46
Dune: Good and based or bad and reactionary? (hexbear.net)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

This is the official hexbear Dune discussion thread (not really)

I watched the new Dune and enjoyed the films from a cinematic/fantasy perspective but wasn't super on-board with the politics as I thought the message was simply 'leaders bad', but what didn't come across (imo) from the movies and what I'm learning from discussion of the books is that the message is more nuanced than that: Herbert's message wasn't "don't blindly follow leaders because they're evil", but "don't blindly follow leaders because movements based on blind belief are a force of their own and can sweep everyone up into a mess, even if that was not at all the intention", and there are of course examples of that happening throughout human history. I want to hear all of your thoughts on the books, the films, and the messages. Thanks. heart-sickle

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 25 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

From the three I read (stopped with children of dune) the main theme is that blind loyalty is bad, but there is some stuff I would classify as reactionary:

there is an offhanded comment that feudalism is the most efficient way to govern a planet, this point is never brought up again to be argued against even though the system entrenches the blood feud that causes the first book to happen Edit: I cannot find this comment anymore, I may be crazy, should be within book 1 of Dune

Dune is a white savior inside a white savior: Paul's portion of this is forgivable as Messiah and Children of both reference the idea that he was the wrong choice, but Liet-Kynes is also an off-worlder. Any fremen who has traveled to other planets (even if it's a rare occurrence, what about smugglers or those taken for the Harkonens slave pits) could have had the knowledge of other planets required to tell the dream, but it had to be an outsider who organized and lead them.

Herbert's obsession with how tough environments create tough men; to me it read like the cycles of history hogwash. After all these tough environments weren't enough to save the historical people the fremen are based on from colonization

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Herbert was a Republican staffer/writer, so the whole "we need adversity to bring out the best in people" tripe is not surprising. He wasn't the worst guy, certainly republicans back then werent so frothing at the mouth, and I think he was more on the libertarian side (he was against us intervention), but he was also a staunch anti communist and there's more than enough hints of that littered throughout the dune novels.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    He wasn't the worst guy, certainly republicans back then werent so frothing at the mouth

    He was around during McCarthyism

    ...and I think he was more on the libertarian side...

    I am aware, and tha is why I continue to be bewildered by the feudalism comment, I get the ancap to monarchist pipeline but when he talks about his ideas for America it is in general democratizing. When I first read it I assumed it was a joke.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    What I mean is that while Frank Herbert may have never accepted socialism or it's like, he would've likely balked at the continued imperialist interventions in it's future, specifically in the middle east. I imagine he would've also been an advocate for addressing climate change. He was, at the very least, someone who had somewhat nuanced beliefs, which feels rarer among the conservatives we see now (as we slip closer to fascism). Granted if he were somehow alive today it's likely he d just be another doddering old piece of shit.

    As for the feudalism stuff, I'm not sure what character promoted the feudalism but it's pretty clear that Herbert didn't see that as the best system. He definitely believed in great men doing great things, and of the need for adversity. If you read God Emperor this is really hammered in. If anything he seems to argue that humans are doomed to cycles of oppression and "freedom" and that is the cycle that Leto 2 is attempting to break by being the ultimate tyrant.

    Anyways, I'm definitely not really trying to defend Herbert here. I just got done going through books 2-4, and went through God emperor two times. I first read these books in highschool when I was still in the clutches of my families reactionary ideology and a lot of the great man stuff and shitty philosophy of God emperor (which is really where a lot of his personal political beliefs bleed through) clicked with me now, but seems very stupid now. If you do read it I would say to pretend to yourself that his personal assistant Moneo is a closeted homosexual as that was something I finally picked up on (it's almost certainly not intended by Herbert, it's just very interested to read it that way).

    Also I'm typing this on my phone so sorry if what I'm writing kind of goes all over the place. Ive got bad ADHD and if I'm not at a PC to proofread myself I can smash out pretty incoherent messes

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent