As for “Dune: Messiah,” the trilogy capper, we have an update on that project, and it seems to be picking up some major steam. At this point, its future making is turning into an inevitability. 

I’m hyped for this TBH.

IMO Dune is a 3 part story, where the first book is parts 1 and 2 and Messiah is part 3. Look at the book lengths and you’ll see what I mean, book 2 is obviously much shorter than the rest and a I kind of epilogue to the first book.

There are the other sequels, yes, with their own conversation about whether they’re worth reading. But in so many ways book 2 really finishes the story and idea of book 1 that I like to think of it as just part 3.

So that they’re doing a trilogy in the same way is awesome IMO!

  • boboblaw [he/him, they/them]
    ·
    7 months ago

    Honestly it seems like an arbitrary line, considering that Herbert's story continues for a few more books after that. The first two books could also be considered a good standalone (duology?), since they cover the span of Paul's story.

    Really, the only wrong answer is the first book alone. I think most people read only the first book and get the wrong idea.

    • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
      ·
      7 months ago

      And my opinion is probably an artifact of the fact that, when I first read the Dune books, there were only 3. Being a) young and b) a fan of sf and fantasy literature, I sort of assumed that the trilogy was the natural literary format for wide ranging stories. That thought process did make Children a bit confusing, of course.

      Ultimately I agree that Paul’s story is the real thing they’re telling. I was just looking for clarification on the “trilogy” idea because of my own history with the series.