Why did Tolkien dislike Dune?

[Idril Celebrindal]

In a letter Tolkien wrote "I dislike Dune with some intensity". Now, if he was reffering to the movie that came out this spring I would entirely agree with him. However, it so happens that Dune is a very good book (one of my favorites) and it has many simmilarities to The Lord of the Rings. So why do you think Tolkien disliked it?

 

[d4rk3lf]

In my book, disliking with some intensity and hating it, is 2 different things.
I think he just wasn't impressed, and he probably thought it's overrated.
I've read also all 6 Dune books, and have a similar feeling... It's Ok-ish (especially first 3 books), but is very far from the best books I've read.

I haven't watched second part of the Dune that came this spring, but I watched the first one, and I liked it.
Again, it's nothing groundbreaking, but considering what Hollywood gives us last 10-15 years, in comparison with that, it's like a shining star.

 

[Idril Celebrindal]

In a letter Tolkien wrote "I dislike Dune with some intensity". Now, if he was reffering to the movie that came out this spring I would entirely agree with him. However, it so happens that Dune is my second favorite book (after LotR, of course)...

Apologies, I just realised that I made it sound as if everyone should love Dune because I love it🤣. I should have said "However, it so happens that Dune is a really good book (one of my favorites) and many peope like it."
Also, I used the word hate because it seemed to me that that is what Tolkien meant by "dislike with some intensity". However, that is debetable 🤷‍♀️.
@d4rk3lf, if you have low horror tolerance like me I would advise you not to watch Dune 2 or to watch it on the smallest screen you can come by... Let's just say that the Harkonens' behaviour makes orcs seem like gentlemen (much more so than the book).

 

[Eljorahir]

Is this the only source for the concern over his dislike of Dune?:

March 12, 1966, in a letter to John Bush, Tolkien stated: “Thank you for sending me a copy of Dune. I received one last year from Lanier and so already know something about the book. It is impossible for an author still writing to be fair to another author working along the same lines. At least I find it so. In fact I dislike DUNE with some intensity, and in that unfortunate case it is much the best and fairest to another author to keep silent and refuse to comment …"

If so, it seems to me that "knowing something about a book" is not the same as having read the book. Did Tolkien ever confirm that he'd read Dune? If so, let's have the quote of that.

Maybe he saw the word "Messiah" on the back cover and decided it wasn't for him.

 

[Idril Celebrindal]

Is this the only source for the concern over his dislike of Dune?:

March 12, 1966, in a letter to John Bush, Tolkien stated: “Thank you for sending me a copy of Dune. I received one last year from Lanier and so already know something about the book. It is impossible for an author still writing to be fair to another author working along the same lines. At least I find it so. In fact I dislike DUNE with some intensity, and in that unfortunate case it is much the best and fairest to another author to keep silent and refuse to comment …"

If so, it seems to me that "knowing something about a book" is not the same as having read the book. Did Tolkien ever confirm that he'd read Dune? If so, let's have the quote of that.

Maybe he saw the word "Messiah" on the back cover and decided it wasn't for him.

As far as I know, that is the only source. However, I assume that someone like Tolkien would at least read the first few chapters of a book he was given. But I'm just guessing here.
I've heard some people say that the source of his dislike was that the book characters have almost no morals. That is true, but I've never gotten the impression that Frank Herbert was telling us "here is what you should act like!" by writing about people killing each other for water...

 

[d4rk3lf]

I'd disagree here with our friend @Eljorahir about Tolkien maybe not even reading a Dune.

At the last part of his sentence we can (at least I can) assume that 99% he reads it.
If he didn't read it, why he would comment about that he will refuse to comment, about something he didn't read?

I've heard some people say that the source of his dislike was that the book characters have almost no morals. That is true, but I've never gotten the impression that Frank Herbert was telling us "here is what you should act like!" by writing about people killing each other for water...

Again, I don't believe it.
We must not forget that Tolkien is very educated professor, very intelligent, and at that point of time, reading books was like washing a dishes... you read one, every day...
I also don't believe that such high intelligent person would put his own agenda or believing, as a judgment on someone's else's work (actually, in his last sentence, he basically say just that... that he doesn't want to judge).
He simply disliked it... from story.. atmosphere... back story.. and everything else...

Same as me, actually..

Now, I dislike how I compare my taste of books to the professor, last few posts, so I'll just say... I've read that he very much liked Alice in Wonderland book, and I read that book too, and I never liked it. It's just too weird to me... hmm... inspiration for Tom Bombadil maybe?
The only Tolkien character, I actually dislike.

 

[Idril Celebrindal]

Now, I dislike how I compare my taste of books to the professor, last few posts, so I'll just say... I've read that he very much liked Alice in Wonderland book, and I read that book too, and I never liked it. It's just too weird to me... hmm... inspiration for Tom Bombadil maybe?
The only Tolkien character, I actually dislike.

Strangely enough, I hate Alice in Wonderland more than I thought it was possible for me to hate something, and yet Tom Bombadil is my favorite LotR character outside of the fellowship.
However, my favorite character inside of the fellowship is Pippin, so possibly the case is simply that I myself am weird 🤪.

 

[Eljorahir]

I de-dusted my Dune to find out what could have possibly flustered the feathers of our favorite philologist.

Comparing an anecdote from Tolkien’s life to an extract from Dune…

From the ‘J.R.R. Tolkien’ Wikipedia article:
In the last years of his life, Tolkien resisted the liturgical changes implemented after the Second Vatican Council, especially the use of English for the liturgy; he continued to make the responses in Latin, loudly, ignoring the rest of the congregation.

From the Glossary in Dune, ‘The Terminology of the Imperium’:
Orange Catholic Bible – the “Accumulated Book,” the religious text produced by the Commission of Ecumenical Translators. It contains elements of most ancient religions, including the Maometh Saari, Mahayana Christianity, Zensunni Catholicism and Buddislamic traditions. Its supreme commandment is considered to be: “Thou shalt not disfigure the soul.”

I can certainly understand that someone who was a Latin-purist in church might not be too keen on entertaining the idea of the ‘Orange Catholic Bible’ of the far future (even in a work of fiction).

 

[Idril Celebrindal]

Yes, that does make sense. I've always found the idea of the Orange Catholic Bible hard to grasp, as well as the fact that Paul Atreides unintentionally fufills prophesies that were initially planted as a form of safeguard for any Bene Gesserit stranded on Arrakis. If the prophesies are fake, then how come he's fufilling them? So is Paul the Kwizatz Haderach, or not? I would not be surprised if that displeased Tolkien as well.
Also, note that Paul Atreides is very corrupted towards the end of the first book, not really caring about the lives of his friends and morals as he did before. As it seems to me that Tolkien is one for integrity, I would not be surprised if this displeased him as well.
One might argue that, simmilar to 1984, Dune is trying to give us some hidden message through the corruption that takes hold of it's characters, but if there is a message other than that of the desert then I have yet to find it.

 

[Barliman]

[Snip...]inspiration for Tom Bombadil maybe?
The only Tolkien character, I actually dislike.

Interesting. I can't think of any characterizations, which I assume you mean, as opposed to characters, that I dislike.
This, of course, doesn't include the movies.

Cheers

 

[Ugluk]

It seems to me Tolkien personally disliked Dune, whether he thought it bad from a literary perspective is not as clear. Setting aside technical questions over literary style or use by Herbert's of language I can see several possible objection by Tolkien to Dune.

1. The reduction of values more or less to "might makes right". Now the Atreides under Leto did hold to higher principles, but lost to the real politik of the Emperor and the Baron. The last were only redefeated by Paul's ruthless use of force.
2. the reduction of religion to the manipulation of the ignorant majority by a secret few.
3. The idealisation of fanaticism (the Fremen show disturbing affinities to Al-Qaeda). Part of Herbert's genius is to make the Fremen sympathetic despite, and even because, of this.
4. The very abrupt ending to the book leaving many threads hanging (remember Dune Messiah was not published until 1969).

 

[TrackerOrc]

It seems to me Tolkien personally disliked Dune, whether he thought it bad rom a literary perspective is not as clear. Setting aside technical questions over literary style or use by Herbert's of language I can see several possible objection by Tolkien to Dune.

1. The reduction of values more or less to "might makes right". Now the Atreides under Leto did hold to higher principles, but lost to the real politik of the Emperor and the Baron. The last were only redefeated by Paul's ruthless use of force.
2. the reduction of religion to the manipulation of the ignorant majority by a secret few.
3. The idealisation of fanaticism (the Fremen show disturbing affinities to Al-Qaeda). Part of Herbert's genius is to make the Fremen sympathetic despite, and even because, of this.
4. The very abrupt ending to the book leaving many threads hanging (remember Dune Messiah was not published until 1969).

It's in many ways a much more serious, 'adult' work than Tolkien's ME, so yes, I think the politics are more brutal; just the sheer scope of the universe Herbert is depicting would have much more of a cultural/values spectrum than the rather idealised values of the Free Peoples of the West, so to speak.

For Paul to deliver the Fremen from their bondage (and I do see them as an oppressed minority rather than simply fanatics, though fanaticism is definitely there), an awful lot of brute force has to enter the equation. The Emperor (let alone the Harkonnens) are not going to quietly give up are they?

And I don't think Tolkien would be in any position to criticise the delay in publishing a sequel!

 

[Deimos]

In a letter Tolkien wrote "I dislike Dune with some intensity". Now, if he was reffering to the movie that came out this spring I would entirely agree with him. However, it so happens that Dune is my second favorite book (after LotR, of course), and it has many simmilarities to the Lord of the Rings. So why do you think Tolkien hated it?

I could not let this mistaken assumption pass without comment.
You are saying, have said, that "dislike"="hate'' (and others have made the same mistake.)

Over time, certainly the last 50 years or so, we have gotten rather sloppy in how we use what might be described as emotively powerful words.
We have become habituated to conflating the words 'love' and 'hate' with like (prefer) and dislike (not prefer), whereas love and hate describe extreme emotions typically directed toward a person, but sometimes toward an object or situation. But the operative word is "extreme".

Some folks will say I am splitting hairs, but it is not so. Humans communicate by language, and a word means one thing and not something else.
To lose sight of that is to begin down the slippery slope of misunderstanding what is being said, such that two people might well (it seems) be speaking two different languages.

Tolkien was philologist. He didn't use "hate" because he well knew the meaning of the word; it was not the appropriate word for what he wanted to say, which is why he deliberately used the words he did: " I dislike DUNE with some intensity…". (Emphasis added).

I daresay you could read the "Letters…." book cover to cover and find nary an entry by Tolkien wherein he says he hates something, with the possible exception of war. You will never find him saying he hates some person(s) or other, or even a book. He was never careless in how expressed himself.
We might consider following suit.

 

[Ugluk]

It's in many ways a much more serious, 'adult' work than Tolkien's ME, so yes, I think the politics are more brutal; just the sheer scope of the universe Herbert is depicting would have much more of a cultural/values spectrum than the rather idealised values of the Free Peoples of the West, so to speak.

For Paul to deliver the Fremen from their bondage (and I do see them as an oppressed minority rather than simply fanatics, though fanaticism is definitely there), an awful lot of brute force has to enter the equation. The Emperor (let alone the Harkonnens) are not going to quietly give up are they?

And I don't think Tolkien would be in any position to criticise the delay in publishing a sequel!

I would say Dune is less serious and less adult work that Tolkien. Yes, Herbert's stage is bigger, but the scope of characters seems to me much smaller.

Where does Tolkien criticise Herbert for being tardy with a sequel?

Tolkien was actually quite oblique in his criticism It is impossible for an author still writing to be fair to another author working along the same lines. At least I find it so. In fact I dislike DUNE with some intensity, and in that unfortunate case it is much the best and fairest to another author to keep silent and refuse to comment.

We are just speculating since Tolkien wisely said no more.

Personally, I like both, but I did find Dune had rather dated when I last read it earlier this year, 50 years or so after my first reading

 

[TrackerOrc]

I would say Dune is less serious and less adult work that Tolkien. Yes, Herbert's stage is bigger, but the scope of characters seems to me much smaller.

Where does Tolkien criticise Herbert for being tardy with a sequel?

Tolkien was actually quite oblique in his criticism It is impossible for an author still writing to be fair to another author working along the same lines. At least I find it so. In fact I dislike DUNE with some intensity, and in that unfortunate case it is much the best and fairest to another author to keep silent and refuse to comment.

We are just speculating since Tolkien wisely said no more.

Personally, I like both, but I did find Dune had rather dated when I last read it earlier this year, 50 years or so after my first reading

Oh I'd say that the scope of Herbert's work is vastly bigger than Tolkien's (which is in no way a criticism of Tolkien); he is basically writing about the whole universe in many ways. The Fremen, the Landsraat, the BG, CHOAM - it's a truly enormus canvas he's using.

I was replying to your point number 4 about the Dune sequel not coming out quickly enough, which you seemed to believe Tolkien would take issue with.

The Dune series is one I re-read most years, and I still enjoy them as much as the first time I got into them.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

It might useful to compare Tolkien's comments on E.R.Eddison, about whose work he had conflicting, or we could say "nuanced" views, writing in a 1944 letter to Christopher of hearing Eddison read "a new chapter from an uncompleted romance -- of undiminished power and felicity of expression".

In Letter 199 (1957) he writes:

I read the works of Eddison, long after they appeared[. . .] I read his works with great enjoyment for their sheer literary merit [. . .] Except that I disliked his characters (always excepting the Lord Gro) and despised what he appeared to admire more intensely than Mr. Lewis at any rate saw fit to say of himself. Eddison thought what I admire 'soft' (his word: one of complete condemnation, I gathered); I thought that, corrupted by an evil and indeed silly 'philosophy', he was coming to admire, more and more, arrogance and cruelty. Incidentally, I thought his nomenclature slipshod and often inept. In spite of all of which, I still think of him as the greatest and most convincing writer of 'invented worlds ' that I have ever read.

(My emphasis)

I'd call that as extreme an example of an "on the one hand/on the other hand" attitude about an author as you could find; we can only guess at whether he might have expressed something similar, had he written more about Herbert.

About the Alice stories, it should perhaps be kept in mind that they're filled with parody and satire, aimed at many targets, some, like Victorian politics and moral attitudes, losing their sharpness and relevance to the mere passage of time; some, like the White Knight's song as an elaborate parody of Wordsworth, due to lack of familiarity with their originals; or many which are more or less in-jokes, such as the Hatter's "Twinkle, twinkle, little bat", which, besides parodying the "Little Star" song, something that would have delighted the young Liddell sisters, referred to a mathematics professor at Oxford, who was known as "The Bat" because his lectures flew over the heads of his students.

One more little note:

In the last years of his life, Tolkien resisted the liturgical changes implemented after the Second Vatican Council, especially the use of English for the liturgy; he continued to make the responses in Latin, loudly, ignoring the rest of the congregation.

In this, he reminds me of H.P.Lovecraft, that lover of everything 18th century, and hater of everything 19th, who, when finding himself at any event where "America" ('My Country, 'Tis of Thee') was being sung, would loudly sing the words to "God Save the King". 😄

 

[Idril Celebrindal]

I could not let this mistaken assumption pass without comment.
You are saying, have said, that "dislike"="hate'' (and others have made the same mistake.)

Over time, certainly the last 50 years or so, we have gotten rather sloppy in how we use what might be described as emotively powerful words.
We have become habituated to conflating the words 'love' and 'hate' with like (prefer) and dislike (not prefer), whereas love and hate describe extreme emotions typically directed toward a person, but sometimes toward an object or situation. But the operative word is "extreme".

Some folks will say I am splitting hairs, but it is not so. Humans communicate by language, and a word means one thing and not something else.
To lose sight of that is to begin down the slippery slope of misunderstanding what is being said, such that two people might well (it seems) be speaking two different languages.

Tolkien was philologist. He didn't use "hate" because he well knew the meaning of the word; it was not the appropriate word for what he wanted to say, which is why he deliberately used the words he did: " I dislike DUNE with some intensity…". (Emphasis added).

I daresay you could read the "Letters…." book cover to cover and find nary an entry by Tolkien wherein he says he hates something, with the possible exception of war. You will never find him saying he hates some person(s) or other, or even a book. He was never careless in how expressed himself.
We might consider following suit.

Thank you for pointing this out, I think another person mentioned it before as well. I would change the thread title and my post to disliked instead of hated, except that I have no idea how, or if that's even possible. Also, I was not saying that dislike = hate. I was simply abbreviating "dislike with some intensity" to "hate", albeit sloppily. I suppose that a small amount of miscommunication is present whenever the internet is used to communicate. I understand why the "hate" part in my post bothers some people, but I honestly have no idea how to edit it.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

I'd PM, but as it may be helpful to other of our newer members, I'll say here that you can edit your posts by clicking the three dots at the bottom, and then "Edit". I don't recall if title edit is available to members, but I'll be glad to do that for you, if you like.

 

[Idril Celebrindal]

I'd PM, but as it may be helpful to other of our newer members, I'll say here that you can edit your posts by clicking the three dots at the bottom, and then "Edit". I don't recall if title edit is available to members, but I'll be glad to do that for you, if you like.

It would be great if you could edit the post, thanks. I can't find the three dots, so I guess it's an administrator thing.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Hmm. I do everything on my phone, so you may not see the dots, but you should see an "edit" at the bottom of your post -- it's next to the little square and "Report".