Feb Book Club Discussion: Dune

[dwndrgn]

I hope that by now everyone who was interested in joining the discussion has had a chance to read Dune.

We'll start the discussion here and I'll keep the thread open as long as we are still hot on topic. I'll post a poll for next month's books around the middle of the month.

So, on with the discussion! We'll start with the basics:

1) Did you like it in general?
2) Best or Worst part about the book?

And from there you can add on any topics of discussion you'd like, or any other comments you may feel like adding.

I'll begin.
1) Yes, I liked the book. I get the feeling that I liked it more this go-round better than I did the first time. I'm not sure if that is a function of me being a young thing the first time around or not.
2) The best part of the book for me were the ecological bits. I've always been into ecology and how things work together in a system and I enjoyed the idea that a completely working, self-sustaining system could be created to completely change the nature of a world.

I think the worst part of the book for me would be those times when everything seemed to come together so perfectly. I'm not sure how to explain it but things would happen where a particular skill or mind-set was needed and had conveniently been addressed ahead of time - but just now mentioned. I'll get into more of that later so that you guys can get your first thoughts out.

[littlemissattitude]

Well, I'm still struggling through the book, but I have at least figured out what is bothering me so much about it. I'm just not buying, this time through, the nearly...the word that comes to mind is feudal, but I'm not sure that's exactly right...hierarchy that is imposed on a culture that has progressed so far technologically that they have developed reliable, efficient interplanetary/interstellar travel. I can't recall this bothering me the first time I read the book, but this time it just doesn't ring true to me. Maybe it has to do with the fact that my anthropology studies have taught me that this just doesn't usually happen, and having it presented in such a matter of fact way is just jarring to me.

I'm certainly open to being convinced that this shouldn't bother me - maybe then I could finish the book in peace. Right now, I'm still doing the page or two at a time thing, which is really no way to read a book. I'll be looking forward to those of you who have finished the book trying to persuade me that I'm wrong and that I really need to finish it myself.

Oh, and I fully agree with Jessica, early in the book, when she says that she is of the opinion that they should have gone renegade rather than accept the Emperor's orders to take Arrakis. Just my opinion.

[dwndrgn]

Originally Posted by littlemissattitude

Well, I'm still struggling through the book, but I have at least figured out what is bothering me so much about it. I'm just not buying, this time through, the nearly...the word that comes to mind is feudal, but I'm not sure that's exactly right...hierarchy that is imposed on a culture that has progressed so far technologically that they have developed reliable, efficient interplanetary/interstellar travel. I can't recall this bothering me the first time I read the book, but this time it just doesn't ring true to me. Maybe it has to do with the fact that my anthropology studies have taught me that this just doesn't usually happen, and having it presented in such a matter of fact way is just jarring to me.

Not having studied anthropology, I've no idea why a technologically advanced society isn't likely to have a feudal type of governance system. Please elaborate. Maybe then I can argue the other side so you can finish the book!

I will say this, however, I generally don't take 'possibilities' into account when reading a book of fiction. In my mind, whatever happens in the book - has happened. Not necessarily in any reality like ours but it has happened in the confines of the author's mind. So I don't consider whether something may be impossible or just not likely. Sometimes I'll admit that many events and circumstances are pretty convenient, but usually the story is separate from that. I will also admit that while watching some movies with physically impossible stunts I will mention that fact, but I usually don't let it draw me out of the story itself unless the rest of the story itself is so poor that it was counting on those stunts to keep it going.

[littlemissattitude]

Note: I don't know if any of this makes any sense at all. It is just what came to mind in response to what dwndrgn wrote. Thanks for asking those questions, dwndrgn. They really made me think.

I don't think it is so much that it can't happen, as that it ususally doesn't. I can't think off-hand of any technological culture that is set up on that sort of strictly feudal basis. I think it probably has something to do with the fact that feudal societies are generally still mostly agricultural, with people still tied to the land. It's like how in Europe, as cities began to take on more importance, feudalism began to fade. It's a symbiotic relationship, to be sure: as there began to be less people living in rural areas, cities became more important, and as cities became more important feudalism lost its hold. But the point is, it seems to be fairly well-established historically and anthropologically that as a society develops a more technological and complicated form, there is less of an opportunity for rich landholders to force "peasants" (for lack of a better term) to stay and work the land and remain loyal to the local lord.

Now, there have been modern, more technological arrangements that look a lot like feudalism. "I Owe My Soul to the Company Store" isn't just a song. In the early days of the industrial revolution, and lasting until the early twentieth century, it wasn't that unusual for companies to provide housing for workers and their families and then make sure that the only place to buy provisions also belonged to the company, effectively making the workers dependent on the company because they had to spend more money to house and feed their families than they made working. The employees often ended up in debt to the company and were pressured to stay and work off their debt, which never happened in some cases. I have no doubt that there are still cases of this in some places in the world, probably many of them perpetuated by multinationals based in the U.S. But, at least in the States, this sort of situation today is looked at as tantamount to slavery and exposes the offending company to prosecution. In fact, I've heard of prosecutions for this in the past few years. I guess that this has a lot to do with the fact that it seems that with technological advancement, there is also more attention paid to individual's human rights.

Of course, I can envision circumstances where lack of human rights continues in more technologically advanced societies. The old Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Japan before World War II are examples. Japan, especially, had been a largely feudal society at least up until the 1800s. But none of those societies lasted in that form. I think that what happens is, there has to be a certain amount of human freedom for technology to advance beyond a certain point. Totalitarian regimes don't usually make a fertile ground for creative thought, which seems to be a necessity for real technological advancement. I know that when I took a class in Japanese history and culture a couple of years ago, we saw a video that showed how there is a concentrated effort going on in Japan to teach teachers how to teach their students to think less of the collective and more as individuals, largely due to a concern that Japanese schools have not been turning out enough really innovative thinkers. While the Japanese have been very successful at taking existing technology and improving on it, they apparently have not been nearly as successful at initiating new and original breakthroughs. It all had something to do with the fact, I seem to remember, that they hadn't been winning as many Nobels and other such prizes as they thought they should.

All of this is a long way of saying, I guess, that the examples we have do not, for the most part, point in the direction of technological, feudal societies. Additionally, feudal societies seem to have been small-scale societies. When feudalism was common in Europe, Europe was for the most part a loose collection of small political entities; nations as we know them had not yet come into being, for the most part. It seems to me that this would be the only way to keep strong enough control on people to keep them bound to the land. Or to a world, in the case of "Dune." This makes it very difficult for me to accept a universe-wide Empire that can order people on and off worlds at whim.

I think it is interesting, too, dwndrgn that you mention that you don't usually take possibilites and probabilites into consideration when reading fiction. I don't either, usually; I'm not quite sure why this is bothering me so much. But I can't seem to make myself ignore the issue. I don't know. As I said, I'm looking forward to seeing what everyone else thinks.

[dwndrgn]

I love being the devil's advocate! Ok here goes:

To begin with, the society in Dune isn't really a feudal system (you mentioned already that it wasn't quite there). Their political system is based on a couple of things. There is an Emporer who's position is not necessarily hereditary (someone may contradict me on this but I got the sense that it required a group decision from the Landsraad), there is also the Landsraad which limits the Emporer's power (somewhat similar to the UK with a monarchy and parliament) and most importantly is the CHOAM which from what I could gather held a great deal of the 'real' power.

The second argument: this society is far older than our own. Isn't it quite possible that after a certain point in societal evolution a feudal system may come back into play, especially when a great deal of power is held by one company and the minority of people who own portions of that company?

Ok, those are my opening gambits, LittleMiss. Did they help any?

[littlemissattitude]

Good questions, dwndrgn. But first, a couple of thoughts I've had since I wrote my last post on this thread.

I have been thinking that maybe the problem I'm having isn't exactly the form the government takes within the story, but the very idea that the government, in the person of the Emperor, has the power to just say, "You, off your home planet. I'm giving you another one, whether you like it or not." It's almost like the United States government ordering Native Americans off their ancestral lands and onto reservations hundreds, sometimes thousands, of miles away in ecological zones they have no experience with. (Which, now that I think of it, may have been part of Herbert's point in the first place.) I've been thinking quite a bit about the uses and abuses of government power lately, around issues that have been coming up in connection with my writing project, and some of what I'm reading in relation to some of the shenanigans the U.S. government has gotten itself up to in the past (as well as the present) has just been ticking me off a bit. That sort of critical thinking about real-life issues can sometimes color how I see the fiction I am reading when there seems to be a cross-over between the real world and the fictional world I'm encountering in a particular book. Maybe not a good thing, but this is something that I have always encountered. For instance, if I'm ticked off at a man for something, I have no patience for love stories.

The problem I'm having with "Dune" right now doesn't have so much to do with the fact that I don't believe that a government could have that kind of power. Obviously, in an historical sense (as illustrated above) governments often have had that power. The United States government still has that sort of power over its people to a limited extent (eminent domain evictions, for example). My problem, to the extent that I have it with the book, is more bound up in the idea that I believe that it shouldn't have it. Again, just my problem, not a problem inherent in the book.

Now, on to your questions, or arguments. I can see a lot of merit in your second argument. If you take a cyclical view of history, which I feel is a fairly reasonable view, that sort of thing is bound to happen. And it makes sense if you view the system not as feudal in any kind of classical sense, but as more of a semi-feudal system corrupted by a rampant capitalism that is not checked by a great deal of concern for the rights of sentient native populations ("human rights" on a universal scale). Certainly, powerful corporations would like having that sort of arrangement. It sort of solves the problem of where to get their hired help.

I'm not sure how I feel about your first argument. I suppose it is possible that I'm not really clear on who did the ordering in the change of planets. My impression was that it was an order direct from the Emperor; in that case, it makes the check-and-balance of the Landsraad sort of moot in the sense that they would have been expected to rubber-stamp the Emperor's decision. I could have misread that, though, and I'm certainly open to correction on the point.

[dwndrgn]

Ahhh...now we're clearer. I've had that problem before. As a matter of fact I had a similar problem with 'Lord Foul's Bane'. Not exactly the same problem but similar - truly disliking the main character and not being able to follow his 'leprosy-guided' logic, I had a hard time understanding his choices and caring about what happens next. I've also had the problem with certain books where the main characters do completely idiotic things and I just can't look anymore. Almost like trying to watch brain surgery when the sight of internal body organs make you weak (been there, done that ) - you're sitting there with your eyes covered the whole time, but you keep peeking to see if the gory part is over, but each time you peek you get the shock of seeing what you didn't want to. So I can relate. I'd suggest you stop torturing yourself and go ahead and turn it back in to the library. We won't give you a hard time. Promise .

Hopefully our next selection will be less of a struggle. I've got some good ideas for suggestions lined up already.

Ok, for the rest of you folks - I know at least one other of you finished the book so chime in with your thoughts.

BTW - LittleMiss, I'm fascinated by your comment on technological advances being connected to the dissolution of feudal societies. I'd like to find out more. Maybe you could open another thread (perhaps in the history forum?) so we can discuss it. So we (or at least I) can pick your brain .

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Well, if you ask me feudalism doesn't go away - it just changes forms and that is my real problem with that aspect of Dune. Surely at least the titles would have morphed to something like Chief Exec and so on by then?

I've not completed my re-read, but I generally second dwndrgns points in the begining - the way Herbert envisages the ecology of Dune is amazing, and I also find myself fascinated by his overall sense of the large currents that go with historical events.

And yes, a lot of things seem too pat. Specifically I find a lot of stuff that seems like pure common sense being attributed freely to Bene Gesserit wisdom.

A friend of mine recently ranted about the messianic/super-human aspects of the tale and perhaps I shall make an extract from his remarks (his language is rather colourful ) and post them here.

Anyway, an interesting discussion so far and I need to both re-read the thread and also finish my re-read of Dune before jumping in again. Cheers!

[Aeolus14Umbra]

I recently read this book again (mid-last year???)...so it's still kinda fresh in my memory.

1) Did I like it in general?
...Well, it's OK...Nothing mind-explosive (for me)...I guess I read through it so it must be "OK"...It certainly has some good "moments"...But far too long-winded (for me)...

2) Best part/worst part?
...I'm love my "creature features", so obviously I really dug that giant sandworm monster!!! heh...
...BUT, the book's too long...kinda boring, actually!? It was definitely a battle to finish this book (I remember)...

I agree with you, Littlemissattitude, it kinda baffled me how this advanced galactic culture was behaving so "feudally"...but then, our culture here on Earth is pretty advanced, but it acts so dumb...?! (heh)... Maybe that makes the Dune-universe realistic???

Straight after reading Dune, I was in the swing for something epic & long & adventurous...so I ploughed through "Lord of the Rings" in its entirety! Ha! (I still reckon "The Hobbit" is a better read, tho'....!?).

Hey, I sure as hell don't wanna dampen anyone's enthusiasm for "Dune"!!! I'm interested in hearing other people's opinions!? It is, after all, a famous & influential sci-fi novel. And the writing style is very readable. (I've read 2 other Frank Herberts: "Destination: Void" (great) and "The Green Brain" (duh?)).......

Thank you, and goodnight!

[littlemissattitude]

dwndrgn...I didn't realize that I was waiting for permission, but I guess I was. The book goes back to the library tomorrow. Based on what I remembered from reading "Dune" before, I was really looking forward to reading it again. I'm actually quite disappointed that it bothered me so much this time.

Oh, and be looking for that thread on the relationship between feudalism and the rise of cities and all that stuff - I'll put something up on the History board in the next couple of days, I hope. At least by Monday. Most of what I've said in this thread is stuff I've picked up in history classes, so I want to do a small bit of research before I make a complete fool of myself.

[dwndrgn]

Glad that's settled. Move on to a book you'll enjoy.

I'm looking forward to your thread, I'm sure others will enjoy it as well.

[dwndrgn]

On with the Dune discussion.

I thought the sub-plot regarding genetic manipulation was an interesting one, even though he really didn't explain a whole lot of the background for it. For instance, how could they manipulate things so that specific genes got merged? I know they 'placed' Bene Gesserit where they wanted and somehow had the means to pre-determine the sex of the child but how did they ensure that the right people wanted a Bene Gesserit and that they had one with the correct genetic makeup at the right time? And, how did they expect to gain from this and how would they use it? It seemed almost as if that little plot was thrown in there in order to give the Bene Gesserit some sort of manipulation background for the reader.

Sort of out there but this book made me think of it. Do you think it is possible for our minds to be manipulated merely by using the correct tones and inflections? I know that music and sounds can effect our minds in certain ways but it seems just a tad farfetched (to me) that practice of the right sounds and words would enable anyone to force us to do things against our will. Much more probable for me was the 'code word' used to immobilize an enemy for a second or two. I find it imminently possible that with thorough conditioning we could be triggered by a specific word - kind of like Pavlov's dog.

[littlemissattitude]

Originally Posted by littlemissattitude

Oh, and be looking for that thread on the relationship between feudalism and the rise of cities and all that stuff - I'll put something up on the History board in the next couple of days, I hope. At least by Monday. Most of what I've said in this thread is stuff I've picked up in history classes, so I want to do a small bit of research before I make a complete fool of myself.

It might be Tuesday or Wednesday...my library wasn't that forthcoming with relevant material in the obvious places, so I'm going to have to do a little more digging. I will refrain from library complaints, because this is the wrong thread. But, grrrrrr......

[dwndrgn]

There's no hurry, take all the time you need.

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Originally Posted by dwndrgn

On with the Dune discussion.


Sort of out there but this book made me think of it. Do you think it is possible for our minds to be manipulated merely by using the correct tones and inflections?

Well, to an extent anyway. The tone of voice is very important in coveyng intent and mood - I do know that a lot of us (including me) use something much like a 'voice of command' or somesuch in situations where we need to assert ourselves. Perhaps with the right practise and discipline the knack can be trained and augmented. Don't forget the years of training the Bene Gesserit go through.

This is actually an example of what is good and bad about the book - everyhting here is relatable to things we all know or experience, but at other times it seems as if Herbert is just making too bog a deal about things, ascribing far too much of what could just be everyday common sense to Bene Gesserit wisdom.

The whole notion of the spice, melange is fascinating and probably an important part of what the book is about, I think. I could relate it to issues of natural resources, power and also addiction and consumerist issues. What do you think this aspect is all about?