We can also see similarities between Tolkien's qualified respect for science fiction and his qualified respect for invention and industry. In the prologue of Fellowship, we read that the Hobbits generally don't have any machines more advanced than a hand-loom or a water-mill; but we see in the Noldor especially the House of Feanor and the Numenoreans technological advances and mastery over the created world so great and magnificent that they are almost magical. And there is nothing wrong depicted with that. The problem comes from people like Feanor and the Numenoreans in their last centuries, and to a lesser extent Feanor's grandson Celebrimbor, who use their knowledge and tech for evil or for for selfish ambition.
I can relate to liking Dune without exactly knowing why. Somehow I even like its religious deconstruction too. It’s hard to square being a Catholic (and a seminarian to boot), but I often find Herbert brings an insightful perspective about the distinction between genuine faith and the purely human/political elements of religion. For me it’s most striking in “Dune: Messiah” where Paul’s cult has grown staid and institutionalized, serving its priests and lackeys more than its original fervor and meaning. Herbert’s portrait of religion might be warped, but I still find it moving, with its own kind of warning against conflating faith with human measures of success and power.
I’m just commenting my to say that I’m overjoyed you’ve begun a substack! I’ve leaves your writing since the A&F days and look forward to reading more of it!
Thanks for your comment, Joseph! In my review of Dune: Part One I wrote that a movie like Dune “is almost two distinct movies, offering radically different experiences (or ranges of experiences) to two audiences: those familiar with the universe of Frank Herbert’s landmark science-fiction novels and those coming to the film, as I did, more or less cold.” I added that longtime fans who couldn’t imagine how the film would play to someone unfamiliar with the source material had been asking me if I thought the film works on its own.
Because these two audiences (the readers and the non-readers) exist—both of whom, within other parameters, the movie is supposed to work for—I think there’s value in reviews being written both by fans of the source material and by people like me who have either never read it or whose reading is at best limited and impressionistic. There can be no definitive review of a movie like Dune, and I can only write the review that I can write! Hopefully there’s value in that.
How true. I’ve read and enjoyed all six of Herbert’s Dune books and for me the films serve as a kind of cinematic commentary rather than a true adaptation. I have to mentally fill in all the missing lore and character, but the important thing is that the omitted elements fit well in Villaneuve’s vision and that is its own achievement.
Thanks, Steven. I agree there is value in reviewing the Dune movie as a movie independent of the book. But for this review where you are offering significant commentary on the book, it pains me to read "I suspect, though, that I wouldn't enjoy Herbert's books...". I for one really enjoyed the book and I hope you could find to time to read it as well. (Just the first book, not the sequels). I would love to read your review of the movie in light of having read the book!
I’ll be the first to admit that I could be wrong! But we all have to make the best decisions we can, based on whatever criteria come to hand, about which books (and movies) to commit to and which not to—and for now at least Dune is on my “not committing to” pile. :-) That could change, but don’t hold your breath!
I think this review would be better if it restricted itself to reviewing the movie you did see, rather than the book you didn't read. Why talk about whether Tolkien would enjoy Herbert's journalistic prose if you're not reviewing the book? Why talk about the atmosphere you think is lacking in Herbert's opening chapters when you acknowledge that the films are dripping in atmosphere? You are undercutting and invalidating your own commentary.
Is there tedious description of the world of Arrakis, its weather, flora, fauna, etc. enough to please Lewis? Sure, just listen to the planetary ecologist drone on about it. Just as interesting as a discussion of the introduction of pipeweed to the Shire, I assure you. Was that cut from the movie? Don't blame Herbert for not writing it, he did.
Is there loyalty, faith, and fortitude of noble characters? Sure, examine Gurney Halleck, Duncan Idaho, and Thufir Hawatt. They don't lack for loyalty and faith, they are doomed only by following Boromir instead of Frodo or Aragorn. Idaho, in particular, gets reincarnated often enough in the Dune legendarium that you might think the story is about him. If these characters from the book don't get enough air time in the movies, don't criticise Herbert for it.
Yes, Herbert has the same "second mover" advantage over Tolkien that George RR Martin has. He can write something different, and just being different is considered a positive.
However, if we compare Dune and Game of Thrones to much of the material published in the Silmarillion, we might see all three authors working the same ground - intensely political and in the end, nihilistic. Jihad, winter is coming, the long defeat. Valinor is removed from the world, and Numenor sinks. And we know Tolkien was still working on these texts when he said he disliked Dune. Maybe he disliked it for getting published first.
And what of Chani? In the films, she seems to turn her back on Paul and the striving for power. Maybe she is the real hero, here.
I read Dune and found it enthralling, but the continuations left me cold. The plot, the time-skips - it all seemed a cheap cashing in on the popularity of the first book. Any respect a reader might have for Herbert's worldbuilding in Dune will quickly evaporate. Not worth your time.
We can also see similarities between Tolkien's qualified respect for science fiction and his qualified respect for invention and industry. In the prologue of Fellowship, we read that the Hobbits generally don't have any machines more advanced than a hand-loom or a water-mill; but we see in the Noldor especially the House of Feanor and the Numenoreans technological advances and mastery over the created world so great and magnificent that they are almost magical. And there is nothing wrong depicted with that. The problem comes from people like Feanor and the Numenoreans in their last centuries, and to a lesser extent Feanor's grandson Celebrimbor, who use their knowledge and tech for evil or for for selfish ambition.
I can relate to liking Dune without exactly knowing why. Somehow I even like its religious deconstruction too. It’s hard to square being a Catholic (and a seminarian to boot), but I often find Herbert brings an insightful perspective about the distinction between genuine faith and the purely human/political elements of religion. For me it’s most striking in “Dune: Messiah” where Paul’s cult has grown staid and institutionalized, serving its priests and lackeys more than its original fervor and meaning. Herbert’s portrait of religion might be warped, but I still find it moving, with its own kind of warning against conflating faith with human measures of success and power.
I’m just commenting my to say that I’m overjoyed you’ve begun a substack! I’ve leaves your writing since the A&F days and look forward to reading more of it!
Thanks so much, Scott.
You would think that if Steven is to do all this writing about Dune, he could at least read the book.
Thanks for your comment, Joseph! In my review of Dune: Part One I wrote that a movie like Dune “is almost two distinct movies, offering radically different experiences (or ranges of experiences) to two audiences: those familiar with the universe of Frank Herbert’s landmark science-fiction novels and those coming to the film, as I did, more or less cold.” I added that longtime fans who couldn’t imagine how the film would play to someone unfamiliar with the source material had been asking me if I thought the film works on its own.
Because these two audiences (the readers and the non-readers) exist—both of whom, within other parameters, the movie is supposed to work for—I think there’s value in reviews being written both by fans of the source material and by people like me who have either never read it or whose reading is at best limited and impressionistic. There can be no definitive review of a movie like Dune, and I can only write the review that I can write! Hopefully there’s value in that.
How true. I’ve read and enjoyed all six of Herbert’s Dune books and for me the films serve as a kind of cinematic commentary rather than a true adaptation. I have to mentally fill in all the missing lore and character, but the important thing is that the omitted elements fit well in Villaneuve’s vision and that is its own achievement.
Thanks, Steven. I agree there is value in reviewing the Dune movie as a movie independent of the book. But for this review where you are offering significant commentary on the book, it pains me to read "I suspect, though, that I wouldn't enjoy Herbert's books...". I for one really enjoyed the book and I hope you could find to time to read it as well. (Just the first book, not the sequels). I would love to read your review of the movie in light of having read the book!
I’ll be the first to admit that I could be wrong! But we all have to make the best decisions we can, based on whatever criteria come to hand, about which books (and movies) to commit to and which not to—and for now at least Dune is on my “not committing to” pile. :-) That could change, but don’t hold your breath!
I think this review would be better if it restricted itself to reviewing the movie you did see, rather than the book you didn't read. Why talk about whether Tolkien would enjoy Herbert's journalistic prose if you're not reviewing the book? Why talk about the atmosphere you think is lacking in Herbert's opening chapters when you acknowledge that the films are dripping in atmosphere? You are undercutting and invalidating your own commentary.
Is there tedious description of the world of Arrakis, its weather, flora, fauna, etc. enough to please Lewis? Sure, just listen to the planetary ecologist drone on about it. Just as interesting as a discussion of the introduction of pipeweed to the Shire, I assure you. Was that cut from the movie? Don't blame Herbert for not writing it, he did.
Is there loyalty, faith, and fortitude of noble characters? Sure, examine Gurney Halleck, Duncan Idaho, and Thufir Hawatt. They don't lack for loyalty and faith, they are doomed only by following Boromir instead of Frodo or Aragorn. Idaho, in particular, gets reincarnated often enough in the Dune legendarium that you might think the story is about him. If these characters from the book don't get enough air time in the movies, don't criticise Herbert for it.
Yes, Herbert has the same "second mover" advantage over Tolkien that George RR Martin has. He can write something different, and just being different is considered a positive.
However, if we compare Dune and Game of Thrones to much of the material published in the Silmarillion, we might see all three authors working the same ground - intensely political and in the end, nihilistic. Jihad, winter is coming, the long defeat. Valinor is removed from the world, and Numenor sinks. And we know Tolkien was still working on these texts when he said he disliked Dune. Maybe he disliked it for getting published first.
And what of Chani? In the films, she seems to turn her back on Paul and the striving for power. Maybe she is the real hero, here.
Thanks for your comments, David. I appreciate your perspective as a fan of the Dune books.
I read Dune and found it enthralling, but the continuations left me cold. The plot, the time-skips - it all seemed a cheap cashing in on the popularity of the first book. Any respect a reader might have for Herbert's worldbuilding in Dune will quickly evaporate. Not worth your time.