I'm only speculating, of course, but I'm beginning to wonder whether Dune Messiah
was Frank Herbert's "I Am Not Spock
" moment. (Maybe I should take the more literary path and suggest it's his Arthur Conan Doyle moment?)
I started rereading Herbert's Dune novels recently and have just finished Dune Messiah. I've read Messiah before (at least twice that I remember), but I've never been struck by how… disappointing… this book was compared to its predecessor before today. It's almost as if Herbert looked at everything that made the first book good, and stripped them out for its sequel.
His main character, Paul Atreides/Muad'dib, has gone from heroic young man to dour Imperator, cursed with the gift of prescience, and a near infallibility brought on by that knowledge of the future. (Frankly, nothing could be more boring than a central character that's invulnerable to change.) His friends and cohorts from the first book are all either absent, changed or otherwise diminished. His nemeses are a trio of conspirators attempting to destroy his Empire and the religion that's grown around it (and that conspiracy is every bit as dry as it sounds). The book is not without its moments of tension and suspense, but they're few and far between, and often undercut by, once again, that invulnerability that Paul brings to every moment by his knowledge of what's going to happen. Even the planet Dune, so much a central character in the first book, is relegated to a supporting role in this book.
These flaws become even more apparent once one starts Children of Dune
. Almost immediately, you're thrust back into the milieu of the original Dune, as Stilgar contemplates the changes he's undergone under the Empire, and considers rebelling against the role that's been forced upon him. We return to sietch life, Paul's mother and one of his best friends and mentors reappear, and we even have the promised return of the villain that drove the first Dune novel… all within the first 50 pages of the book.
Checking publication dates, 4 years passed between Dune & Dune Messiah, while another 7 passed before the release of Children of Dune. Dune was Herbert's second novel and he published 5 more between that and Messiah… a long enough period of time, and enough new books, for him to become frustrated at the overwhelming shadow Dune was to cast over his writing. (Yep, back into full on speculation mode at this point). For what it's worth, it can also be noted that Dune Messiah is also a relatively short book, especially in comparison with Dune & Children, so that five year gap between novels becomes even more telling, as does the longer gap between Messiah and Children — a gap suggesting he might have hoped he'd driven a stake into that universe's undying heart, so he could move on to telling other stories. (wow... purple prose much?) Again, looking at his publication history, the time between volumes following Children is much shorter than either of the previous pauses.
I always question book analyses that try to speculate as to what an author was truly trying to say in his books… our attempts at this more often than not reveal our own perceptions and prejudices (and god knows I'm not immune to this). Which is all my way of saying 'take all this with a massive grain of salt'.
But I can't help but wonder whether the reason Dune Messiah is so dry and uninteresting (compared to the books that precede and follow it) was a function of the story Herbert was trying to tell (i.e. he had to resolve the issues of the jihad that was predetermined in the first novel), or if it was a reflection of his own rebellion against the first novel's success.
was Frank Herbert's "I Am Not Spock" moment. (Maybe I should take the more literary path and suggest it's his Arthur Conan Doyle moment?)I started rereading Herbert's Dune novels recently and have just finished Dune Messiah. I've read Messiah before (at least twice that I remember), but I've never been struck by how… disappointing… this book was compared to its predecessor before today. It's almost as if Herbert looked at everything that made the first book good, and stripped them out for its sequel.
His main character, Paul Atreides/Muad'dib, has gone from heroic young man to dour Imperator, cursed with the gift of prescience, and a near infallibility brought on by that knowledge of the future. (Frankly, nothing could be more boring than a central character that's invulnerable to change.) His friends and cohorts from the first book are all either absent, changed or otherwise diminished. His nemeses are a trio of conspirators attempting to destroy his Empire and the religion that's grown around it (and that conspiracy is every bit as dry as it sounds). The book is not without its moments of tension and suspense, but they're few and far between, and often undercut by, once again, that invulnerability that Paul brings to every moment by his knowledge of what's going to happen. Even the planet Dune, so much a central character in the first book, is relegated to a supporting role in this book.
These flaws become even more apparent once one starts Children of Dune
. Almost immediately, you're thrust back into the milieu of the original Dune, as Stilgar contemplates the changes he's undergone under the Empire, and considers rebelling against the role that's been forced upon him. We return to sietch life, Paul's mother and one of his best friends and mentors reappear, and we even have the promised return of the villain that drove the first Dune novel… all within the first 50 pages of the book. Checking publication dates, 4 years passed between Dune & Dune Messiah, while another 7 passed before the release of Children of Dune. Dune was Herbert's second novel and he published 5 more between that and Messiah… a long enough period of time, and enough new books, for him to become frustrated at the overwhelming shadow Dune was to cast over his writing. (Yep, back into full on speculation mode at this point). For what it's worth, it can also be noted that Dune Messiah is also a relatively short book, especially in comparison with Dune & Children, so that five year gap between novels becomes even more telling, as does the longer gap between Messiah and Children — a gap suggesting he might have hoped he'd driven a stake into that universe's undying heart, so he could move on to telling other stories. (wow... purple prose much?) Again, looking at his publication history, the time between volumes following Children is much shorter than either of the previous pauses.
I always question book analyses that try to speculate as to what an author was truly trying to say in his books… our attempts at this more often than not reveal our own perceptions and prejudices (and god knows I'm not immune to this). Which is all my way of saying 'take all this with a massive grain of salt'.
But I can't help but wonder whether the reason Dune Messiah is so dry and uninteresting (compared to the books that precede and follow it) was a function of the story Herbert was trying to tell (i.e. he had to resolve the issues of the jihad that was predetermined in the first novel), or if it was a reflection of his own rebellion against the first novel's success.
Comments
Enjoyed your blog, btw.