Good review. I appreciate your pointing out the illogical timelines. Technically Hayt and the awakened Duncan Idaho are separate characters and it's unfair to lump them together, but I thought Duncan in Children of Dune made more sense. I had the opposite opinion of the stone burner, which seemed like an obvious plot contrivance; a nuclear weapon that's not a real nuclear weapon, and that somehow destroys eyeballs but leaves the rest of the body just fine. The real problem with the book, IMHO, is the mix of bleak tone and slow pace. I've never heard anyone say they skimmed it or read it in a few evenings ;-)
Thanks for reading! I don't really mind Messiah's slow pace - there's not much action, but tons of dialogue, which for me makes reading go quickly, as I am usually far more interested in characters and ideas than I am in descriptive writing, and Herbert is particularly good at witty verbal sparring and courtly intrigue.
Idk about separating Idaho and Hayt, they have pretty much the same disposition and Hayt had the latent memories and habits even prior to his awakening: Paul often notices him saying things that Duncan would have said. I don't mind him that much in Messiah (I even quite like the ghola concept here), it'd just be nice if he wasn't destined to marry a fifteen year old by the end, but I guess that's Arrakis for you.
I can see where you're coming from with the stoneburner. It kind of is BS; I personally quite enjoy Herbert's BS with technology because it's usually an elaborate excuse for something he thinks is cool (and he's often right), e.g. the whole rigmarole with shields and lasers being explosively incompatible, which necessitates sword fighting, which is obviously just because the author likes sword fights and wants as many as possible. But Herbert (usually) takes pains to make his world internally consistent and believable, so his elaborate excuses, while obvious on the meta level, work well in the setting.
I'm trying to remember this offhand, but I felt a weakness that crept into these books as they went on was Herbert's attachment to certain ideas paired with his limitations as a writer.
The scene I'm remembering is between a guildsman, a bene gesserit, and a face dancer i think. He's trying to describe the layers of subtlety in their speech, but it just comes off like a Brad Neely bit:
"He notices the limp, and she notices that. And he notices that she notices! Dear readers, there is a trade of noticing going on here that is just bewildering."
Lmao, I think I know the bit you mean, though there's a lot of noticing in Dune. There's another bit in Messiah where Paul and Stilgar are confused and intimidated by Edric (the guildsman), whereas we know from other PoVs that Edric's fellow conspirators think he's an idiot. It's a strange book.
I desire you to read national lampoons Doon, which is an immensely clever satire of Herbert's very particular style while also taking every opportunity to be gleefully, gratuitously dumb.
Great post! Idaho really annoyed me throughout the series, he felt like this weird self-insert that never really fit into the story. Will you review the other sequels? None of them are great imo, but they all have their moments (besides God Emperor. Really hated that one).
Thank you! I might write more about the other books: I need to re-read Children of Dune and actually finish it this time, I quite enjoyed it (the return of Jessica was very welcome) but burned out on my first attempt when Leto was on his spirit journey in the desert. I might also be writing some more about the film adaptations in the coming months, probably about the Harkonnens and how/why they differ from their book counterparts.
I personally love Dune Messiah, but whenever I reread it (along with the other sequels) it always strikes me that Herbert has a tendency to focus on/elaborate things that feel like they should be the B plots while not giving much thought to the main threads. I don't really know how to explain it, it just seems like Herbert has weird priorities for what he does and does not focus on.
The conspirators aren't particularly well-rounded as characters. I know Dune isn't a generic story of good versus evil, but at not point did I want the conspirators to succeed against Paul, where I think the book really could have benefited if they were given more room to breathe.
Do the themes of the story and idea make me remember the book more fondly? Perhaps. I remember really enjoying God Emperor in retrospect, but reading it was a slog. I have no idea what I'm saying. I love the first four books and find the latter two mostly interminable.
Good review. I appreciate your pointing out the illogical timelines. Technically Hayt and the awakened Duncan Idaho are separate characters and it's unfair to lump them together, but I thought Duncan in Children of Dune made more sense. I had the opposite opinion of the stone burner, which seemed like an obvious plot contrivance; a nuclear weapon that's not a real nuclear weapon, and that somehow destroys eyeballs but leaves the rest of the body just fine. The real problem with the book, IMHO, is the mix of bleak tone and slow pace. I've never heard anyone say they skimmed it or read it in a few evenings ;-)
Thanks for reading! I don't really mind Messiah's slow pace - there's not much action, but tons of dialogue, which for me makes reading go quickly, as I am usually far more interested in characters and ideas than I am in descriptive writing, and Herbert is particularly good at witty verbal sparring and courtly intrigue.
Idk about separating Idaho and Hayt, they have pretty much the same disposition and Hayt had the latent memories and habits even prior to his awakening: Paul often notices him saying things that Duncan would have said. I don't mind him that much in Messiah (I even quite like the ghola concept here), it'd just be nice if he wasn't destined to marry a fifteen year old by the end, but I guess that's Arrakis for you.
I can see where you're coming from with the stoneburner. It kind of is BS; I personally quite enjoy Herbert's BS with technology because it's usually an elaborate excuse for something he thinks is cool (and he's often right), e.g. the whole rigmarole with shields and lasers being explosively incompatible, which necessitates sword fighting, which is obviously just because the author likes sword fights and wants as many as possible. But Herbert (usually) takes pains to make his world internally consistent and believable, so his elaborate excuses, while obvious on the meta level, work well in the setting.
Back in my day, being a Mentat meant something. But in Paul Atreides's Empire, everyone's becoming a Mentat just to work at Starbucks.
I'm trying to remember this offhand, but I felt a weakness that crept into these books as they went on was Herbert's attachment to certain ideas paired with his limitations as a writer.
The scene I'm remembering is between a guildsman, a bene gesserit, and a face dancer i think. He's trying to describe the layers of subtlety in their speech, but it just comes off like a Brad Neely bit:
"He notices the limp, and she notices that. And he notices that she notices! Dear readers, there is a trade of noticing going on here that is just bewildering."
Lmao, I think I know the bit you mean, though there's a lot of noticing in Dune. There's another bit in Messiah where Paul and Stilgar are confused and intimidated by Edric (the guildsman), whereas we know from other PoVs that Edric's fellow conspirators think he's an idiot. It's a strange book.
I desire you to read national lampoons Doon, which is an immensely clever satire of Herbert's very particular style while also taking every opportunity to be gleefully, gratuitously dumb.
That sounds fun! I shall look into it.
It is out of print but you can read it here https://archive.org/details/nationallampoons0000elli
Thanks, will have a look!
Great post! Idaho really annoyed me throughout the series, he felt like this weird self-insert that never really fit into the story. Will you review the other sequels? None of them are great imo, but they all have their moments (besides God Emperor. Really hated that one).
Thank you! I might write more about the other books: I need to re-read Children of Dune and actually finish it this time, I quite enjoyed it (the return of Jessica was very welcome) but burned out on my first attempt when Leto was on his spirit journey in the desert. I might also be writing some more about the film adaptations in the coming months, probably about the Harkonnens and how/why they differ from their book counterparts.
I personally love Dune Messiah, but whenever I reread it (along with the other sequels) it always strikes me that Herbert has a tendency to focus on/elaborate things that feel like they should be the B plots while not giving much thought to the main threads. I don't really know how to explain it, it just seems like Herbert has weird priorities for what he does and does not focus on.
The conspirators aren't particularly well-rounded as characters. I know Dune isn't a generic story of good versus evil, but at not point did I want the conspirators to succeed against Paul, where I think the book really could have benefited if they were given more room to breathe.
Do the themes of the story and idea make me remember the book more fondly? Perhaps. I remember really enjoying God Emperor in retrospect, but reading it was a slog. I have no idea what I'm saying. I love the first four books and find the latter two mostly interminable.