Let me begin by first noting that I haven't read the novels, and am only familiar with the two television adaptations and film version. It is pretty apparent, however, that they do the novels little justice - for starters, there is little on screen that justifies Dune's extraordinary reputation.
The adaptations are either incomprehensible, convoluted, reduntant, simplistic and/or simple minded. More often than not, I felt like I was watching a sword and sandals epic that could be dated back to the 1950's. Only occasionally did I get the impression that Herbert was doing nothing less than trying to reimagine the history of mankind in a futuristic setting.
I'm going to assume that Dune is essentially (or ideally) a literary experience. Pages are visibly MIA on screen - and its obviously not just descriptions of situations and events. Things like the complexity of human motivation and the nuances of its complex history and mythology are clearly AWOL.
The incredibly layered universe and thematic exploration doesn't appear to lend itself to a visual medium - they certainly can't be contained within the confines of a movie or miniseries. And the more I read *about* Dune's universe, the more astounded I am by its scope and ambition. It's pretty clear to me that Herbert is not so much interested in telling a story, but using narrative to explore or develop recurring themes and characters from different angles.
No doubt I should go and read the books, but I have been deterred by a couple of things - the fact that they appear to be a never ending story (multiple prequels and sequels, etc)and their overall critical reputation seems relatively poor. Whilst everyone seems to agree that the first novel is a masterpiece, few people as enthusiastic about the sequels. In fact Dune seems to be in a league of its own even within the Dune universe.
I therefore have a couple of questions. The reason I'm asking is that there seems to be little critical engagement with (or analysis of) Herbert's thematic preoccupations and overall artistic strategy. Not online anyway. If you know otherwise, please point me - and anybody else - in that direction. As things stand, I'd like to make better sense of Dune.
Firstly, what do you attribute the relatively poor showing of the subsequent novels to? Does the writing really get worse, or does Herbert just take the novels in unwelcome directions? (somehow I expect the latter).
Secondly, how do you think they're supposed to thematically relate to each other? In other words, how do the novels comment on their own themes - ie, where do you think Herbert stands in relation to the notions of (say) religion, politics, ecoology, free will, heroism, etc?
I'm struck, for example, by the ambiguity of Paul's mission. Whilst we're clearly supposed to side with the heroes awakening, Paul essentially goes on to commit mass murder in the name of a holy war. He's (apparently) worse than the Emperor. And son Leto becomes an oppressive God in his own way, before sacrificing himself for lesser beings. So why should we care that either fulfills their destiny? What's their personal story supposed to mean within the grand scheme of things?
Many of the things you said are very correct. You should definitely read the Dune series (starting with "Dune", not "Butlerian Jihad"). Frank Herbert wrote much more than a story, he quite literally created a universe, filled with wars, government, faith, villains, heros, civilians, everything you could think of. Even between the books there is a crazy amount of minute and grande connections. The Brian Herbert prequels and last two sequels were also based on Frank's notes, but are more of entertainment than the intricate styles of Frank's. An example (without any spoilers), is that a few of the characters from the Butlerian Jihad (and the other two of that trilogy), are brought back into the story in the last two sequels that were written (which take place several thousand years later). They are all excellent and captivating books, you should definitely read the books, you'll get hooked.
Your OP is very perceptive and astute. You're able to see what's missing in the screen adaptations. I'd suggest reading the original novel at least. It stands well on its own. As for Herbert's sequels, they are enjoyable but all the basic themes are well expressed in the original.
To me: the basic philosophical point is that the superman myth is ultimately a myth. Science fiction in the 30s and 40s was very much taken with the idea of the mutant who would lead humanity to a new golden age. Herbert's view is that even if a superbeing arises and upends the social and political order, we will still exchange one set of problems for another.
This is a direct contrast to the human potential optimism of Alfred Bester's THE STARS MY DESTINATION, for example. It's a very different style of novel, but it does take the superman ideal to its logical limit. DUNE by contrast gives Paul Atreides the ability to challenge the Emperor and remake the social order, but ultimately finds out that he has become what he once opposed. (This does become clearer in DUNE MESSIAH.)
Also Paul is the product of genetic manipulation, so at least some of his greatness has been thrust upon him.
We report, you decide; but we decide what to report.
Ok I'd like to take a crack at this. It's been a while since I last read the series though so bare that in mind.
First off all I believe the Dune saga (oh I should mention I've only read the first three books) is primarily about the illusion of control. Despite Paul having the power of perfect memory and being regarded by the greatest warriors in the galaxy as a messiah supreme to live or die for he still never manages to achieve the control he sought, and in time he realizes that "I am the tool of fate". He became a tool by seeking to control events, and because of it he walked down the same path as every other would-be Emperor before him (in fact he could only draw upon the same mistakes as every other person before him because of his perfect memory). His son Leto II in Children of Dune manages to avoid becoming such a tool as his father Paul became by allowing himself to lose control of future events and "go with the flow". He also saves himself from becoming an abomination in this way, so he doubly proves that trying to maintain an illusion of control is a false way out. (Alya also falls like Paul for she needed to control the voices in her mind, and through her desire to control lost it)
Secondly I think the Dune saga touches on the perversion of religion by those who seek to use it as an end to a means. Religion in Dune seems to be healthy and work only when it is served within it's purpose; as soon as it is used for some other agenda outside of it's own belief system is becomes extremely corrupt, and completely loses all of it's original (true) meaning.
Despite its complexity and loftiness, 'Dune' is essentially a multi-volume fantasy novel and for the most part simply fun to read — if you can live with plenty of koan-like Bene Gesserit proverbs and not really knowing what's going on (that aspect is the most fun and can make up for a lot of boring, seemingly meaningless pages). It's not a socio-political commentary — or if so, Herbert's intentions are not that obvious. I've read some parts many times over and always found a new angle of approach. I'd like to know the sources of his inspiration, but like Tolkien I think he would never have given a "definitive" interpretation of his work, like a "Dune for Dummies". And even if he had, each generation of readers will generate their own. On the surface, 'Dune' is about Paul Atreides and his successors and the dangers of absolute power, especially religious fanaticism and the ability to see and control the future. The Atreides have been genetically bred and enhanced for centuries like any other member of the ruling elite. Daughters are usually given for instruction to the Bene Gesserit (a quasi-religious order, but entirely based on reason, to the point of suppressing all emotion), who achieve almost super-human powers through mind and physical discipline, a valuable asset to each power-hungry family. Their 'Reverend Mothers' use Arrakeen Spice to awaken genetic memories of their female ancestors, which gives them a somewhat unique perspective on human history. But their abilities have limits — they have the goal of creating their male equivalent with even greater powers: a true superhuman being. This 'Kwisatz Haderach' is Paul — his name, The Shortening of the Way, implies that through his powers of precognition and the experience of countless (male and female) lifetimes, he will be able to see the perfect path for humanity (That's what I make of the so-called 'Golden Path'). But alas, he slips from the BG's control through unforeseen circumstances. Clearly, there is a point beyond which even their Reverend Mothers cannot see every detail of the future, even though they have created a Mahdi religion on Arrakis for a BG-trained individual to exploit. Paul uses his indoctrinated Fremen army to conquer the Universe, but subsequently becomes the prisoner of his own myth. His precognition shows him no way to reclaim his independance. He is doomed to know and take responsibility, even as his religious empire becomes everything he hates. After losing his beloved wife Chani while she gives birth to a son and daughter, Paul walks into the desert, presumably to die. End of Act I. What was the ultimate goal of the Bene Gesserit, the path they planned for their Kwisatz Haderach? It's not clear (or I have forgotten the clues), but with Paul the Atreides vision takes over completely, and the rest of the series is mainly about the unwilling subjects and the God Emperor(s) themselves trying to escape his absolute powers, and the Atreides ultimately preventing the self-destruction of mankind by making future precognition by yet another Kwisatz Haderach impossible, at least for the descendants of Siona Atreides — the Bene Gesserit's ambitions have come full circle. Glimpsing the future and trying to influence it leads into self-fulfilling prophecies, even for a Bene Gesserit-trained person with controlled emotions, and escaping such powers could be beyond the limits of any (if vaguely) human being. On the technical side, it's important to understand Herbert's concept of clairvoyance, and that's hard — Paul and Leto (his son) have genuine visions, but they also have access to the (genetic) memories of every male and female forebear, theoretically to the very first humans... which is why they are prisoners of the past. There is literally nothing they haven't seen, no experience they haven't had. Act II begins with Paul's son Leto claiming the throne, but he is no longer human even in a physical sense — he has undergone a symbiosis with the Giant Sandworm of Arrakis and will live for ten thousand years: the ultimate dictatorship. The 'God Emperor of Dune' is for me the most enigmatic, yet fascinating book of the series. I don't claim to understand it all, or why Leto resurrects (and kills) his father's most loyal servant Duncan Idaho time and again, other than for breeding purposes and sentimental value (but it is a good vehicle for storytelling). This book is the (anti-)climax of the Atreides' story and also describes very movingly Leto's struggle to hold on to his diminishing humanity, with him being the longest-living and most alien creature in the universe. His death is terrible, melodramatic and ignominious, but Leto himself would insist that he is a force to be overcome. The final two volumes of 'Dune' deal with the transformation of the Bene Gesserit, who face competition and possible extermination from a horde of women that have perverted their Bene Gesserit origins and become 'Honored Matres', enslaving males though sexual domination. The BG have, in Herbert's view, been dehumanized by suppressing their emotions. It's up to an unorthodox Bene Gesserit to remedy the situation and reintegrate the 'lost sisters' back into the order, thereby changing its face forever, but also strengthening it against a new threat that is only described in outlines — and would have been the subject of the next 'Dune' novel, had Herbert had the time to write it (His son Brian and Kevin J. Anderson have published two successive novels, 'Hunters of Dune' and 'Sandworms of Dune', both of which I haven't read).
It's clear that Herbert wrestled with sociological and moral ideas that are sometimes hard to swallow: The saving graces of Democracy, for instance, get only a passing and rather derogatory mention in 'Dune'. The same goes for technology, while the moral and practival value of eugenics is never questioned — human breeding creates the problem and ultimately remedies it. Although we are supposedly somewhere in the future, it could be the Middle Ages going on forever. It seems like Herbert (at least in 'Dune') viewed society as a never-ending cycle and the return of feudal systems as inevitable. He also has taken that Lawrence-of-Arabia cliché of the long-suffering, backward yet fanatical Desert Bedouin, put it in a still suit and transplanted it onto a desert planet, complete with mythology and language — voilà the Fremen (Free Men). I like it, but I'm not sure everybody does right now. The idea of Genetic Memory emerged in the 1850s and was popular in the 'spiritual' Seventies (Today, it is cited among parapsychologists as an explanation for so-called 'past life regression'). With its focus on super-human powers, 'Dune' is not so far from George Lucas' Jedis. The Bene Gesserit are apparently inspired by Buddhist monks, martial artists and Herbert's deep respect for his wife, whom he considered very wise and knowledgeable. 'Dune' is often cited as an early example of environmentalist SF, although in my opinion it's merely a backdrop for the human "zoo" — apart from the childish Paul, it's impossible to really identify with any single person. Its enigmatic philosophy, powerful wording and seemingly deeply understood concepts have made the series kind of "The Lord of the Rings" for intellectuals, but sometimes I get the impression much of it is impressive sounding *beep* Decide for yourself.
Finally, an illuminating(?) Frank Herbert quote (from Wikipedia):
'I think science fiction does help, and it points in very interesting directions. ... It says that we have the imagination for these other opportunities, these other choices. We tend to tie ourselves down to limited choices. We say, "Well, the only answer is...." or, "If you would just...." Whatever follows these two statements narrows the choices right there. It gets the vision right down close to the ground so that you don't see anything happening outside. Humans tend not to see over a long range. Now we are required, in these generations, to have a longer range view of what we inflict on the world around us. This is where, I think, science fiction is helping. I don't think that the mere writing of such a book as "Brave New World" or "1984" prevents those things which are portrayed in those books from happening. But I do think they alert us to that possibility and make that possibility less likely. They make us aware that we may be going in that direction."'
Hi! I'm sorry to interrupt, but I desperately need to know the name of a movie. I think in the 80s, or maybe the early 90s there was a Sci-Fi movie or thriller about a creature in the desert. I don't even know the cast, otherwise I would've searched by that. This creature looked a bit like a Herbert's worm, but at a smaller scale, and dug itself in the sand, awaiting to attack each move. What I recall is 2 or 3 young characters standing on a rock at midday, being scared to climb down, 'cause of the creature.
Anyone! If you know that movie, I'd be grateful to you, if you told me! Thank you!
Well first off you could check out the companion novel/encyclopedia. I forget it's name it's been so long but goes pretty in depth about the politics and inner workings of the landsraad and guild, bene theilax and bene geserit. Herbert also wrote that power does not corrupt,but power attracts the corruptable. Also how heartless and vicious humans can be to each other.