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!
Yes! Messiah is my favorite book in the series, and it’s a great way to close out Paul’s arc and realize Frank’s message of the dangers of messianic figures.
I’m not sure I understand this post. Dune is (or was) a trilogy. Dune, Dune Messiah, and Children of Dune. At least, that’s how I grew up knowing them.
So in the movies they’re doing a good enough job that they split the first book, Dune, into two parts. I don’t remember the author doing this, though. So the second book, Messiah, will be the third movie and if they’re still making money by then I’m sure we will get Children.
Well it’s an adaptation. Things get changed.
It’s interesting to see how far they take it and whether enough people watch it to keep it going.
While going up to Children might make sense to some, IMO the book series has a somewhat unique quality of having no really obvious ending point, even at the end of the (F Herbert) books.
The real reason they’re unlikely to go past Children is that God Emperor would be a tough sell for obvious reasons for anyone who’s read it. That being said, if they were to do a fourth film, I could see them folding Children and God Emperor into one.
Either way, I stand by my statement in the top post, Messiah naturally goes along with the first book.
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.
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.
STONEBURNER
I don’t even like these new Dunes because the original 2000 miniseries is the best. Still, I would like to see sandworm god emperor leto being horny for Hwi Noree. And then the fish lady or whatever cumming in her pants when he falls off a cliff or whatever the fuck it was (spoilers).
Rather poor excuse IMO. For a very simple reason. Not everyone was alive decades ago! Many are reading the books today.
And for this simple reason, managing spoilers will always matter unless your social media is in a very monocultural bubble.
I personally had the endings of Heretics and Chapterhouse spoiled for me --- as I finished the series only in the past few years --- by some flippant comments online. Other spoilers have ruined things too for me.
IMO, along with film previews becoming increasingly spoilery ... we've lost a real sense of allowing people to experience films, books and media naive, which naturally takes away from the experience and even the idea that media are about the experience and not the punchline, summary or resultant meme.
Absolutely - I honestly think Dune and Dune Messiah should be sold as one book.
