[beeflet]

I am reading Dune Messiah now and it clearly isn't as good as the first book. I consider the story more of a self-contained book than a series.

Taking the first book by itself, it doesn't speak much about the relationship between man and machine. The fundamental themes are rooted in man's relationship with ecology (both as the cause and effect).

[zehaeva]

A lot of what is great about Dune are the inversions of the story past the first novel.

If you take the first book alone you're left with only one facet of a much grander story. You're also left with the idea a white savior story that says might makes right, which really isn't what was going on at all.

[beeflet]

>You're also left with the idea a white savior story that says might makes right

I think the first book is more nuanced than that. It's a demonstration of the nietzschean perspective, but it doesn't make any assertions about morality.

The story shows us how humans are products of their environment: Striving for peace or "morality" is futile, because peace makes men weak, which creates a power vacuum which ends peace. Similarly, being warlike is also futile because even if you succeed, it guarantees that you will become complacent and weak. It's never said outright, but all of the political theory in the book is based on the idea that "hard times make strong men, strong men make good times, good times make weak men, weak men make bad times". It's like the thesis of "Guns Germs and Steel": frank herbert proposes that in the long term, no cultural or racial differences matter; that everything is just a product of environmental factors. In a way it's also the most liberal perspective you can have. But at the same time, it is also very illiberal because in the short term race and culture does matter.

The "moral" of dune is that political leaders don't really have agency because they are bound by their relationships that define power in the first place, which are a product of the environment. Instead, the real power is held by the philosopher-kings outside of the throne because they have the ability to change the environment (like pardot kynes, who is the self-insert for frank herbert). The book asks us to choose individual agency and understanding over the futility of political games.

From the use of propaganda to control the city-dwellers in the beginning of the book to the change in paul's attitudes towards the end of the book I think the transactional nature of the atredies's goodwill is pretty plainly spelt out for us. I mean we learn by the end that paul is part harkonnen by blood, and in the same way as the harkonenn use of the "brutal" rabban and "angelic" feyd, it's all public relations. Morality is a tool of control.

I think the reason you are uneasy about the idea of the "white savior" playing a role in the book is because you actually subscribe to this fake morality yourself, in real life. You are trying to pidgeonhole the story like it's "Star Wars" or something. Dune is against the idea of "morality" itself. By bringing up the "white savior" concept, you are clearly thinking in terms of morality. By having some morality, this puts you at odds with the real point of the book, which is where the unease comes from. You want the dissonance to be resolved, but the real story of dune is open-ended.

[zehaeva]

I have said much of the same about dune in my own life to others, about how the main thesis is "hard times make strong men, ...", but that still does boil down to might makes right.

Saying that the first book alone doesn't make any assertions about morality is somewhat hilarious. The baron is queer coded, so too is feyd, the "good guys" are strong manly men. Even just the idea that "hard times make strong men, .." is a morality in and of itself.

I never said I was uneasy about the idea of a white savior, you are reading far too much into my beliefs and ideals. I would also appreciate that you do not project onto my any of your imaginings of my own beliefs. You do not know me.

That said, if you have only read the first books you truly are getting only one small facet of the story that Herbert was trying to tell. A lot of what is laid out in the first novel is inverted and overturned by the 3rd and 4th novels.

Finally, you have written a lot about one book out of a long series of books. I would suggest that, like your wont to project some sort of belief onto me, you, too, are projecting too much upon just the first entry of a much, much, larger epic.

[insane_dreamer]

The later books deal with it more.