I’ve enjoyed this thread so much. I read Dune in college, so I was still at an impressionable age, and like so many I was incensed by the sequels. I try not to let them tarnish my memory of the original, which was so … original! I love being immersed in a complete, cohesive other world. Mmm, the appendices!
Speaking of sequels, I have to tell Case Sensitive I have been smiling over * Chartered Accountants Of Dune* for a couple days now. 
I loved Dune and the first couple of sequels, but gave it up after that. I’ve read lots of Herbert’s other stuff, but nothing really stands out like the original Dune.
Has anyone here read the parody Doon, put out by National Lampoon. It’s not as good as Bored of the Rings (which was by Harvard Lampoon), but it has its moments.
Doon, the dessert (sic) planet, is the Galaxy’s only source of Beer, which the interstellar truckers require in order to travel between worlds (“Not only did they fold space, they pressed and ironed it as well”), and which gives those who consume a lot of it red eyes.
I’ve read Doon. It’s really funny and does a great job of really poking fun at the original.
And nitpick: The God Emperor was Leto II, not Leto III. The “II” is to show that he is the second Emperor named Leto. He is referred to as Leto II in the books.
God, I read it in college. I still remember parts.
Well, it was that or Auditors Of Dune.
Eh? Who was the first one? Was there an Emperor Leto at some point in Dune’s backhistory?
Well he wasn’t Emperor when he was born. He was named after Paul’s father, the original Duke Leto. Naturally, upon taking control of Arrakis and the universe he became Emperor Leto II.
By that numbering, he’d be Leto III. Leto II would be Paul’s child who died in Dune. Wasn’t Paul’s father named after some emperor?
*Both *of Paul’s sons were Leto II–Paul and Chani simply re-used the name.
An important point, which most people either don’'t remember or don’t know, and that Herbert stated time and again, was that the first three books were initially concieved as one long story–the rise and fall of Paul and the subsequent rise of Leto II.
OK, I’m reading Dune, and I just finished the part where the Harkkonens are introduced.
Pompous tosh? Oh, you bet! The prose toward the beginning of the book (I’m not saying it changes, but at this point, reading it 15 years after the last time I did, I’m not assuming it’s going to change, i.e., get better) is part original and impressive sci-fi stylings, part early 60s sci-fi corn, and part medieval boddice ripper hyperbole (you know, knights, castles, psychic nuns). I had expected a drier, more sophisticated style, but Dune is surprisingly very much of its time: 1965. You can almost feel the influence of Beach Blanket Bingo.
The little blurbs written as by Princess Irulan (Paul’s future wife) that start each chapter are painful prose and just bad writing (show, not tell–right, Frank, right?!):
Wrong in so many ways.
The above is revealing of something else as well: I think it’s pretty clear at this point that FH is not writing a particularly nuanced story; rather, he’s writing a fairy tale with fairly black-and-white heroes and villians. Hell, he even tells you in the above quote that it’s Light versus Darkness.
FH’s exposition is hardly subtle at this point, either. When we meet the Harkkonens for the first time, the baron says…
We had not yet been told the baron’s name or station yet, and this is FH’s cheesy way of introducing that information.
That all said, Dune is chock full of brilliant and original ideas. That’s what made it rise above the corny-clumsy prose. Of equal importance is the fact that it’s just a pretty good read: In chapter one we dive right into the action and can see a tantalizing story arc already in place.
I’ll keep commenting as I go through the book. Would others care to read along?
I’d caution you, so early in the book, from deciding that Herbert isn’t writing a particularly nuanced story. As the story develops (particularly into Dune Messiah and Children of Dune) you’ll find that things aren’t quite so black-and-white as you might think. And, furthermore, that Irulan is correct in that you can’t understand the Atreides’ stories without understanding Baron Harkonnen – because they’re more intertwined than you think at this point.
Also keep in mind that most of the start-of-chapter quotes are written from a time much after the story going on in Dune. In particular, Irulan’s comments are intended to be those of a historian commenting history.
The start-of-chapter quotes are one of Herbert’s favorite writing affectations. I’m rereading The Jesus Incident and they’re all throughout that series (albeit, half of them are cribbed from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, and so not quite so awkward).
Paul was married to Irulan, though, whose “literary pretensions” were mocked by Jessica when she told Chani that Paul would never bed Irulan, so they’re not like the Gospels, separated from the events they describe by sometimes several generations. So either they’re Herbert being ponderously pretentious, or Herbert writing up Irulan as being ponderously pretentious, in which case my brain hurts. No fair citing the sequels as evidence of further depth to the original book, either.
Irulan was rather dim, really, so it’s entirely possible that Herbert was consciously writing her as ponderous. Moreover, since most of the characters in the books tend to speak in Audible Capitals, it could be said that it’s a cultural affectation.
However, since Herbert writes the same way in his other works (read Destination: Void if you want some really belabored writing), I think it’s just his style.
As Dr. Rieux pointed out, Herbert considered the first three books to be all one story.
And since Irulan’s comment on the Baron would have been written with her own hindsight of events subsequent to Dune, you can’t really evaluate how accurate her opinion of the importance of the Baron to the Atreides’ story without considering what comes later.
I read the first three books, so I know what you’re talking about.
BUT, the first book is written (at least toward the beginning) in a corny Heroes vs. Villians style; so even if nuance comes in later books, the prose of the first certainly doesn’t.
Regardless, the dictum “show not tell” still applies.
In which case, she should already know that Paul becomes evil.
Yeah, I’m not a fan of these. Other things about the book are, as I said, very much great.
No, it doesn’t. Irulan isn’t writing a fictional book, but a non-fictional analysis of the political situation in her husband’s empire. Her primary concern isn’t to describe the situation, but to explain (to “tell”) what happened. Her excerpts are necessarily short, because if Herbert had let her explain too much, the story wouldn’t have been able to show us what happens.
I don’t mean to beat you over the head with this, but I get tired of charges of “show don’t tell” when it ignores the purpose of the showing or the telling. Telling is perfectly acceptable in historical accounts (like Irulan’s), and can also be used effectively as a nice final touch to a long bit of showing. Think Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse 5: We read the term, “So it goes” several times after several descriptions of death. When Vonnegut finally drops his Tell, his explanation of the phrase, it’s a jolt to the reader. The Tell drives the point home.
Herbert’s technique is to reverse the standard order, to begin with these very short Tells from Irulan and end with Showing her, and I think it works beautifully.
I must also disagree with you about her darkness-and-light terminology, and in more than one way. First, speaking about the quality of the phrase: She has a very specific piece of information to communicate, that the Atreides cannot be understood with understanding their rival house. Granted, her metaphor is weighty with all its Truth and Falsehood, Light and Darkness stuff. She could’ve just as easily conveyed her information by describing the houses as two sides of the same coin or some equally mundane situation. But she’s an Empress, married to the most powerful man in the galaxy. Would you seriously accept a mundane metaphor from her?
Second, believing that there is an association between House Atreides and the Light is also, in my opinion, a mistake. Paul Atreides is the man who, even with the benefit of prescience, failed to prevent genocide. As Irulan herself says, "Remember, we speak now of the Muad’Dib who ordered battle drums made from his enemies’ skins, the Muad’Dib who denied the conventions of his ducal past with a wave of his hand, saying merely: ‘I am the Kwisatz Haderach. That is reason enough.’ " To get so caught up with Paul’s perspective that you start to think that he’s actually a good guy, as opposed to a very likeable guy, is one of the lessons of the book. Or so I believe.
I’m not criticizing Irulan’s book, which isn’t real, but Herbert’s book, which is. He is using the device of Irulan’s fictional history to “tell” instead of “show.”
I’m not dogmatic about show/tell either, but I do believe in the basic principle. And I think Herbert is writing poorly with this device.
Does this occur in Dune or one of the later books?
The battle drums out of skin, etc. happen after the end of Dune but before Dune Messiah, FYI.
I think it is also important to remember that Irulan is not only writing a history, she is writing a history of a man revered as a god, and that her character is indeed made out to be ponderously pretentious. Thus it is not inappropriate for her to make references to shadow and light, good and evil, etc. What religion doesn’t hang all over heavy metaphors like this?
Most of these headers to the chapters are meant to be a peek into the culture of Muad’Dib, to read the history of the story as written by someone in that time and experience the cult or personality that rose around him.
I don’t buy that- Dune was published in 1965. The world hadn’t even experienced the oil crisis in 1973. I find it quite unlikely that Herbert was talking about oil.
Slightly more on topic- Dune has always been one of my favorite books, regardless of some slight technical inconsistancies. Those kinds of inconsistancies are an inevitable part of science fiction and there’s really nothing to do but accept it as part of the genre. Yes, the shield/laser interaction thing is an obvious ploy to allow knife fights. Get over it! It’s certainly no more implausible than lightsabers.
And my take on Hawat’s oversight involving Yueh was that his overly logical mind took the Suk conditioning at face value, and made logical connections from there. Mentats are fantastic at reaching conclusions from very little data, but if one of their initial assumptions is wrong, the whole conclusion is going to be wrong. Hawat knew that no Suk doctor had ever been subverted before, and acted on that knowledge.
If find it highly likely. I read the book in 1969, before the first oil crisis, and I had no doubt that his fictional universe of spice-mining desert people was grounded in the oil-producing Middl;e East of the 20th century. Sciebnce Fiction is in large part about extrapolation, after all. And the 1960s were filled with images of the results of the new oil wealth in the Middle East, and what its effects were.
I agree, don’t forget that in 1955 he wrote Dragon in the Sea in which he predicted the oil crisis.