Dune: first reading

[HPL]

@Dr. Rieux

The first book is okay by itself, but if you want to get the full story as Herbert intended it, you have to continue on to Dune Messiah and Children of Dune. The three books were concieved by Herbert as one story. The other sequels came along much later.
To put it simply, Herbert said that the main point of the trilogy is that messiahs and heroes *not *good things and that people shouldn’t follow them.

I read somewhere that actually that all the books after DUNE were written because the first was profitable and he would have kept on writing until that changed.

Dune by itself is a complete story. It needs no other books to complete it. The rest of the novels afterwards tend to build off each other. In particulary, you don’t really understand one until you read the next one.

And actually, I would argue that if there is a trilogy, it goes from** Dune Messiah ** to God Emporer, because it really isn’t until **God Emprorer ** that you unstand the constant references to the “Golden Path” in Childern of Dune. Or perhaps just put everything before “Heretics of Dune” in to a single story arc.

[Little_Nemo]

Little Nemo I didn’t mean to imply that I found Herbert’s writing to be obvious, preachy or anything else. Though I haven’t read any of his son’s prequels (and plenty of folks have advised me not to), I have read from Dune all the way to Chapterhouse: Dune. (Though this was at least a decade ago, so I may have lost some of the details)

My post was a general comment, not a specific response to yours. I was just pointing out that some of Herbert’s ideas now might appear to be cliches because of how many times they’ve been used in the decades since.