Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Limne's avatar

Jodoworsky's such an amazing director. He'd have done something amazing, but it wouldn't have been Dune. The Lynch version isn't Dune either. Nor is this new one. Nor that other mini-series they tried to do. My wife raves all the time about how she'd do Dune like she's been obsessed with it since middle school - she has.

Part of me wishes I hadn't read Dune. Part of me wishes I'd just taken my wife's description of it and written my own version based on the amazing adventure she'd put in my head. I'd write it just for myself. Don't get me wrong - Dune, the book, is amazing - a favorite - but the Dune that preoccupied my imagination based on my wife's passionate rants? To me, that will always be the REAL Dune.

Expand full comment
Jordan Dotson's avatar

I have to claim a rare disagreement here. As a novel and act of storytelling, Dune is a fundamental failure, one that could never translate successfully to film. Two reasons why:

TL,DR: You can’t empathize with Paul Atreides because the storytelling is broken.

1. From a character standpoint, Dune is structurally incomprehensible. It ignores the lessons of storytelling best explained by Joseph Campbell and indelibly present in every great epic. For a hero’s journey to make a credible emotional impact on the audience, the hero must be a normal person drawn out of his world to struggle and fail repeatedly, before he can conquer the darkness and change the world. Without that development, the audience can’t experience empathy—the sole function and purpose of fiction. In Dune, however, the protagonist starts out as an intergalactic prince with superpowers (not exactly relatable). When he’s drawn out of his world to face his first challenge (stranded in the desert), he inexplicably and immediately acquires even MORE superpowers that make him, instantly, the most powerful being in the universe. He struggles for nothing, except in hand-wavey hindsight exposition. When he has to fight, no big deal—he’s been a magical ninja prince since, literally, the book’s opening scene. Compare this to beloved fantasy characters like Luke Skywalker, Avatar Aang, Frodo Baggins, or Miles Morales from Spider-verse, with all of whom the audience CAN’T HELP but empathize. This is the powerful, instinctual sub-language of storytelling, and why Paul Atreides never feels compelling. Which brings us to…

2. Paul’s only real struggle is to act human—hence why the romance plotline falls flat and exists only as hand-wavey exposition. A good writer can make this work: Homer, for example. Achilles in The Iliad, though a demigod, has to experience the death of Patroclus (his fault, his failure), before he can pass through truly human pain and give the audience a moment of transcendant empathy. Thus, we have history’s first “anti-hero”—a flawed demigod with whom we can still relate because we feel the same pain. Compare to Darth Vader or Prince Zuko in Avatar Airbender: the villain must become a hero himself.

Dune could have done this if the final climactic battle called for Paul to do something very human, to make some personal sacrifice or deny his magical ninja genius powers, allowing us to see our own humanity in him. But in what I believe is among most egregious insults to the audience in 20th century storytelling…Herbert doesn’t even write that scene! He skips over the climax battle entirely! It doesn’t exist! It’s just infuriating hand-wavey aftermath exposition!

Thus, despite the magnificence, beauty, and even genius of Herbert’s world-building, the story is a failure because it contains no humanity. Paul Atreides isn’t a hero, nor an anti-hero, but the villain. And nobody wants to see the villain win.

(I’m still a fan though.)

Expand full comment
49 more comments...

No posts