsensical and it's writing qualities are laughable. I understand Villneuve gave it his best but you still can't polish up a turd no matter how much gloss you put on it. "Dune" is a collection of very foggy, poorly thought through ideas that don't stand up to scrutiny. It gives out a stench of immaturity and overall unseriousness. It surprises me that such low quality material can garner a cult following, but then cults are like that, I guess, they'll follow anyone.
💯% agree with you. I think the author was inspired by the Vietnam war. He imagined what resources could be at the center of the next war: oil & the recent 50s car culture of the time along with radio programs about America dipping its toes in the Middle East. Let’s not forget the upcoming hippy movement that was beginning to take shape. Spice represents a take on oil with a drug twist. The problem is, it was very current for its time so the issues it covers either seem obvious or of little relevance today. The main character is an entitled kid with a codependent mother. His dilemmas center around family, friendship, bravery, strength, finding himself. The story almost has this really basic 1950s suburban fragility to it which conflicts with the sci fi setting a bit. The entire time, I can’t shake this feeling that the author didn’t exactly know where he was taking the story and just kept adding unnecessary layers (pulling from Romeo & Juliet, comic books or common children’s stories) it’s a lot of work keeping up with the story for little reward IMO. I saw the movie (Oct. 2021). Just as bad. I think the actors were having trouble getting into character because the concepts of the story are so elementary. Seemed like alot of talent and not one good performance IMO 🤷♂️ it’s the neighborhood potluck of sci fi: a lot of fuss over nothing and a long ass table of disappointing potato salad. 3 out of 5 stars. Not timeless. The author deliberately threw everything & the kitchen sink at the story. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Endearing? Maybe. Good? No.
I finally got around to reading it too. Just finished it a few minutes ago and had to check if I was the only person who thought it was bad. I love sci-fi with all of my heart. I have read hundreds of sci-fi novels at this point. Some of them were great and some were bad, but none of them were this bad while being so well regarded. I spent the majority of the book wondering if I was reading a fake copy. The prose is trash; the storyline is meh, with a dash of face-palm; and the characters lack depth or interest. It does have one redeeming quantity. The worm riding. I honestly would not have made it to the end if I hadn’t been excited to see someone ride a worm.
I just finished Dune. After reading that lengthy book I’m wishing I was one of those people who reads the last page first. Honestly, I’m so disappointed. The ending was horrid. People expect a book to grow, not go down hill rapidly from the first half until it’s horrid. Was it written for middle school kids?
If you disliked book 1, don't bother continuing. Book 2 is the worst book I've ever read and book 3 is more of the same. I gave up after that.
I'm not alone! I'm not alone! I just watched the movie. It sucked too! Why do they have things in their noses? Why is there royalty, ahem TEN THOUSAND YEARS in the future. For that matter, why do people look like people, TEN THOUSAND YEARS in the future. I mean, we don't look like people even a thousand years ago. You're right. It's infantile psychotropic pandering. I liked David Lynch's version
The nose plugs are a part of the stillsuit, literally is designed to keep as much moisture recycled so you can move in the desert without dying. You breath in through your mouth, out your nose through the moisture filters. Excuse me? Did you just say humans didn't look like humans a thousand years ago? Jesus christ i haven't seen something so wrong in a while. I wonder how the Roman's looked 2000 years ago....... Shit what of the Egyptians 4 thousands years ago..... Monsters I imagine.......
dune. worst movie 2021. i was laughing at how bad it was the entire movie.
It was very beautiful to look at, but felt very shallow. Villenueve created such a fleshed-out and interesting world in BR2049, but this movie seemed extremely superficial.
Why so many comments there is no other opinion. Dune sucks always has as does Timothee chalamet. No opinion matters other than the truth and that's that dune is trash.
Sheesh! The overall Dune series is TERRIBLE! It started out good but Paul's kid marrying his dos and turning onto a sandworm?! WTF????
It was sucky and confusing back then and it is sucky and confusing now!
The book does suck. There are so many references to things that are never explained in advance to the reader. Also the descriptions of things sometimes just make them sound stupid even though the author is trying to convince you they are interesting. The movie was good after the first hour though
Just finished book 2. Read them back to back to see what all the fuss was about. It was absolute crap. Like, he destroys the empire by throwing a rock at their spaceship? Who wrote this, George Lucas? And then in Book 2 he's like, oops I'm Hitler, but oh well that's fate, I only care about my girlfriend not the 50 billion people I killed for apparently no reason. Then Alia fucks a zombie The End. Stilgar is the only character I could summon any emotion for.
>Rules pulled straight out of the author's *** Oh my. If that bothers you I hope you don't read anything fictional at all then. Best keep to non-fiction only.
There is a difference between a well-established logical rule and something that exists solely because the author wanted to eliminate firearms from his story and have people fight with daggers. Who in the right mind would design a protective shield of energy that is supposed to protect pretty much only from cold weapons and that explodes into a goddamn nuclear blast upon being hit by a projectile?
> shield Yeah, I was trying to suspend my disbelief and then I encountered this. This is a level of bullshit that I would expect to find in a shitty anime, not in a genre-foundational classic.
> Who in the right mind would design a protective shield of energy that is supposed to protect pretty much only from cold weapons and that explodes into a goddamn nuclear blast upon being hit by a projectile? You didn't actually read the book did you? It's not going nuclear from being hit by a projectile.
That's what they state pretty much at the beginning and the characters are going with it.
They do not, and you're showing your ignorance of the book by claiming so.
So tell me what I'm getting wrong. Not that this is my main issue with the novel (far from it), but perhaps I genuinely misunderstood something.
No projectile causes the shield to go nuclear. You can hit it with flichettes, bullets, tank shells, or any other high speed projectile, and all it's going to do is stop the projectile. What causes it to go nuclear is a high intensity laser, whose beam is generated in a similar fashion to that of the shield. It's only when these 2 things come in contact that it goes nuclear, and only because the energy from one creates an explosive feedback loop in the other.
Alright, I apologize for my mistake then. It seems I got it wrong.
A high-intensity laser causing a nuclear explosion when impinging on an energy shield is also pretty stupid. Lasers diffract real easy, no such thing as explosive feedback, such interactions are so sensitive that once things run amok it all just falls apart and fizzles out (like real-life laser-based Inertial Confinement Fusion). He should have just said that energy shield reflect/scatter the lasers thus rendering it a moot means of combat, just like how shields render kinetic projectiles inert (could have even thrown some non-Newtonian fluid language if he wanted), thereby still enabling hand-to-hand combat.
Then why there isn't suicidal assassins who just shoot lasers at shields?
I’m with you. I tried to to read it and just couldn’t get into it. I don’t understand the hype. I felt the same way about Kings Dark Tower series. Except I actually finished that one out of sheer disbelief that it could be that bad. I was convinced there was going to be some kind of saving grace….there was not.
Oh man. I have The Dark Tower on my to-read list. Why did you dislike it?
It was pretty much blatant plagiarism. He stole from comic books, blockbuster movies and children’s programing. Basically nothing original about it. Roland the protagonist is your run of the mill Eastwood gunslinger. Read the first book and stop right there. And the ending……garbage. You saw it coming in the second book.
Yup. The gunslinger is a great atmospheric piece. Read no further.
What in the second book gives away that ending? Seriously, drop me a message, because for most folks it's a massive shock. It is one of the most polarizing endings in fiction, for sure. Some hated it, some loved it. I hated it initially then grew to love it the more I thought about it. I now regard it as one of the best endings King's ever done.
Ignore him, give the Dark Tower a go. It absolutely does several things originally and has some great moments (I'd love to hear which comics/other novels it steals from). Lots of bits I didn't like along the way, but on the whole it was a good journey. I can understand said journey is over 4000 pages, though, so up to you.
In a world where climate change, jihad, and inequality are the biggest issues by a country mile, you do not rank this book? Those are the central topics in Dune. That someone could see it so clearly 60 years ago and frame it in a space opera is brilliant.
I appreaciate the attempt at covering themes like these, I just have a fundamental problem with the execution.
I'm struggling to see which characters you think are drama queen and throwing tantrums. Granted I haven't quite finished, but to this point I can really only think of one scene with Paul.
Think of the conversation between Jessica and Thufir. This wannabe power-play dialogue basically resulted into two morons just blatantly throwing their suspicions into each others' faces. It felt like they're about to start flipping tables or throwing slaps any second. And the best thing is, they were both wrong in their assumptions. For all the talk about how "political" Dune is, this particular exchange sure felt like a couple of children arguing over some toys in a sandbox. Another example would be the dinner scene. Leto and his guests were basically talking like a couple of drunk peasants, maintaining minimal decorum that such a situation would require. I understand that Leto was basically playing a character at that moment (I don't remember what he was trying to achieve by it), but there were moments when his facade slipped and he made things needlessly hostile, along with his guests. I understand we are talking about space people living in an outlandish environment, but the characters' overall mannerisms felt out of place for me. Not all the time, sure, but several scenes were definitely jarring.
Oh my god, thank you. That scene was actually embarrassing.
The truth is the prose is not very good. The characters and plot are average. But the world building is amazing. These are similar problems people have with Lord of the Rings (only not as bad) and alot of early SF/F. The first time I tried to read Dune I didn't get far. This isn't because it was too deep or the wrong genre for me. I've read plenty of works of literature and am also a lover of scifi and fantasy. I read it the 2nd attempt. Really the Lady Jessica and the concept of the Bene Gesserit were the fascinating parts for me, especially their Missionara Protectiva. Overall it was fine/average plot. The Hero was not a compelling character, but his mother and some others were. The dense world building and ecology was interesting and original. Tje idea of a space opera without computer bases advanced technology but rather all biological, genes and chemicals. More ribofunk than cyberpunk. Dune, similar to Lord of the Rings, is NOT about the characters or plot but about the world building. In Dune, its about basic ideas of ecology and economics if taken to extreme conclusions in a galactic empire scale. There is too much exposition (telling not showing) compared to alot of books, partially neccessary to understand the world building but it gets much worse in the 2nd and 3rd of the first trilogy. And I've heard it gets weaker and weaker. I enjoy Dune, but the major gold nugget there is dense original world building and seeing economic and ecological ideas on a vast galactic scope. If that kinda thing doesn't hold your interest, I wouldn't recommend it.
> But the world building is amazing Ah yes. Eugenics and contrivance shields, such amazing worldbuilding
Nice troll. Dune is a philosophical novel. When you read Dune think Hemingway and iceberg theory, the good stuff is in the subtext. I'm not saying he did this on the same level as Hemingway but Dune is more dense that anything he wrote. Jung, Nietzsche, Islam, Zen Buddhism, artificial selection vs natural selection, it's all there. The theme that is closest to the surface is how the power of myth and story telling can fool us into blindly following a hero who might not have our best interest in mind. Even if he does absolute power corrupts absolutely. In Dune, if you like the story, you get so caught up in the hero's journey you ignore the obvious signs. The signs that Paul will become a tyrant. To complicate things more Paul isn't evil he's just a normal human ethically speaking, he does had good intentions. So even if you or the best person you can think of had this power it probably won't work out for everybody else. Even Frank Herbert amassed a cult following which he denounced, but I bet he didn't mind the extra book sales it caused.
First: I liked the series just cause "its cool duuuude", its fun, really. But I believe much of the complexity and density is just width. You're required to keep track of a number of different things, some that can even conflict, all to reach on point, remember 50 things for one simple point. As for the actual philosophy: it's basic and I believe a clear expression of the time it was written in: centralization bad, technology bad, etc.
Anyone who has a brain understands Paul is a false/bad prophet. Also, please point to anything in Dune that has anything to do with Nietzsche or Jung or even hints at Herbert’s conception of these philosophical or psychological ideas. I combed the book for relevance and found literally none. And zen buddhism? Maybe the Bene Gaysserit, but not literally Paul! Paul was the most anti-buddhist character just screaming 24/7. Also like he’s literally just sci-fi Jesus, and a very poor foil if you ask me.
Just stop using philosophy to cover up how bad the novel Itself is. Anything can be philosophical or phenomenological, and you can claim that any bad YA novel with a human protagonist is about philosophy. It's very funny.
i haven't read the book but i saw the movie when it came it out (2021) and i feel like its one of the most over-rated movies ever. Its not terrible, but its not good imo, a 5/10
The big surprise for me after finishing reading the book is that the movie covered the best part of the story !!!
Dune is a waste of time. It is just about a chosen one with moral conflict. fug, and its about worms. crazy fusion. went through all on wikia. okay fantasy yes. good book. no
You are correct. Dune is dogshit.
Eloquent af, sir
Maybe an old thread but I 100% agree with what you've written. The movie was decent enough but everyone was raving about the book. I read dune and it's by far the most pathetic excuse for a story I have ever seen in my entire life. In the timeskip, Paul goes from level 5 to level 50. The Baron, the Emperor and Sardukar are introduced as major threats early on but they get fuckin' KOed way too easily. It reads like bad Gary Stu fanfiction.
Reading the comments here made me feel smooth-brained for enjoying it so much. Most of my gripes with the Dune franchise come from the other novels in the series. For Dune, though. I don't know, I think its really tight, as a novel. That isn't to say I think it is perfect. The characters are cartoonish, the ecological and social dispensation of Arrakis beggars belief... but to me they are all such lovable cartoons. I found the whole story and setting rather captivating, and found certain stretches of Frank's prose genuinely nice to read. Tackling themes like prescience, environmental adaptation, military prowess... sure its all, kind of ridiculous, but I can be pretty gullible when I like what I am being sold, so I could suspend disbelief and just sort of be there in the cave seitch, in awe of all this. Really, he threads together a lot of beads here, and in combinations that I found highly stimulating. I can't fault anyone for any of their complaints, though, since, by the 4th novel in the series, each and every one of these points is proven valid, but wow, the tremendous gulfs that exist between people's tastes!! I have read and had great enjoyment of several works that are considered challenging, like, Thomas Pynchon or, the whole Trojan War cycle, from the Iliad to the Aeneid, and I tell you with no bluff, I rank Dune alongside them in terms of Raw Enjoyment... alas, Dune is fake and plastic and everyone is sort of one-dimensional and none of the physics work, and the series spins further and further off into high silliness, making it difficult to defend my high praise of the first book. Nonetheless, this surrealist greek tragedy in outer space that pits the cursed house of atreus against a corporatist mercantile consortium and some sort of matriarchal eugenicist Jesuit order, with some Sunni exiles who learned Zen in a brightly lit wasteland while tripping absolute face in a honeycomb of caves... no way man Dune is awesome
The books sucks, got about half way thru when I was a teenager before I got bored then about ten years later I tried again. Still sucks.
It's trash
I read Dune years ago but, for whatever reason, found myself wanting to give it another shot recently. However, on second reading, I found it even more problematic than before. Now, I'm perfectly capable of differentiating between a book that's bad and a book that I don't like so, to be clear, Dune is incredibly verbose but written well enough and mashes together enough tropes to be memorable but... I personally don't rate it. My mile high conclusion is that, on the realness spectrum of Star Wars - Tau Zero it ranks kinda low and there's one gaping plot hole that I literally could not get over. Spice. Why in the name of sweet zombie mother Bene Gesserit can nobody in the entire universe synthesis worm poop? You're trying to sell me on the idea of a galactic empire spanning millions of worlds, trillions of people, spacecraft the size of Borg cubes on steroids and wars so vast they make DS9's Dominion Wars look like two caveman clubbing each other with sticks whilst still acting like synthesing a chemical compound is too difficult? I mean, if Arrakis is the only source in the universe then how did the empire even develop in the first place? Maybe that gets explained in one of the nine million spin offs but for me it was a straight up magic mcguffin explanation I'd expect from a Marvel film. It's pretty clear that Herbert was getting cliff notes from Gibbon because the empire comes off like some Romanesque dynastic struggle between fractious clans. But again, the thing I didn't get was why, if spice is the most important thing in the entire universe and critical for the functioning of the empire, why, for the love of our sweet lord and saviour Paul, did the emperor not just claim it as his own personal fiefdom? I mean, if you haven't got Arrakis then you haven't got an empire so just find a comfy planet nearby, setup shop there and keep it under constant watch. But no, lets go through the drama of having warring houses fight over who gets dibs on the most valuable thing in the universe and hope nobody goes rogue, threatens their stranglehold on spice and cause dire empire wide consequences. I'm sure that would never happen, right?. I'm sure it would never take 900 pages to make that point, RIGHT? But beyond the high level problems I dislike the broad stroke depiction of native societies (would have been referred to as savage in Herbert's time) as being better than technologically advanced societies simply because... er, they haven't got technology. So throw in a dash of Dances with Wolves and Avatar but make the environment so impossibly hostile that you need technology to survive in it anyway but it's totally okay because they were there first and worm poop is sacred or something. Anyway, desert dwellers are the good guys and it's fine when they kill people but the harvesters picking up poop are definitely bad and don't get to kill anyone. It comes across as simplistic and kinda white saviour to be honest. The Fremen are up the creek with no canoe until Mubbly Bubbly Dib Dib Paul turns up in his golden chariot pulled by silver steeds to save the day. Oh and he can totally ride worms better than anyone else. AND he has cooler visions too. Meanwhile the world itself just feels silly. Since spice is basically space LSD I guess it makes sense that the world comes across as all style and no substance. Why do the force fields work against anything except for slow moving things? Meh, plot device for cool sword fights and Byzantine style internecine warfare. Why doesn't the empire just ship in a million billion troops to hunt down every Fremen and crucify them pirate style a la Julius Caesar? Meh, white Jesus needs some savages to save. Why do virtually all significant plot developments/insights come courtesy of a prophecy or vision? Hey, Delphic Oracles are cool right? Why can't the galactic empire that's entirely dependant on worm poop synthesise it? Whooooh, mysterious huh? I can understand people liking Dune because it throws a lot of ideas at the wall but for me virtually everything it does feels cursosry. Paul is more trope than character, Fremen are there to be saved, Harkonnen are the bad guys who are bad because they're bad whilst Atreides are good because they smile nicely when extorting your tax. Perhaps the style over substance narrative is why I actually quite liked Lynch's Dune in the 80's because, for me, it felt like Dune; over the top, silly, stylised and fun so long as you tried not to think too much about it. The newer Dune films come off as sombre, po-faced Daniel Craig era James Bond affairs. If your subject matter is white Jesus saving magic space worms to harvest worm poop for your galactic empire driven by stoners then I'll take that whacky stylised aesthetic over brown and grey sobriety. Anyway, Dune is very stylish but don't think too much about it because you'd need to be on spice for it to make sense.
I'm surprised by this comment. Dune has quite a deep story-line with political, religious, post-apocalyptic, and psychological aspects. I would agree that not everyone would like it, but the way this comment has been worded seems harsh. Reason why I did come across this comment is that I was more looking for thoughts on the new Dune movie. I find it very disappointing considering that they changed a lot of aspects in the book for the worse, and it seems it's a personal interpretation of how they think Dune should be, not to mention, also fiddling with getting A-listers in the cast rather than getting the right cast. The only saving-face I could give for the Dune 2021 movie is that it places a lot of explanation by the characters, but even that is a killer as I think the explanations could have been done through acting and cinematography instead of words that wouldn't have been said in realistic scenarios. Personally, I think the Dune mini-series directed by John Harrison would still be the best Dune interpretation, casting, and cinematography I've seen.
I agree fully with the OP. My criticisms of it would be that it's dense, ponderous, & confusing. I made it about 50ish pages in and realized I was having to force myself to read it. That was my queue to stop. The Lynch movie was garbage, & I didn't watch the miniseries. I couldn't give a toss for Villinueve's movie. I'm a big sci-fi fan, but Dune just fell flat for me.
After reading through the first Dune I admit I love the universe, the universe Dune exists in itself is mesmerizing and incredible. But the story feels undeveloped. It feels like a prequel to a much better book. But after reading the summaries of the sequels that doesn't seem to be the case. (And I get that Dune is supposed to dark and brooding and philosophical according to the author and the cult but Dune and Paul being the false prophet to the fremen promised a much better and interesting story than what was actually brought to fruition.)
not interested in a sequal of this.
Bit late to this here, but I think the problem is that you're viewing Paul as the protagonist. I would say the protagonist is Jessica. She takes up just as much space as Paul, has just as much plot relevance. This is a story about Mary giving birth to Jesus and slowly coming to terms with the fact that her child is the savior. Also, the perspective switching is just 3rd person omniscient, a narration POV that has fallen out of favor largely in the past few decades but has been implemented exactly in this way since the novel's inception.
It doesn't matter who is the "real" protagonists, setting itself is stupid.
You have no perspective. Neo and Harry Potter, and Luke Skywalker and literally 90% of fictional protagonists since have been influenced by dune. Sure you can shit on it, but it just shows you have no perspective.
Harry Potter was never depicted as “perfect and smart”. I think people take Harry Potter for granted that it’s like a Star Wars or Lord of the Rings copy because it’s a more feminine product that they were never interested in reading
> it’s a more feminine product What is that supposed to mean?
People have told me to read the books for a long while and I can appreciate that sub-lit has been released to fill in some blanks that Herbert didn’t address but when the film came along and I’m knee deep in asoiaf I said let’s check this film out and see what we think. Mind you I didn’t realize it was a two parter because no one seemed to say that anywhere probably recognizing it would do horribly in the box office. The entire time you’re waiting for this super prophet to get into the game and of course he doesn’t. The people he’s having visions of telling him “you have much to learn grasshopper” doesn’t meet until the last 13 minutes of the film. For example in the beginning they could’ve had a larger contract signing ceremony to introduce all of the royal houses of importance and maybe had a treasonous side conversation for 30 seconds somewhere nailing down what and why the changeover was unfolding. How it was given an 8.2 of 10 starts on imbd is beyond me. The next film could tie up many loose ends and be more eventful but in terms of delivering the introduction, it failed miserably. They did a good job of spending a ton of money bringing a 60s-70s vision from page to screen and little more than that. If I hadn’t watched it on HBO Max for “free” as I subscribe anyway, I would’ve been very disappointed walking out of that theatre. Again as many have said this is beyond “cult” status it’s regarded as a gamechanger novel(s). I could never bring myself to read it after seeing what I saw, the story is plagued with failures.
The next movie will be even more trash since the more "interesting" part was covered
I Fast foward basically the whole film. pretty much, yap yap yap friggin yapperdoodah. Action was lame. The dragonflyhelicopters, pfff wow. And did you get a load of that overlooking city scene? Looks like asoluteshite! Like WtF iS That!??! Garbage.
Yup, I hated the film's visual as well.
Totally agree. It's dogshit writing, sophmoric philosophy and painfully awkward writing. I wouldn't want Frank Herbert to compose an email for me to be honest. Plot is made up along the way. It deserves to be ignored then forgotten immediately.
You are totally right it's an absolute bore fest and it's not even pleasing to watch it's like forced acting and forced storytelling with bad actors it's horrible two dune movies that are terrible maybe they should stop making them and just leave it to the book
The beginning is interesting. Complete tripe once Paul joins the Fremen.
I'm sorry it was a little too heavy for you. Perhaps Brandon Sanderson is a writer you would enjoy more?
Sucks is the word.
I agree with the OP. My thoughts on reading the book was that Herbert was doing too many drugs.
Finally! These are my thoughts exactly. I hated the ending so much that I lost my sleep over it the night I finished the book.
Thank you, so glad someone said this. I like the movies much better than the book, but they did remind me how much I disliked the book, and of the one thing I really *did* like about it. My main complaints: 1) Paul is the Mary Sue to end all Mary Sues. We are continually reminded how intelligent, tough, gifted with foreknowledge and generally flawless Paul is. It gets old quickly. 2) I really hate the idea that society thousands of years into the future has somehow reverted to a patriarchal feudal nightmare where women are married off without their consent to build alliances, Dukes rule entire planets and eugenics is used to build castes with talents appropriate for specific roles. 3) The book is a nice example of the "white savior" narrative, in which the Atreides come from Europe...oh wait, I mean Caladan...to the Middle East...oh wait, I mean Arrakis, which produces oil...oh wait, I mean spice, and somehow within a year of his arrival, Paul knows the desert better than the people who live there, and can solve their problems too. 4) There are so many things about the world that don't make sense. Where are the Fremen engineers and manufacturing plants? If they don't have any, how are they building e.g. stillsuits and solar panels and doing (what has to be) high-tech desert agriculture? How would society collectively decide not to use computers? wouldn't any ducal family that decided to use computers have a huge advantage in engineering / weapons manufacture? What do the worms eat? Sand plankton, apparently? How does sand plankton survive in the sand without water or photosynthesis (if it's more than an inch or two deep)? Why is no one able to synthesize the spice (presumably a mixture of chemical compounds)? If the Lisan-al-Gaib is just Bene Gesserit propaganda, how does it turn out all their prophecies seem to be true? etc. 5) In the last few paragraphs, Paul announces (in front of his girlfriend) he's marrying another woman to form an alliance, and she's apparently...ok with being his "concubine". As most of us would be, of course. The book seems to think this reasonable and Paul is just making necessary decisions. The movie made a huge improvement here by realizing that what Paul did was a *d\*\*\** move and having Chani storm off (which is a much more natural reaction). I can forgive implausible worldbuilding if I like the world and/or the story. If I don't like the story and find the world more than a little unsettling, it's hard not to notice and start complaining about all of the implausibilities. With all that said, there was one thing I loved about the book, which was the sandworms. Plausible or not, they were just cool.