Sign in with Facebook
John Wiswell's Reviews > Dune
Dune
by
by
No one should argue the importance Dune. It laid the foundations for a great deal of the themes and constructs in modern science fiction. Frank Herbert was as important to the genre as Isaac Asimov and Arthur Clarke. Unfortunately, just like them, he's quite dated, and his books can be a labor to read. One thing he maintained from old science fiction was prim and scientific dialogue that no one would ever actually speak. I've known many scientists, and they don't talk like this. You're not going to convince me a child does.
The stuffy dialogue is inserted into even stuffier narrative, until it feels like nothing is organic about Herbert's prose. This is a terrible tragedy when you've got a world that he put so much effort into building - and it is an amazing feat of world-building, technically interplanetary building. But unlike J.R.R. Tolkien, who he is so frequently compared to, Herbert didn't make sure to include a great story in his world. Instead he included a story that frequently illustrated how clunky an artificial world can be, even if it's lovingly crafted. I struggled to attach or find interest in anyone, yet they're more archetypes than human beings, whose logic races past modern skepticism and whose dialogue is cloyingly artificial, the way people cared for the Hobbits, Dwarves and Rangers. In his world-building, Tolkien at least saved himself from being dated by antedating himself, and even with his illuminated prose, wrought more characteristics in just one protagonist than all of Dune's cast.
Even the political intrigue Herbert tries to fall back on was overdone in the Spy genre decades before he started this book. All fans of the "Genre" genres should appreciate Herbert's massive contributions, but they shouldn't pretend to enjoy the books if they don't, and they should be wary of certain pitfalls typical of science fiction that survived into his landmark work.
The stuffy dialogue is inserted into even stuffier narrative, until it feels like nothing is organic about Herbert's prose. This is a terrible tragedy when you've got a world that he put so much effort into building - and it is an amazing feat of world-building, technically interplanetary building. But unlike J.R.R. Tolkien, who he is so frequently compared to, Herbert didn't make sure to include a great story in his world. Instead he included a story that frequently illustrated how clunky an artificial world can be, even if it's lovingly crafted. I struggled to attach or find interest in anyone, yet they're more archetypes than human beings, whose logic races past modern skepticism and whose dialogue is cloyingly artificial, the way people cared for the Hobbits, Dwarves and Rangers. In his world-building, Tolkien at least saved himself from being dated by antedating himself, and even with his illuminated prose, wrought more characteristics in just one protagonist than all of Dune's cast.
Even the political intrigue Herbert tries to fall back on was overdone in the Spy genre decades before he started this book. All fans of the "Genre" genres should appreciate Herbert's massive contributions, but they shouldn't pretend to enjoy the books if they don't, and they should be wary of certain pitfalls typical of science fiction that survived into his landmark work.
1639 likes · Like
∙
flag
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Dune.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
December 1, 2006
–
Finished Reading
June 24, 2007
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-50 of 149 (149 new)
Also: I found that I couldn't imagine how anything (technology or scenery) looked. I felt like Herbert sometimes even described things that I'm pretty sure are physically impossible -- but they sounded good to him. Example: riding worms while their segments are "twisting" and "spiraling"? were they constantly running on top of the worm to keep from getting crushed as it spirals along? The description of Paul's riding the worm was a confused jumble in my struggling imagination.
I don't think I noticed the "spiraling" problem when I was reading because by then a certain part of my imagination had glazed over. It's obviously a ridiculous description, but its composition is symptomatic of so much overwrought Sci Fi and Fantasy fiction. Being in a bunch of workshops, I see the impulse to use flashy words or phrases that felt right yesterday rather than what actually works. Heck, I still catch myself doing it. But it really hurts a book that's as full of itself as Dune, which Herbert even prefaced as a prediction rather than fiction, when it doesn't even display a grip on the words it uses. All the the sweeping would-be epics are full of themselves to some degree, but conceit needs to be earned, and severe conceits require more ability than this book had. Compare it against George Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series, for instance, which can't go a hundred pages without writing showy narrative or indulging an insipid character - but Martin grounds his characters and controls how the language flows, pacing it so that the pretentious parts are special in contrast to other scenes, and controls the language such that what he wants to be artistically beautiful shines. Martin is a rare writer that's finally succeeding in non-humorous "genre" writing after decades of stagnant overwriting and pseudo-science babble flooding the market place.
Brilliant review. Dune is, to me, everything that is wrong with science fiction: meticulous world building, amazing concepts, mind-blowing technology, and a bunch of 1 dimensional generic characters you can't force yourself to give a crap about. I think most fantasy has basically the same problem.
I don't know....I thought Dune is the great book it is because of the things you mentioned. I mean...otherwise...it be some really crappy sci-fi....every SciFi writer have to make his own style. If you are really bothered by the things you mentioned, read his own book, Jesus Incident
Brilliant review. Thanks for sharing an unpopular opinion. I know I'm going to get pantsed by my friends at the next con I attend for my lambasting of a cult favorite, but I really think this book is over rated. Herbert definitely was a genius at world building, he just should have paid as much attention to his characters. I almost wonder if Herbert wasn't something of an Autistic savant, Asperger's syndrome perhaps? To be able to create such a phenomenal world and populate it with such cold, calculating people is almost criminal. I found myself noting that the main characters really only displayed basic emotions, hunger, thirst, fear, relief, anxiety, but they didn't relate to each other. The death of a child, or a husband, or a close friend is related matter of factly and though the affected party may 'cry,' you don't really know how they feel about it.
I don't think there was anything necessarily wrong with Herbert, especially not just because of his SciFi novel. Speculative Fiction history is full of flat characters, or characters who are primarily defined by their roles. There's even a strong vein in Hard SciFi today that prefers rigor over characterization. I would sooner suspect it was just clunky writing style; I've seen similar problems show up in plenty of workshops.
Strange, I enjoyed it so much I couldn't put the book down. I didn't find the book clunky or slowed by useless jargon either. I do agree that each character was more of a single archetype lacking in depth.
Reading this book again after not having picked it up for some 20 years. I think your comments are completely fair but I'm having trouble thinking of any SciFi author where the quality of the prose or characters is on par with the quality of the ideas. It differs a lot between authors of course but I gave up a long time ago expecting to find them in a SciFi book. Even for authors like Banks. Shame really, I dont know why it is so often this way. Still, an amazing read.
i couldn't finish it. i tried really hard, i continued reading it long after i stopped enjoying it.i think the book has great power and the names he used continue to resonate within me in a mysterious way but i really didn't like the characters.
at first i was very negative to the idea of a child messiah, it really bothers me, but after i found out that Paul was 15 years old and not a child i was surprisingly ok with it. but then as the book progressed all the characters became so very annoying, especially Paul, i couldn't finish it.
i latter read the plot and how it evolves and it was very interesting but still i would read the book for that. The only thing that i really wanted to read about is what happens when Halleck tries to kill Jesicca but i couldn't get that far.
Agreed. My eyes drooped when I read it, and I found it very, very dull. Couldn't finish it, although I did try! Maybe one day I'll try again, but I doubt it. The old Dune II video game that my brother and I played on Windows '94 was much more fun than this!
Zachariah wrote: "I agree. Dune is one of those books that is surrounded by the hype of a massive cult following and isn't actually that great of a read. I found it to be incredibly boring and I'm not a stranger to ..."wow, well I loved Dune. But I hated Lord of the Ring Triology. I thought it was soooo boring. I had to force myself to finish reading it just to give it a chance. The movie was 10 times better.
I think I assumed the characters were cold and stilted because of their upbringing and situation, steeped in duty, tradition, martial virtues, bene gesserit training, etc.. These are people from a different culture - aristocrats, spartans, or whatever comparison you want to make. Not that I'm saying that makes them any more interesting to read about as characters.
Tiredstars wrote: "I think I assumed the characters were cold and stilted because of their upbringing and situation, steeped in duty, tradition, martial virtues, bene gesserit training, etc.. These are people from a ..."I can certainly accept that interpretation. Cultural stiffness can exist, and could exist there. But if that was the case, I'd find it frustrating that Herbert presented them as so intellectually/emotionally homogenous, when in most cultures, especially extremely post-modern ones like this religion-seeding culture, there's usually dramatic diversity, especially across age ranges.
Well, I couldn't disagree more. It's always a complex thing when people say they didn't care about the characters or weren't able to imagine them. I mean, I did both. I think it's funny when Zachariah says it's surrounded by a massive cult following but not that great of a read -- well, that massive cult following must obviously feel differently. Though, I have thought exactly that about The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. I liked The Lord of the Rings but I feel like Herbert's story is much cleaner and clearer. I felt like if anything, it was Tolkien who got a little lost in the minutiae of his mythology and the story got drowned beneath it.
I too couldn't disagree more. We have a world 10,000 years in the future in which computer technology has been banned and people have been forced to develop mental disciplines that are unimaginable today. You have a child raised by a mother who has no problem spending days at a time working on control of one finger. In that context (yes, context does matter) I have no problem believing that Paul might talk and think as portrayed. On the contrary, I more often have trouble when other writers portray humans of the far future who apparently think and talk exactly like teenagers of the 20th century.
Steve wrote: "I too couldn't disagree more. We have a world 10,000 years in the future in which computer technology has been banned and people have been forced to develop mental disciplines that are unimaginable..."I'm sorry to repeat myself, but this is the same objection as Tirestars, and I have the same reply. It's an acceptable interpretation that it comes from the cultural, but if so, the homogeneity across age ranges is entirely unbelievable. Having encountered this argument again, now it feels more like rationalization for something that is actually a style of dialogue and internal psychology that seemed to appear in a lot of SciFi of the time period. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to like it, but it was just unbearable to me.
The academic criteria of 'serious literature' aren't always appropriate. Stilted dialogue and archetypal ('stock', if you prefer) characters are the stuff of myths, fairy tales and the Thousand and One Nights. Ancient travellers' tales were written in a similar style. As for the geopolitics on a galactic scale, it is exactly as childish as geopolitics on a terrestrial scale has never yet failed to be. The lady who thought there wasn't enough description mustn't have read with too much attention. It's decades since I read Dune, but certain scenes –– for example, the conference at which the Atreides meet the Fremen face to face for the first time –– are still vivid in my memory.
Palmyrah wrote: "The academic criteria of 'serious literature' aren't always appropriate. Stilted dialogue and archetypal ('stock', if you prefer) characters are the stuff of myths, fairy tales and the Thousand and..."I don't know who you're rebutting with your "serious literature" comment. However, comparing Dune to classic myths and fairy tales doesn't do well by me. If you've done work in oral traditions and recorded a version of Dune performed like them, I'd be very interested to listen or watch a Youtube video of it.
Still - Ovid, Aesop, etc. made archetypes very interesting for two and five pages at a time, and Homer and Virgil gave their characters considerable development and depth at a longer range. There were Greek plays where characters languish that way, but they were written for actors to flesh out on stage. Dune is a doorstop of a novel written centuries of story development after those people, and it uses its space very poorly in contrast to what those texts did with theirs. Between narration and dialogue, it also is much closer to the conventional stilted SciFi of its own time than any bygone styles that I can recall. That's why I'd be open to an oral tradition adaptation if you've done such.
I'll make myself clearer. It seems to me you're applying your personal interpretation of traditional literary critical standards – standards which are themselves entirely arbitrary, by the way, an arbitrary choice made from among all possible ways of appreciating narrative by Western academics in the modern era – as if they were absolute standards.Science fiction (only those who do not like it or understand it call it sci-fi) operates to different standards, as do myth, epic, fairytale, folktale, folk song and many other well-loved narrative forms.
Your review of Dune tells us nothing about the novel, apart from the fact that it didn't fit your particular standards of what constitutes good literature. I suppose that would be good to know if I had to spend the rest of my life on a desert island with you, but happily, that is unlikely to occur.
As a matter of fact, Dune doesn't fit my 'standards of good literature' either – but that isn't the point, is it? It works differently, and in its way it works wonderfully well – as you were obliged to confess, albeit ungrammatically, in your opening sentence.
Interesting opinion & tastes you have, John Wiswell. I'd feel more comfortable with them if you weren't trying so hard to pass them off as some sort of objective analysis.Herbert's work and it's style is what it is, and it _is_ of a certain period in SF history. So, what's the big deal? That was then, and this is now. I'm fine with that.
I'm one of those odd ducks who re-reads fine works like his (_Dune_ series and others) at least once a decade or so, and comes away just as entertained and inspired as before, and sometimes with a little bit more benefit than the last time. :)
I think the first three novels were sheer genius, and they suddenly fell steeply downhill starting with the fourth. The way he wove together many apparently disparate social/political themes -- themes still very much of current concern -- cannot be understated. I think he deserves a bit more scholarly attention, in comparison (not necessarily in equivalence) to Tolkien's superlative _oeuvre._
"All fans of the "Genre" genres should appreciate Herbert's massive contributions, but they shouldn't pretend to enjoy the books if they don't, and they should be wary of certain pitfalls typical of science fiction that survived into his landmark work"
"'Pretend' to enjoy"??
Mighty presumptuous of you to second-guess all those other fans like that, Kreskin. How do u do dat?? ;)
"Be 'wary' of pitfalls"??
Wow, you mean they're in actual _danger_ if their tastes aren't the same as yours? ;)
These are just my opinions, of course. :)
Palmyrah wrote: Your review of Dune tells us nothing about the novel, apart from the fact that it didn't fit your particular standards of what constitutes good literature. I suppose that would be good to know if I had to spend the rest of my life on a desert island with you, but happily, that is unlikely to occur. I do not use the phrase "good literature," nor even the word "literature" in my review. If you're dismayed that my review about the book consists of my opinions of it, I don't know what to tell you. I didn't like it and explained the major reasons why. That strikes me as the purpose of a site like this. Were you hoping my review would repeat the plot?
Roman wrote: Mighty presumptuous of you to second-guess all those other fans like that, Kreskin. How do u do dat?? ;)
Come now, you don't need me to explain this to you. If you liked it, you're not pretending to like it.
But then, I wasn't "trying hard" like you suggest. I merely typed up some of my thoughts. As far as "pitfalls" - yeah, writing like this has caused a great deal of awful stilted SciFi since. That's a danger to many careers. I've watched plenty of writers struggle because of it, and it's saddening.
I know you didn't mention the words 'good literature', John, but I reckon we both know what we're talking about here. It's not such a big deal: just a review of your review. You can review my reviews, if the mood so takes you, and be as nasty as you like about them.
Palmyrah wrote: "I know you didn't mention the words 'good literature', John, but I reckon we both know what we're talking about here. It's not such a big deal: just a review of your review. You can review my revie..."Just curious - do you think the above review of Dune is nasty?
No. I think all kinds of uncomplimentary things about it, but I don't think it's nasty. And I don't believe it should bother you very much what I think. I'm just one person.
If Dune is over-rated, what kind of a book is not and deserves its praise? I can't seriously imagine giving this book only two stars. Even taking into account your personal dislike for his dialog, the most you could really hope to downgrade this book to would be three stars. Anything below that I think just belies a personal grudge of some kind, a lack of understanding of what folks value in writing and/or books or a desire to be noticed. I'm not trying to be harsh, but I guess I don't get your review in the same way that you don't get this book. Well, I guess that justifies your position!
I understand your opinion for the most part. I can see where you are coming from, even if I do not agree. However the point about the language the characters use seems completely wrong. This is not our society. If you are brought up with that kind of scientific language used around you then you are going to think in it as well. The reason why your science friends do not talk like this is because society has a basic standard on language. Although you will find that when they talk amongst each other they will use a lot of terminology and "inside jokes" they wouldn't use around you.
The prime example of this are gamers and the ilk. They seem to talk I their own language.
Šimon wrote: "I understand your opinion for the most part. I can see where you are coming from, even if I do not agree. However the point about the language the characters use seems completely wrong. This is n..."
I might have appreciated it if a single character talked this way and contextualized the others. However, using your example, no group actually talks and thinks so homogeneously. I'm a gamer and I don't rattle on the way the stereotype does, and I consistently run into people who buck the stereotype in every fashion.
Hmmm... you seem to be getting massive traction on your review. That's always a good thing. However, I'm going to take a position in stark contrast to your comments.I must admit, I found the book hard to read when I was 10 or so. But I just re-read it (some 35 years later) and was overcome by what I found. In my opinion, it contains beautiful prose, full of mystical dialog and alien-like description. Moreover, if it comes off sounding strange, I think it's Herbert's attempt to create futuristic text which helps make it timeless in many respects. So many SF books published in the 60s contain stylistic prose of the 60s, they seem anchored in their founding culture. When the story is far in the future, stylistic prose just sounds silly; one can't take those books seriously. But Dune? It doesn't suffer from that, and almost reads like it came through some spice wormhole.
I don't know-- to each his own. But I for one found it one of the most well written books of our time. While other books will be forgotten, Dune will endure. Sorry, that's how I see it.
Saul wrote: "I don't know-- to each his own. But I for one found it one of the most well written books of our time. While other books will be forgotten, Dune will endure. Sorry, that's how I see it. "Your reaction to the book is your reaction to the book. No one is telling you that you have to have their reaction, and so your being "sorry" that you saw it another way is the only thing that bothers about your comment.
John wrote: "Saul wrote: "I don't know-- to each his own. But I for one found it one of the most well written books of our time. While other books will be forgotten, Dune will endure. Sorry, that's how I see it..."I just didn't want to sound too confrontational. Sorry ;)
I've read Dune three times over the past 35 years and it gets better every time. It's one of my all time favorites. Maybe it's a generational thing...
I've read it three times too, and I love it still. Previously a mystery to me was as to how being impressed with a character can lead to fan worship that lasts three decades, but the above made me suddenly realize that perhaps Paul's control of his fingers had special appeal for me as a young woman.:)
Actually, the guy I REALLY wanted to know was the character who the son, worm-boy, kept bringing back to life from the vat. Duncan Idaho must have been a charismatic guy or a looker - he caused the God Emperor Leto to break training for his smile.
Putting my strictly literary interests aside, when I read Dune, I had never read anything so complex in science fiction before, and I saw that for the first time what science fiction could be like all grown up. I'm not in love with every plot point, but the politics involved in the books woke me up to politics in general. It also woke me up to the problems I was feeling about organized religion. I didn't understand before the manipulation and created history that can be built around these two weighty subjects - I was in my early 20's - it gave me permission to dig into college classes that explored Earth's real history for the last 3,000 years - and all of that literally freed my caged, religion-chained-up, bourgeois intellect.
Between Sherlock Holmes and Dune, I became a grown-up. Dune will always be one of my essential reads.
It is dated but you cannot judge his work by modern standards any more than you can judge the wort of the Mona Lisa by the standards by modern art. Besides its still better than a lot of the books coming out today.
wow. it just amazes me what people cannot or do not understand.yet. reminds me of a yogic or perhaps sufi quandry of how to describe a color for someone who has never seen them
Wow. just Wow. i mean a little bit dated? this book is placed in the future. its hard to be "dated". we dont know what is to come so its hard to say if its "dated". and dry drab melodramatic and boring? i beg to differ. this book sparked the beginning of almost all scifi. i doubt very much that you could write a book that sparks the beginning of an entire genre. im sorry that you feel this way but you are completely wrong. i would bet that you never even read the book.
I did not expect to enjoy this book, but I am halfway through it and cannot put it down.
It's short sighted and weird to expect characters 10,000 years in the future to talk in a way that would feel "organic" or natural to us.
Mason nailed it.
As much as I hate to agree with the review/reviewer on even the smallest detail, I admit that at first I was turned off by the dialogue... but that lasted all of maybe 3 pages before I came to the same conclusion as Mason and Bukk (and a "cult" of others) and let myself thoroughly enjoy this great work of science FICTION. Is it really so hard to believe that the children of a distant future, who have been conditioned since birth, would speak the same as adults? Especially since you've already agreed to accept space colonization and the ecology of Dune by picking up the book in the first place? Not to mention the fact that throughout the story it is repeated again and again that these are not normal children even for the time period. Let's try not to take ourselves too seriously John.
Concerning dialogue: how do you know what scientists from Herbert's era talked like?
Teri wrote: "Brilliant review. Thanks for sharing an unpopular opinion. I know I'm going to get pantsed by my friends at the next con I attend for my lambasting of a cult favorite, but I really think this boo..."I'm curious about the labeling of Dune as a "cult favorite". What does this mean exactly? What would be different if it were a --what?-- mainstream favorite? Accepted classic? Is The Lord of the Rings also a cult favorite? Star Trek? Stranger in a Strange Land?
Just curious.
Teri wrote: "Brilliant review. Thanks for sharing an unpopular opinion. I know I'm going to get pantsed by my friends at the next con I attend for my lambasting of a cult favorite, but I really think this boo..."In light of a recent argument I let myself get dragged into on GoodReads, I'm feeling the need to add that I'm actually curious. A few people on this thread label Dune or the people who love it as a "cult" and it struck me as surprising and strange. A "cult" favorite would seem to be one that didn't have such a large and mainstream pop culture presence. So I'm curious as to your criteria or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your meaning.
I can't speak for Teri, but I do dissent. My exposure to SF fans and authors makes it seem part of the SF canon, at least for America. Perhaps Teri was thinking of how passionate its core fandom is? Not that this would differentiate it from Lord of the Rings.
I think the dialogue is central to how the plot is revealed to the reader. There are relatively few descriptive passages. It ios through dialogue and monologue (mostly in the form of private thoughts) that the drama unfolds. This is slightly unusual but I absolutely love it. It allows the author to develop characters, tension, atmosphere and but the reader in those edge of your seat situations where they know more than the characters. Some people are complaining that they can't imagine what is happening in the book. I noticed the sparsity of description but found that I naturally developed my own image anyway. In fact, long descriptive passages that plague some SF books can be a tiresome distraction. As for 1D characters I disagree. Consider the relationship between Jessica and Paul. There's love there but also fear, anger and maybe a little hate. But there is some depth there.
I'd like to write my own review, but honestly, I couldn't add any more than what you've said here. I appreciate what it did for the science fiction genre and recognize it as an important step in modern literature, but it has not aged nearly as well as other tales of similar scope.
Brian wrote: "I'd like to write my own review, but honestly, I couldn't add any more than what you've said here. I appreciate what it did for the science fiction genre and recognize it as an important step in m..."To each his own. I loaned it to a young(21) apprentice of mine at work and he is DEVOURING it! He comes in every day and gives us updates. It's great and gives the old heads a good memory because that's the way we all felt when we were reading it as well.
Sometimes it's not about the writer, it's about the reader.
Bobby wrote: "Brian wrote: "Sometimes it's not about the writer, it's about the reader. "Every reading is about the reader's relationship with the text. I have no qualms with people who like the book, but a few with people who have qualms with not liking the book.
I see what you are saying about stuffy. That's a great word to describe my feelings about now. I want to read it so I'm basically forcing myself to push past those bulky thick concepts that they've laid out front.
The book is nothing but clunky, melodramatic dialogue alternating with clunky, more-melodramatic inner monologues. There's something very annoying about Herbert trying to convince me that someone's inner thoughts sound like medieval soap opera dialogue.
The book seems to be all talking and acting -- no showing or describing. I agree with your contrasting to Tolkien. I had just come out of reading Jane Eyre. Completely different genre and time, but a similar and painful contrast to Dune: Bronte's book is full of beautiful, intricate scene and character description and natural dialogue. Going into the stark, unsatisfying prose of Dune was very disappointing.
It's frustrating that such a good idea (ecological warning) got such awkward treatment.