Scan barcode
A review by penguin_emperor_of_the_north
Dune Messiah by Frank Herbert
3.0
Similar to the first, I respected this book more than I can say that I liked it. It gets more explicit about the burden Paul carries after having lead the Jihad across the galaxy (it's technically still ongoing I guess, peace negotiations with the Landsraad are a subplot in here). There's an interesting scene where Paul compares himself to Hitler, citing Hitler's six million victims compared to Paul's own sixty billion victims. Combine that with the fact that Arrakis is now a site for pilgrimage and Paul himself the object of worship and you get that Paul is worn down.
Not as worn down as his victims I imagine but worn down nonetheless.
Anyway, the main plot then gets into a plot against Paul to maybe assassinate him, maybe force him to negotiate, maybe whichever happens to work out.
I found the world building most interesting. Like Dune has changed, previously it was just the source of spice melange but not really a destination. Now, as capital of the empire, it's a destination of pilgrimage, lots of water has been introduced (there's many mentions of plant life enroaching on the desert, even a scene where a sandworm is repelled by the presence of water). And the Fremen have become somewhat domesticated by their success and consequent riches. Much is made of the slackening water discipline and 'wild Fremen' are noted as a particularly dangerous in the crowded streets of Arrakeen. That part is all interesting.
The plot itself? Not so much. It stays very vague, Paul constantly bemoans that he's locked into his path by his prescience and a lot of it is driven by new plot elements that don't make a lot of sense. Like prescient individuals cannot use their prescience to predict other prescient people's actions. Or there's the apparent impact of massive spice consumption on fetuses which wasn't really there in the first book. And it's not spelled out enough for my tastes. The why of the plot is left to our interpretation, the plotters' actions are left offscreen for the most part in lieu of listening to Paul complain about the chains of prescience.
A plot to? That sounds cool, I'd be interested to hear more about how that went. Oh, we've got to listen to Paul complain about how destiny routed him into leading a genocidal jihad? Um, sure. Sure thing author, that's cool too.
And to end on a thought, a lot of the discourse around Dune lately has been that Paul's not a hero and the first book was written as a warning against charismatic leaders but I think the first book doesn't do a great job of selling that and this book really under cuts that. In here, much is made of how Paul's prescience traps him and he can't do anything but what he's foreseen. Any deviation will apparently erupt in even more violence.
And, if that's all true, why beware of Paul? He didn't decide to launch the Jihad, it was apparently fated to happen. Heck, this book is framed like Paul has been aiming for the path of lesser violence, like something worse would've happened if he did something differently in most of the scenes. So, the message more comes off as, 'crap's going to happen and there's nothing you can do about it'. Depressing but hardly the 'beware of leaders because they might be Hitler 2.0' message that I've been hearing.
I'd be interested to learn why I'm wrong though. Feels weird to dissent on such a high profile book.
Not as worn down as his victims I imagine but worn down nonetheless.
Anyway, the main plot then gets into a plot against Paul to maybe assassinate him, maybe force him to negotiate, maybe whichever happens to work out.
I found the world building most interesting. Like Dune has changed, previously it was just the source of spice melange but not really a destination. Now, as capital of the empire, it's a destination of pilgrimage, lots of water has been introduced (there's many mentions of plant life enroaching on the desert, even a scene where a sandworm is repelled by the presence of water). And the Fremen have become somewhat domesticated by their success and consequent riches. Much is made of the slackening water discipline and 'wild Fremen' are noted as a particularly dangerous in the crowded streets of Arrakeen. That part is all interesting.
The plot itself? Not so much. It stays very vague, Paul constantly bemoans that he's locked into his path by his prescience and a lot of it is driven by new plot elements that don't make a lot of sense. Like prescient individuals cannot use their prescience to predict other prescient people's actions. Or there's the apparent impact of massive spice consumption on fetuses which wasn't really there in the first book. And it's not spelled out enough for my tastes. The why of the plot is left to our interpretation, the plotters' actions are left offscreen for the most part in lieu of listening to Paul complain about the chains of prescience.
A plot to
Spoiler
steal a sandworm and attempt to move it off planetAnd to end on a thought, a lot of the discourse around Dune lately has been that Paul's not a hero and the first book was written as a warning against charismatic leaders but I think the first book doesn't do a great job of selling that and this book really under cuts that. In here, much is made of how Paul's prescience traps him and he can't do anything but what he's foreseen. Any deviation will apparently erupt in even more violence.
And, if that's all true, why beware of Paul? He didn't decide to launch the Jihad, it was apparently fated to happen. Heck, this book is framed like Paul has been aiming for the path of lesser violence, like something worse would've happened if he did something differently in most of the scenes. So, the message more comes off as, 'crap's going to happen and there's nothing you can do about it'. Depressing but hardly the 'beware of leaders because they might be Hitler 2.0' message that I've been hearing.
I'd be interested to learn why I'm wrong though. Feels weird to dissent on such a high profile book.