One thing that stuck out early is how much Star Wars took from it. Very immediately, the desert planet setting, the idea of a chosen one, the emperor, etc but really what got me is that Paul has such a more interesting struggle with evil than Luke does. Paul sees a future where he leads a holy war that kills a whole lot of people, where as Luke just vaguely struggles with the Dark Side, the ends arent really explored, its just the process that matters (Luke is a lib).

Anyways, sick book. Loved it, will read the sequel. Hoping to get more of the 4 year old girl with multiple intelligences, very sick.

  • OperationOgre [he/him, they/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    The next three sequels (Messiah, Children of Dune, and God Emperor) are great. I've heard the rest of the sequels really take a dive in quality so I haven't read them, but God Emperor seems like a good closure to the story to me. Also, re-reading the first two books after reading the rest definitely gives you a different perspective on the struggle with evil that Paul has.

    The genetic memory aspect of Dune has always been my favorite part. It makes humanity feel like an untapped reserve of potential.

          • zifnab25 [he/him, any]
            ·
            3 years ago

            70s-era Sci-Fi writers are frustrating, because they're generally good enough at writing to present a point in a kind of critical objective lense such that its not immediately clear whether they're hostile to it or sympathetic to it or merely pointing and saying "Look at this! Look at this allegory! Look!"

            Like, I see the current movie getting slammed as pro-imperialist, misogynist, and even climate-change denialist. And... like... yes. This is absolutely what both the Atreides and Harkonnan are. But I don't think writing a book about these subjects means you're Pro-These-Subjects.

            Then I take a look over at Heinlein and Orson Scott Card and I have to check myself, because these two assholes absolutely did believe in a crazy-ass AnCap society run by the worst people imaginable.

              • zifnab25 [he/him, any]
                ·
                3 years ago

                Frank Herbert was an actual honest to god reactionary though.

                He was an old rich white anti-government guy. But I'm not seeing much to define him as reactionary, unless simply being in the George Romney wing of the GOP qualifies you.

                You might think Snow Crash is a lampoon of libertarians and ancaps until you realize that Neal Stephenson moved in libertarian circles and was just doing a fun thought experiment.

                I think the best thinkers do actually game their theories out a few steps, rather than doing Ayn Rand's Utopianism and then blaming everyone else for failing their vision. But, again, I think you might be confusing a Futurist high on his own farts for someone with genuinely terrible politics.

                • Esoteir [he/him]
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  I dunno dude, if being a massive homophobe to the point where you won't let your estranged gay son go to his mom's deathbed, and writing speeches for the republican party doesn't make you a reactionary, I'm not sure what the fuck does lmao

          • Kestrel [comrade/them]
            ·
            3 years ago

            But it's not reactionary philosophy like Ayn Rand. It's a character doing a bad but necessary thing that Herbert doesn't explicitly endorse.