Scan barcode
A review by frasersimons
Dune by Frank Herbert
emotional
4.25
On a re read. This Still not quite a five star read, I think. Despite it being brilliant at a few things: the politics, insinuation of complex philosophy, specially around religion, and the social constructs which power is continually built around, and the worldbuilding around the culture and ecology of the planet—there is still the reduction of the Baron as a very shallow character, a very rushed ending (especially the last chapter), and some of the dialogue not being good, especially during plot events, feeling forced, overdramatized, and sometimes laughable.
It’s too bad that as complex as the macro antagonist is, serving to interrogate white saviours/knights, larger power structures through embodiments of them, and, to some degree, humanity as a whole, the Baron is such a caricature of “evil” and little more than a catalyst for some plot beats. Obese, gay, and a pedophile, it really accentuates some of the poor thinking in the scifi space when this was written, and is unfortunate. Some people, I’m sure, excuse it easily because of its significance, but plenty of classics manage to avoid pitfalls and are written far before. But scifi being rooted in less literary efforts did and still does cling to more commercial aspects, with authors falling into these kinds of pitfalls, I’ve found. It’s often contradictory too, in contrast to larger themes, just like here. Everything is nuanced except for the Baron and how basic that house is, versus the noble Atredies. Thankfully, the next book, which is my favourite of the trilogy, is superior to this one, from what I remember.
I just saw the second movie and it made me want to compare what I saw with what I remembered. I thought the fight between Paul and na baron whomever was was shorter in the book, but I think I actually was remembering the old sci-fi miniseries (which, is actually really good and in some ways superior to the movies, but clearly not as good in most other ways), but most other things I remembered correctly. It’s a good onboarding point for people though. The basic plot beats still make for a fun story in the movies, but what I most like about the books are the philosophy and worldbuilding, which you don’t get in the movies nearly as much. Not to mention the other major changes to Chani (sp?) and Paul’s sister, or people suspecting Jessica, no politics or dinner after they land at the start, etc. etc. But I am most sad about my favourite part of the entire book not being in either of the movies: ‘I was a friend of Jamis. He taught me that when you kill, you pay for it’. Not including it in the movie is kind of baffling, to be honest.
Because of the multiverse implications Paul has, I suppose you could consider the movies just an alternate timeline. One where Paul is ironically perhaps more moral, with an externalized moral delimma, and the women in his life having more autonomy, but ultimately, depending on what happens in the third movie, still having the fall out of the holy war emerge. I suppose we shall see.
I hope my fondness for the second book remains. Less action and far more centered on the thematics. My kind of stuff, typically.
It’s too bad that as complex as the macro antagonist is, serving to interrogate white saviours/knights, larger power structures through embodiments of them, and, to some degree, humanity as a whole, the Baron is such a caricature of “evil” and little more than a catalyst for some plot beats. Obese, gay, and a pedophile, it really accentuates some of the poor thinking in the scifi space when this was written, and is unfortunate. Some people, I’m sure, excuse it easily because of its significance, but plenty of classics manage to avoid pitfalls and are written far before. But scifi being rooted in less literary efforts did and still does cling to more commercial aspects, with authors falling into these kinds of pitfalls, I’ve found. It’s often contradictory too, in contrast to larger themes, just like here. Everything is nuanced except for the Baron and how basic that house is, versus the noble Atredies. Thankfully, the next book, which is my favourite of the trilogy, is superior to this one, from what I remember.
I just saw the second movie and it made me want to compare what I saw with what I remembered. I thought the fight between Paul and na baron whomever was was shorter in the book, but I think I actually was remembering the old sci-fi miniseries (which, is actually really good and in some ways superior to the movies, but clearly not as good in most other ways), but most other things I remembered correctly. It’s a good onboarding point for people though. The basic plot beats still make for a fun story in the movies, but what I most like about the books are the philosophy and worldbuilding, which you don’t get in the movies nearly as much. Not to mention the other major changes to Chani (sp?) and Paul’s sister, or people suspecting Jessica, no politics or dinner after they land at the start, etc. etc. But I am most sad about my favourite part of the entire book not being in either of the movies: ‘I was a friend of Jamis. He taught me that when you kill, you pay for it’. Not including it in the movie is kind of baffling, to be honest.
Because of the multiverse implications Paul has, I suppose you could consider the movies just an alternate timeline. One where Paul is ironically perhaps more moral, with an externalized moral delimma, and the women in his life having more autonomy, but ultimately, depending on what happens in the third movie, still having the fall out of the holy war emerge. I suppose we shall see.
I hope my fondness for the second book remains. Less action and far more centered on the thematics. My kind of stuff, typically.