Why did Tolkien dislike Dune?

[Radaghast]

All of the people who were close to Duke Leto, such as Thufir Hawat, Duncan Idaho and Gurney Halleck knew that Leto "suspected" the Lady Jessica of treatchury (of course, Leto didn't actually believe that she was a traitor, but the only person he told about that was Paul). If you recall, there's a scene after the big banquet that Leto hosts where Gurney Halleck comes back drunk and is making a disturbance. When Jessica tells him to drink coffee, he says, more or less

"I don't take orders from a **** Harkonen spy"

But it was Duncan Idaho who said that. I guess Halleck must have been present?

Anyway, I found a text online at archive.org which I'll peruse at some point.

 

[Idril Celebrindal]

But it was Duncan Idaho who said that. I guess Halleck must have been present?

Anyway, I found a text online at archive.org which I'll peruse at some point.

Oops. 🤦‍♀️
Either way, I'm pretty sure everybody close to Leto knew about his suspicion of Jessica. He tried to make it as public as possible so as to throw off the Harkonens, if I remember correctly.

 

[Radaghast]

Oops. 🤦‍♀️
Either way, I'm pretty sure everybody close to Leto knew about his suspicion of Jessica. He tried to make it as public as possible so as to throw off the Harkonens, if I remember correctly.

Fair point. I just wish it was cemented in my mind when this was established. Also, when did he swear vengeance? Was it before or after he thought she was dead? 😕

 

[Idril Celebrindal]

If I remember correctly, Gurney swore vengeance when he was taken in by the smugglers. He had a whole conversation with Tuek about it. Although maybe he was swearing vengeance on Feyd Rautha, not Jessica. Or maybe both. It's been a while since I last re-read the book. I don't think he ever thought that Jessica was dead (although he probably hoped for it).

 

[Radaghast]

If I remember correctly, Gurney swore vengeance when he was taken in by the smugglers. He had a whole conversation with Tuek about it. Although maybe he was swearing vengeance on Feyd Rautha, not Jessica. Or maybe both. It's been a while since I last re-read the book. I don't think he ever thought that Jessica was dead (although he probably hoped for it).

Yes, that does ring a bell, now that you mention it. Now that I've looked at the text file I remember the scene and surprised I'd forgotten it. Or perhaps I simply confused Halleck and Hawat 😐

Also, the text emphasized his vendetta against Rabban more than Jessica.

 

[Barrow Wight]

If I remember correctly, Gurney swore vengeance when he was taken in by the smugglers. He had a whole conversation with Tuek about it. Although maybe he was swearing vengeance on Feyd Rautha, not Jessica. Or maybe both. It's been a while since I last re-read the book. I don't think he ever thought that Jessica was dead (although he probably hoped for it).

Had Feyd even shown up at the point where Gurney has this discussion with Tuek? I thought Feyd got involved with Arrakis later in the story---but, like you, I haven't read the book in quite a while. Doesn't really matter for purposes of this thread!

 

[Radaghast]

Finally finished the book (well, before the Appendices) and, I dunno, it was kind of a mixed bag for me, at best (spoiler-filled impressions and rantings follow).

The pace lagged in, especially in the middle, saturated with what seemed to me a lot of mystical hooey and esoteric gobbledygook. There also seem to be some false starts and plot threads that don't go anywhere. I'm particularly thinking first of Gurney Hallecks's conversation with Staban Tuek, a character who says stuff that seems like it might be important later, but the character thereafter never shows up again. Yes, he may show up in the sequels, but I don't think this was a certainty at the time of the book's publication. Also, during this convo, Gurney tells Tuek he heard from Thulfir Hawat that Jessica is the traitor. This suddenly turns into a vendetta against Jessica, but, again, I don't feel like it is sufficiently set up (yes, I'm revisiting this plot point). I looked through the text file to confirm this. Halleck never vows vengeance against Jessica that I could find. Tuek even suggests it's not her he wants, to which Halleck even concedes that "Hawat made a few mistakes." Also, later, when Gurney thinks, after reuniting with Paul, "The she-witch alive! The one I swore vengeance against, alive!" One, again, no, this never happens; and two, if he did swear vengeance was it before he thought she was dead or after? Anyway, whatever the case, it comes to precisely nothing. Gurney tries to kill Jessica but is told by Paul that she's not the traitor. And that's the end of it, leading me to believe that the murder attempt is just there pad out the word count. If you took this out of the story, it would have changed nothing. It is Hawat who swears vengeance against Jessica but this too comes to nothing, as does the (cartoonishly evil) Baron Harkonnen's use of both it and Hawat himself. Furthermore, neither Halleck nor Hawat use the slightest bit of reason when suspecting Jessica. Why even introduces this plot point?

I couldn't really connect with the characters. Overall, the tone is overly dour with few if any moments of comic relief or even attempts at humor or lightheartedness. Just a lot of hifalutin speeches. I felt as if any of the main characters died I wouldn't care. But, of course, Paul Atreides being a kind of superman and a messianic figure (not to mention his mother Jessica becoming a super-woman) make that a dubious prospect, even if the text hints at his dying. It all got tiresome after a while and the text trying to describe his incredible awesomeness as a negative didn't really work for me either. Also, the ending of the book was odd to say the least. What a strange final sentence.

There isn't much science to speak of in this science fiction milestone. The idea of a desert planet is still weird to me. Also, if it doesn't rain, where does the water come from, especially the reservoir the Fremen are filling for the intention of making the planet able to support abundant greenery (and aren't they depriving other life forms of it)? Water evaporates. That which goes up must eventually come down. The Fremen might recycles bodies for their water but they cannot reclaim all the water that exists. And the worms? Where does their great mass come from? Why is water an anathema to them? Wouldn't that include water in the bodies of those who get swallowed? I cannot begin to wrap my mind around the ecology of this place.

Anyway, rant over. Overall, I'm a bit underwhelmed and I don't think Dune is a world I'm going to want to revisit again.

 

[Deimos]

Finally finished the book (well, before the Appendices) and, I dunno, it was kind of a mixed bag for me, at best (spoiler-filled impressions and rantings follow).

The pace lagged in, especially in the middle, saturated with what seemed to me a lot of mystical hooey and esoteric gobbledygook. There also seem to be some false starts and plot threads that don't go anywhere....

Anyway, rant over. Overall, I'm a bit underwhelmed and I don't think Dune is a world I'm going to want to revisit again.

It's a "Messianic" story, which do tend to be a little *ahem* (wait for it)....messy. 😄
I only read it once, and I recall I [overall] liked it.
I will probably re-read it at some point in the next year or two.
It will be interesting to learn what my reaction is to it now almost 50 years** later.

**Good heavens... 50 years! When did that happen???!! 😬

 

[Idril Celebrindal]

Had Feyd even shown up at the point where Gurney has this discussion with Tuek? I thought Feyd got involved with Arrakis later in the story---but, like you, I haven't read the book in quite a while. Doesn't really matter for purposes of this thread!

I'm honestly not sure at this point. Maybe it was Rabban, not Feyd. I'm not very good at remembering the details, unfortunately. 😕 I'll probably re-listen to the audiobook to refresh my knowledge (after I finish the LOTR audiobooks).

Finally finished the book (well, before the Appendices) and, I dunno, it was kind of a mixed bag for me, at best (spoiler-filled impressions and rantings follow).

The pace lagged in, especially in the middle, saturated with what seemed to me a lot of mystical hooey and esoteric gobbledygook. There also seem to be some false starts and plot threads that don't go anywhere. I'm particularly thinking first of Gurney Hallecks's conversation with Staban Tuek, a character who says stuff that seems like it might be important later, but the character thereafter never shows up again. Yes, he may show up in the sequels, but I don't think this was a certainty at the time of the book's publication. Also, during this convo, Gurney tells Tuek he heard from Thulfir Hawat that Jessica is the traitor. This suddenly turns into a vendetta against Jessica, but, again, I don't feel like it is sufficiently set up (yes, I'm revisiting this plot point). I looked through the text file to confirm this. Halleck never vows vengeance against Jessica that I could find. Tuek even suggests it's not her he wants, to which Halleck even concedes that "Hawat made a few mistakes." Also, later, when Gurney thinks, after reuniting with Paul, "The she-witch alive! The one I swore vengeance against, alive!" One, again, no, this never happens; and two, if he did swear vengeance was it before he thought she was dead or after? Anyway, whatever the case, it comes to precisely nothing. Gurney tries to kill Jessica but is told by Paul that she's not the traitor. And that's the end of it, leading me to believe that the murder attempt is just there pad out the word count. If you took this out of the story, it would have changed nothing. It is Hawat who swears vengeance against Jessica but this too comes to nothing, as does the (cartoonishly evil) Baron Harkonnen's use of both it and Hawat himself. Furthermore, neither Halleck nor Hawat use the slightest bit of reason when suspecting Jessica. Why even introduces this plot point?

I couldn't really connect with the characters. Overall, the tone is overly dour with few if any moments of comic relief or even attempts at humor or lightheartedness. Just a lot of hifalutin speeches. I felt as if any of the main characters died I wouldn't care. But, of course, Paul Atreides being a kind of superman and a messianic figure (not to mention his mother Jessica becoming a super-woman) make that a dubious prospect, even if the text hints at his dying. It all got tiresome after a while and the text trying to describe his incredible awesomeness as a negative didn't really work for me either. Also, the ending of the book was odd to say the least. What a strange final sentence.

There isn't much science to speak of in this science fiction milestone. The idea of a desert planet is still weird to me. Also, if it doesn't rain, where does the water come from, especially the reservoir the Fremen are filling for the intention of making the planet able to support abundant greenery (and aren't they depriving other life forms of it)? Water evaporates. That which goes up must eventually come down. The Fremen might recycles bodies for their water but they cannot reclaim all the water that exists. And the worms? Where does their great mass come from? Why is water an anathema to them? Wouldn't that include water in the bodies of those who get swallowed? I cannot begin to wrap my mind around the ecology of this place.

Anyway, rant over. Overall, I'm a bit underwhelmed and I don't think Dune is a world I'm going to want to revisit again.

Interesting review. I can understand some of your points, and although I like Dune, it definitely isn't for everyone.

There isn't much science to speak of in this science fiction milestone. The idea of a desert planet is still weird to me. Also, if it doesn't rain, where does the water come from, especially the reservoir the Fremen are filling for the intention of making the planet able to support abundant greenery (and aren't they depriving other life forms of it)? Water evaporates. That which goes up must eventually come down. The Fremen might recycles bodies for their water but they cannot reclaim all the water that exists. And the worms? Where does their great mass come from? Why is water an anathema to them? Wouldn't that include water in the bodies of those who get swallowed? I cannot begin to wrap my mind around the ecology of this place.

Well, I'm no planetologist, but I'm pretty sure that although Arrakis doesn't have rain they do have dew in the morning (the Fremen set up moisture traps to catch said dew, and the people who live in Arrakkeen sweep the morning flowers with scythe-like devices to gather the moisture that settles on them). I guess this could potentially form a kind of water cycle, with dew instead of rain? I think it's also safe to assume that CHOAM imports water to Arrakken and the other cities, and we know that Fremen come there sometimes, so maybe they buy water from there? Also, the polar caps have frozen water on them, though I can't remember if it's obtainable. We also know that there is a lot of water underground in Arrakkis, but the Little Makers block it off whenever you try to make a well (although Fremen have figured out how to make sip-wells where you can drink said water). It's also possible that pre-spice masses (like the one that killed Kynes) also produce some water, though that's just a wild hypothesis on my part.
As for the sandworms being killed by the water in the humans they consume, I would hazard a guess that since a sandworm is much, much bigger than a human a (comparatively) tiny little bit of water in a person doesn't hurt it. Kind of like how eating a gallon of chlorine would probably kill you, but drinking a cup of chlorinated pool water won't (bad example, I know, but I can't come up with a better one). The small sandworms used in the Water of Life are only nine meters long and are completely immersed in water during the killing process, so that the water-to-sandworm ratio is much bigger.
I think I read in a fan wiki somewhere that sandworms eat microorganisms in the sand (like a whale eats plankton), and that's where they get their mass. They also have some connection to the spice (Kynes says that there are complicated chemical interchanges between them), maybe that's part of what makes them so big?

 

[Radaghast]

Yes, I remember the dew traps now, but it's still hard to grasp where that moisture would be coming from.

Also, another little rant about the book (SPOILER WARNING), the book ends with a duel between Paul and Feyd (which, big surprise, Paul wins), but before the duel Halleck grumbles and whines that he was "promised a Harkonnen" to kill and it takes him a while to shut up about it. There are examples like that throughout the book that tried my patience. Overall, it feels like there is more talk than action.

 

[Radaghast]

It's a "Messianic" story, which do tend to be a little *ahem* (wait for it)....messy. 😄
I only read it once, and I recall I [overall] liked it.
I will probably re-read it at some point in the next year or two.
It will be interesting to learn what my reaction is to it now almost 50 years** later.

**Good heavens... 50 years! When did that happen???!! 😬

I dunno. It feels like there is no real story arc for Paul. Unless it's that he starts out great and transitions into super-amazing. Same with his sister, Alia. No arc needed. Just have some mumbo jumbo occur and BAM, she's born a prodigy.

 

[Idril Celebrindal]

Yes, I remember the dew traps now, but it's still hard to grasp where that moisture would be coming from.

Also, another little rant about the book (SPOILER WARNING), the book ends with a duel between Paul and Feyd (which, big surprise, Paul wins), but before the duel Halleck grumbles and whines that he was "promised a Harkonnen" to kill and it takes him a while to shut up about it. There are examples like that throughout the book that tried my patience. Overall, it feels like there is more talk than action.

Well, if you look at Gurney's backstory, his sister was killed by Harkonnens, and he himself was their slave for a long time and was beaten with an inkvine by Rabban or Feyd (I can't remember which). If you're a weirdo like me who reads the appendices, they say that the inkvine leaves a very painful wound, almost as painful as the Gom Jabbar. So he REALLY wants revenge. I can understand why you're frustrated by that kind of stuff if you like action more, though. We all have our own tastes.

I dunno. It feels like there is no real story arc for Paul. Unless it's that he starts out great and transitions into super-amazing. Same with his sister, Alia. No arc needed. Just have some mumbo jumbo occur and BAM, she's born a prodigy.

There's a lot more about Aliah in Dune Messiah. I think she does have a small character arc though, because the first time we see her she feels shy and is embarrassed that she's an "abomination", and next time we see her she's sassing the Baron and leading the Fremen that were left behind in the sietch. I'm no expert on character arcs, though.

 

[herlig9]

But why did Tolkien hate it?
The author of Dune is (Frank Herbert)

I have never read or seen a Dune movie, or played a Dune game. But is there a reason for it? I dont watch YouTube clickbaits. But i wonder if anyone here is an expert on it?

 

[Deimos]

But why did Tolkien hate it?
The author of Dune is (Frank Herbert)

I have never read or seen a Dune movie, or played a Dune game. But is there a reason for it? I dont watch YouTube clickbaits. But i wonder if anyone here is an expert on it?

I entered the question on Google and among other hits (including the tiresome AI) there is at least one Reddit thread about it.
You might want to check that out.
Here is the link Tolkien and Dune

 

[herlig9]

If cynicism and nihilism is the reason then i cant blame Tolkien for it.
I dont like "Fight Club" movie for same reason.

 

[Rivendell_librarian]

Tuek even suggests it's not her he wants, to which Halleck even concedes that "Hawat made a few mistakes."

The actual words in my copy of the book is "Hawat made few mistakes" which is very different in meaning, and earlier in that chapter Halleck had said "Thufir Hawat suspected the Lady Jessica", although I couldn't find a conversation of Hawat telling Halleck of his suspicion. But that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened off stage so to speak, or Halleck could have inferred it. Could we not also think the same of Halleck's vow of vengeance? If it's not recorded in the book before Halleck announces it late in the story, doesn't mean he couldn't have made such a vow given his suspicion. But isn't this quibbling over details?

Having just read Dune myself I think it's good rather than great so 4 stars rather than 5 stars. Now I think it has a good engaging plot: it's not boring to read. And it has a very imaginative setting. But I did find some of the language overblown, such as this that comes in the last chapter just before the knife fight:

The race of humans had felt its own dormancy, sensed itself grown stale and knew now only the need to experience turmoil in which the genes would mingle and the strong new mixtures survive. All humans were alive as an unconscious single organism in this moment, experiencing a kind of sexual heat that could override any barrier.

Really?!

If Tolkien did read Dune then I can well imagine him guffawing at that pretentious guff. But that's only a small part of the book which I still think deserves 4 stars. We should measure Herbert by his own work rather than merely in comparison to Tolkien. Tolkien famously didn't like allegory (but did like the readers being able to decide their own application) but that doesn't mean allegory is intrinsically bad in any novel.

I do think Tolkien would have been rather unfair to not like Paul Atreides being seduced by his own power. Surely this is Herbert showing the danger of, say Galadriel, taking the Ring and using it to gain great power. Tolkien warned against the temptation of power in TLOTR and Herbert illustrated it. This shows the strength of including hobbits in the story. It's not feasible for Frodo to lead a band of warrior hobbits to conquer Middle-Earth. Gaffer Gamgee for one would say "I can't leave my taters".

This video has a good discussion of the question of this thread and also shows some cool artwork I hadn't seen before.

 

[Ent]

But isn't this quibbling over details?

Welcome to any fandom of any movie, book, or other entertainment vehicle ever done.

 

[Eljorahir]

This video

Hey, that video guy made the same point I did up in post #8. That's good for my ego.

Tolkien's conservative Catholicism (not really a quote): "I don't care what the Vatican says, I'm still speaking Latin in church. Loudly!"

Herbert's evolved Catholicism: The Orange Catholic Bible and the blending of many religions together over time.

 

[Rivendell_librarian]

I think continuing to use the Latin responses after Vatican II is not a positive for JRRT, but I'm not a catholic so maybe I don't understand the reasoning.

 

[Deimos]

I've just finished watching 'The Children of Dune' miniseries and reading through this thread I wondered if JRR Tolkien had meant that it was the planet Dune, Arrakis, that he disliked and not the actual book in itself. And yet, was there a relationship between the Great Were-Worms of Middle Earth and Dune's Sandworms? If so maybe Tolkien disliked the possibility of pipe-weed and spice being seen as similar substances having similar effects. Of course the more discerning reader knows that toking tobacco is not quiet the same as munching on a psychotropic melange.

It is a very undiscerning (yet self-serving) Peej who saw the possibility, nay, certainty, of pipeweed and spice as similar substances having similar effects.