Scan barcode
renardr's review against another edition
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
4.0
arienne311's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25
nnmtt's review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
fallolina's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
informative
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
joshuamt's review against another edition
4.0
My friend warned me: it goes down after the first book. But I couldnt help myself and ordered this trilogy the day after finishing Dune. I was not interested as much in the plot, which can dawdle on forever like so many once-great sci-fi series, but rather in how Frank Herbert continued exploring the big ideas of Dune: the Middle East/Dune parallels, Church-State, climate change, the competing myth creations of Paul vs the BG...
Book II (Dune Messiah) is the fall of Paul and Book III (Children of Dune) focuses on the Atreides who were born on Dune (Paul's sister Alia, and Paul's twins). From a reading of other reviews, many people apparently lost interest at book II; however, I was drawn in by the new characters and intrigued by the big arc of Paul's willing self-destruction. The plot was not as compelling as Dune, but it also was not leaning on the the archetypal outline of the child-turned-hero myth. So as I began book II, I thought that my friend's judgment was off: while the trilogy was not equal parts greatness, it was building upon the masterpiece into something more.
Book III got off to a promising start, with new characters (Farad'n, the grandson of the former Shaddah Emperor, and his entourage) and a more abstract focus on the dangers inherent in all of the "children of Dune" as a result of their having been born with a multiplicity of personalities and memories. Leto emerges as the protagonist, who is seeking a path that will correct the errors of his father.
At this point, I was still hooked. "What does he see that Paul did not?" "How will this insight shift my understanding of the big issues?" But then, slowly, Leto's thoughts and philosophy became harder for me to follow. Is the Golden Path Leto's rule or Farad'n (who is described with plenty of gold imagery)? Is Leto prescient or has he avoided that temptation? By destroying the qanats, isnt Leto turning the planet back to dessert and thereby saving the worms, but if so, why will the worms die in 100 years? Harum??
It was this muddying of the big issues that left me dissatisfied, because if those had stayed coherent in my head (which may be the fault of my reading and not the writing), then I might not have found some of the plot twists so absurd (Leto becoming a worm) or the personality changes unconvincing (Paul to Preacher; Alia to Abomination).
So I wont be reading any more Dune books, but I could see myself coming back to this series again and giving the third book another chance. I'd love to find that I had missed subtleties and that Herbert's grand vision was simply too all-encompassing for me to take in at first try.
Book II (Dune Messiah) is the fall of Paul and Book III (Children of Dune) focuses on the Atreides who were born on Dune (Paul's sister Alia, and Paul's twins). From a reading of other reviews, many people apparently lost interest at book II; however, I was drawn in by the new characters and intrigued by the big arc of Paul's willing self-destruction. The plot was not as compelling as Dune, but it also was not leaning on the the archetypal outline of the child-turned-hero myth. So as I began book II, I thought that my friend's judgment was off: while the trilogy was not equal parts greatness, it was building upon the masterpiece into something more.
Book III got off to a promising start, with new characters (Farad'n, the grandson of the former Shaddah Emperor, and his entourage) and a more abstract focus on the dangers inherent in all of the "children of Dune" as a result of their having been born with a multiplicity of personalities and memories. Leto emerges as the protagonist, who is seeking a path that will correct the errors of his father.
At this point, I was still hooked. "What does he see that Paul did not?" "How will this insight shift my understanding of the big issues?" But then, slowly, Leto's thoughts and philosophy became harder for me to follow. Is the Golden Path Leto's rule or Farad'n (who is described with plenty of gold imagery)? Is Leto prescient or has he avoided that temptation? By destroying the qanats, isnt Leto turning the planet back to dessert and thereby saving the worms, but if so, why will the worms die in 100 years? Harum??
It was this muddying of the big issues that left me dissatisfied, because if those had stayed coherent in my head (which may be the fault of my reading and not the writing), then I might not have found some of the plot twists so absurd (Leto becoming a worm) or the personality changes unconvincing (Paul to Preacher; Alia to Abomination).
So I wont be reading any more Dune books, but I could see myself coming back to this series again and giving the third book another chance. I'd love to find that I had missed subtleties and that Herbert's grand vision was simply too all-encompassing for me to take in at first try.
perilous1's review against another edition
4.0
3.5 Stars (collectively)
I loved the first book.
LOVED it.
But I'm unfortunately in the camp of those who seem to find that each successive book feels too much like a game of diminishing returns. :/
I loved the first book.
LOVED it.
But I'm unfortunately in the camp of those who seem to find that each successive book feels too much like a game of diminishing returns. :/
cunningempress's review against another edition
3.0
finally i am done with this! this book had it's moments, it's got a lot of interesting politics and philosophy and the setting is pretty interesting but it was just so boring at times. the really good parts were few and far between. i just couldn't focus on this for long periods of time. i don't think i'll bother reading any of the sequels.
natfoster's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
emotional
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.5
beytwice's review against another edition
5.0
I find myself amazed at the sheer expansive nature of world-building Herbert delivers in this trilogy. A franchise as open and ever stretching as Arrakis itself, I have nothing but respect for the environment built within Dune and all of its inhabitants. A sci-fi epic by no other name, all three of the novels contained within have their own charm and impactfulness.
While I felt Dune Messiah to be the weakest of the trilogy, it was still strong in its narrative and easily a four-star read of its own accord. The discovery that the franchise is in fact not a trilogy but a six-book stretch is no more than a pleasant surprise.
While I felt Dune Messiah to be the weakest of the trilogy, it was still strong in its narrative and easily a four-star read of its own accord. The discovery that the franchise is in fact not a trilogy but a six-book stretch is no more than a pleasant surprise.