Scan barcode
A review by frasersimons
Dune Messiah by Frank Herbert
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
sad
slow-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
2024 re read:
I think if this and the first book was a duology it could be a near flawless and complete story. This book fixes and addresses everything about the first book that needed to be and the character work and dialogue, as well as thematics, are all just so much improved. As a bonus, we haven’t gone absolutely gonzo yet, like in the coming books.
Paul is shown to be incontestably fallible and merely the lesser of two evils compared to what could have been, had he not done what he did. But that is questionable, considering his inability to see certain things throughout the narrative. Because he is only able to assimilate generational knowledge he is still unable to be morally good nor make his empire function that way, despite wishing it. He can only think and see as a person raised by and constructed by manmade frameworks, so has less autonomy than he’s ascribed.
This is the major theme of this book, and though it relies entirely on the first books framework, it is far more interesting than the first, in my opinion. We see Paul clearly for what he is, the white saviour deconstructed and situated in other oppressive systems than remove autonomy from everyone else, all to perpetuate the system of mans inability to form a holistic and Good relationship to nature. In the end, the only things that are truly lasting is man succumbing to nature and its domination of it but a matter of minuscule time, as far as nature is concerned.
Further exploration of autonomy is Duncan returned, and his struggle—and direct externalization of the same thing Paul and Aliya similarly struggle with—to determine how they might obtain agency and autonomy in manmade systems. In Duncan’s case literally manmade, in Aliya’s, being subsumed in the same way as Paul, just from the female perspective, neither her nor Paul having a combination of the male and female balance talked about in the first book.
Where other books have similar tropes, such as Duncan serving as a catalyst for downfall and danger by the conspiracy, it’s nice that a) Duncan is a male honeypot, a subtle subversion and b) it illustrated at a macro level Why those tropey plotting and schemes might work against Paul and company: They are still human and raised in human systems. So, Aliya is susceptible to sexual manipulation, possibly, because she doesn’t have the embodiment to realize how she’s being manipulated, when it’s just simple biology for her age and hormones, and Duncan being her type (as a really basic dumbing down). And Paul’s clinging to some heroic notion of who he is, as much as is possible, could be brought down by not allowing himself to exist, if the right conditions are met. It is Way better of an antagonist setup than the dull caricature Baron, and it makes overt that Paul himself, and social constructs themselves are the “big bads”, and that it is not, once again, a white saviour story.
I have to say, I think it’s absolutely brilliant and this book is by far and away the best of the two original trilogies. It’s an unpopular opinion, but I think this is better written, far, far more tight, and a fantastic counterpoint to the original. I’ll have to think about it some more, but this one could be an all time favourite now.
First reading:
To be honest, I’m not sure why some people are disappointed in this. Feels like a very nice continuation of everything unresolved in the first book and continues deconstructing the hero’s journey to a satisfying conclusion.
I did not miss the heavier politicking, especially when the Baron was such a caricature (signalling Herbert had some reflecting to do, imo). The slow pace focusing on the philosophical was pretty much jam tbh. Sad tone. Making it clear what Paul was. I dare say it was more satisfying than the first book.
I think if this and the first book was a duology it could be a near flawless and complete story. This book fixes and addresses everything about the first book that needed to be and the character work and dialogue, as well as thematics, are all just so much improved. As a bonus, we haven’t gone absolutely gonzo yet, like in the coming books.
Paul is shown to be incontestably fallible and merely the lesser of two evils compared to what could have been, had he not done what he did. But that is questionable, considering his inability to see certain things throughout the narrative. Because he is only able to assimilate generational knowledge he is still unable to be morally good nor make his empire function that way, despite wishing it. He can only think and see as a person raised by and constructed by manmade frameworks, so has less autonomy than he’s ascribed.
This is the major theme of this book, and though it relies entirely on the first books framework, it is far more interesting than the first, in my opinion. We see Paul clearly for what he is, the white saviour deconstructed and situated in other oppressive systems than remove autonomy from everyone else, all to perpetuate the system of mans inability to form a holistic and Good relationship to nature. In the end, the only things that are truly lasting is man succumbing to nature and its domination of it but a matter of minuscule time, as far as nature is concerned.
Further exploration of autonomy is Duncan returned, and his struggle—and direct externalization of the same thing Paul and Aliya similarly struggle with—to determine how they might obtain agency and autonomy in manmade systems. In Duncan’s case literally manmade, in Aliya’s, being subsumed in the same way as Paul, just from the female perspective, neither her nor Paul having a combination of the male and female balance talked about in the first book.
Where other books have similar tropes, such as Duncan serving as a catalyst for downfall and danger by the conspiracy, it’s nice that a) Duncan is a male honeypot, a subtle subversion and b) it illustrated at a macro level Why those tropey plotting and schemes might work against Paul and company: They are still human and raised in human systems. So, Aliya is susceptible to sexual manipulation, possibly, because she doesn’t have the embodiment to realize how she’s being manipulated, when it’s just simple biology for her age and hormones, and Duncan being her type (as a really basic dumbing down). And Paul’s clinging to some heroic notion of who he is, as much as is possible, could be brought down by not allowing himself to exist, if the right conditions are met. It is Way better of an antagonist setup than the dull caricature Baron, and it makes overt that Paul himself, and social constructs themselves are the “big bads”, and that it is not, once again, a white saviour story.
I have to say, I think it’s absolutely brilliant and this book is by far and away the best of the two original trilogies. It’s an unpopular opinion, but I think this is better written, far, far more tight, and a fantastic counterpoint to the original. I’ll have to think about it some more, but this one could be an all time favourite now.
First reading:
To be honest, I’m not sure why some people are disappointed in this. Feels like a very nice continuation of everything unresolved in the first book and continues deconstructing the hero’s journey to a satisfying conclusion.
I did not miss the heavier politicking, especially when the Baron was such a caricature (signalling Herbert had some reflecting to do, imo). The slow pace focusing on the philosophical was pretty much jam tbh. Sad tone. Making it clear what Paul was. I dare say it was more satisfying than the first book.