Is Paul Atreides a Villain?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code SHIRE at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: incogni.com/shire
Support me on Patreon: patreon.com/us...
Donate to my tip jar: ko-fi.com/part...
Follow me on Instagram: / jess_of_the_shire
Contact me: jess.of.the.shire.business@gmail.com
Music by Epidemic Sound. Check out my referral link here: share.epidemic...
Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code SHIRE at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: incogni.com/shire
I love your take on this. The Hero/villain/human/inhuman graphic is very Petersonesque. Have you read Maps of Meaning by some chance? Or The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell?
Also you look absolutely beautiful in this vid (as usual really). I was just quite taken by you this time round for some reason.
My favourite line in "Dune" is actually in the appendixes, where it talks about how Liet-Kynes was patiently preparing the Fremen for the long project of terraforming, "until the day his planet was afflicted by a Hero."
What does that mean
Wish they would have included quite a few more lines from the book into the movies. This was said in the chapter where Liet dies to the pre-spice mass.
The "Hero" in this context refers to Paul, who arrives on Arrakis and becomes a pivotal figure in the planet’s destiny. The word "afflicted" suggests that while Paul’s arrival brings significant and transformative changes, it also introduces conflict and upheaval, which is evident in the Fremen Jihad.
Plus, Paul’s coming impacts the planet of Arrakis by going through with the ecological transformation, and helps push it forward into motion. If that makes sense to you.
@@CosmicInsights290 Indeed, or more briefly, simply the point that being led by a Hero is not necessarily a good thing for the man in the street (or in the sietch).
I suspect the word is "Afflicted" because it suggests a Disease, and indeed, Fanaticism is entirely the problem for the Hero who is Lisan Al Gaib. Another fun fact: Fanaticism is most pernicious and dangerous in adolescent humans, something which Herbert takes advantage of with the characters of Paul, Leto II (and Ghanima), and then much, much later with Siona, Sheeana, and the ghola Duncan Idaho.
Now, this is not to say that adults in middle age won't be fanatical; clearly, all the Bene Tlielax are fanatical. But the way to lay the fanatical pattern down so that it sticks for the rest of the life of the adherents is to convert them into fanatics before they become adults.
I've always maintained that Paul was neither hero or villain - he was a survivor. NONE of anything that happened would have happened if they'd just been left alone. The Emperor would have continued to fret, but he would have remained emperor. He could have even married his daughter off to Duke Leto (or Paul) and the "threat" would have been neutralized. Instead? He had to deal with a vengeful teenager who was mightily pissed his dad was murdered and had decided to "Tear it ALL Down!"
Emperor was afraid of rising power of house Atreides, and their increased antagonism towards him. But it's his actions that caused it. His move to consolidate the power among the nobility had upset the lower classes of people, who chose Paul as their leader for his knowledge of the power.
I think that his fear was not that the power will corrupt him, but what happens after he consolidates all the power for himself and then leave it to others. Because after his move against the emperor, all the other houses will attack him. So he will have to take all their power as well.
The problem, that he is solving is nobility abusing their privilege to oppress lower classes. He has to find a way to give more freedom to lower classes, that will not be easily reversible after he is gone
@@jankom.7783 As the Kwisatz Haderach Paul chose his actions to send humanity upon his "Golden Path," which was the only set of circumstances with the least amount of bloodshed in his visions of all possible futures. Those visions is why he chose to allow Chaney to die in childbirth instead of saving her. Had she lived her future would have been VERY grim. It's also why he sent out the Fremen to tear the Landsraad (Great Houses) apart. But it was his son, Leto II, that truly followed his Golden Path - something Paul couldn't force himself to do. You know, b/c losing your humanity by turning yourself into a giant sandworm for 5000 years of misery just for the sake of humanity is a big ask! lol
@@Raggmopp-xl7yf Paul did not see the Golden Path, he reveals this in his last conversation with Leto II.
Exactly. Paul is a tragedy/cautionary tale.
Would agree with referring to his trajectory as a tragedy. Survivor feels like it still gives him too much support (for my liking)
He was, to quote V, "Cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate."
#AlanMooreWasRight
Well said, sir!
I find the best way to think of Dune is its what LotR would be like if Aragorn took the Ring fir himself to overthrow Sauron.
Or if LotR was written from the POV of Sauron
As the Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam once said, “There are no sides”
Exactly
@@nenyeo6090 "All things are permissible" is the rallying cry of authoritarianism, something most of the factions, especially the Bene Gesserit, were, in the entire series.
This might be my favorite line from Part 2
I think it is fair to call both of them a villain: Paul unwillingly and Leto II willingly. "History is written by the victors." Paul was unable and unwilling to guide humanity on the golden path so while his Jihad was successful he was not able to claim ultimate victory, letting the ruin left in his wake be left to others to deal with. Leto II firmly wanted humanity to emerge victorious and so he set himself against them, he became an anvil against which humanity would be forged. As outside readers we might be able to see his acts as heroic, but the winning side, the humanity Leto II wanted to flourish, could only consider him a villain.
Exactly why the Bene Gesserit so dogmatically referred to him as the (capital-T) Tyrant. It's like the saying "your enemies make you stronger" taken to an extreme.
I didn’t understand Dune until I started watching this channel - best video essays on UA-cam, hands down.
I'm so glad my videos have helped!!
Dune is basically a greek tragedy, as far as the Atreides go. They realize they have to become the villains by everyone else's standards. In order to keep humanity from being destroyed.
The Atreides are inspired by House Atreus from Greek myth, which was always suffering from tragedy
This is how I’ve always thought of House Atreides. Perspective is everything.
This is how I've felt, but the circle analogy makes me reconsider... because the entire point of a Greek tragedy was how HUMAN the protagonists are.
The problem is that when somone can *actually* see the future, and the least worst option is to create the lake of blood and wade through it... that's a whole lot of oof.
The problem people run into is they don't understand the least bad option doesn't mean a good option.
@@alananimus9145 Sometimes there are no morally good options as we understand them. The universe of Dune is filled with feuds and political infighting. Being peaceful or passive doesn't mean that your enemies are going to leave you alone. Especially when you have something that everybody wants.
@@hans-christianbauer5947 Oh I completely agree. The point I was making is that it's important not to mistake "the least bad option" for "the good option". There is a quote from one of my favorite book series "Sometimes it's not about doing the right thing, its about doing the correct thing."
Dune is a story about how fascist leaders take power both by accident (in the case of Paul) and on purpose (in the case of Leto). It is a brilliant critique of "The Great Man" ideology.
What is truly good will only result in all that you love being taken and destroyed by people that don't care about good. Oh humans how I weep for us.
@@JacobHimmelhaver-m8g I would disagree. Being kind is often confused with being good, but "true good" sees the outcome/consequence of an action, not just the action itself.
If a father who loves his child disciplines it harshly, does he do it out of malice?
On the opposite side: anti-authoritarian parents who raise their children without restrictions or discipline as to not "taint their free spirit"...who is doing their child the greater favour?
If constant kindness leads to destruction, is it truly good?
In the short term relatively both Paul and Leto II were some what a hero/villain.
The long term Paul didn’t want the burden of the golden path for humanity
Leto II embraced that he had to become a tyrant so the golden path for humanity was realised
This is entirely how I understand the Crux of Dune's matter. Paul is self-aware of how horrible the Golden Path future will be but is powerless to change anything lest all of humanity depart from the Path. Leto II serves an important thematic purpose because he does embrace his villainy to some extent but he also preserves and even redeems from time to time, including his own father Paul and his grandfather, too, and the whole of the Bene Gesserit order.
The Tyrant is what the Bene Gesserit call him. Leto II calls himself a predator, but knows that the worst thing he's done was to bottle humanity up until finally the pressure from enforced tranquility scattered the species like the seeds from a dandelion.
Another interesting feature of Leto II: He might be the Tyrant, but he's also the biggest supporter of his own counter-revolution. In other words, he's been intentionally breeding the Atreides by favoring the rebellious so that all serious opposition remains more or less controlled. It's a funny kind of villain that values the strongest possible competition, choosing to persuade and convert it rather than outright destroy it.
I think the point of dune is that it’s bigger than a hero or a villain- it’s about societal struggles and systems of power. The people are just… people. Even if they exist outside the scopes that we know today.
This 👏
I talk often about the systems of power and how they pushed the events along, I mean it isn't like Paul just woke up one day and said he wanted to be a dictator. The oppressive order will always demonize the chaotic revolution, and rightly so, but neither are "good"; simply two sides of a coin and where you stand determines how you view either
Leto his wormself said, "they will call me Shaitan" while some call him Shai hulud; so he is both the devil and god, villain and hero. It depends on your understanding and perspective. This is how Moneo went from believing Leto was the villain to believing he was THE hero.
I feel like Paul is more of a tragic, what could have been, character rather than the villain sort.
I also see the same with Feyd - there's a comment in the novel where someone wonders what Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen could have become if he had been raised with the Atreides sense of honor.
I see Dune as a wide-ranging story that covers many characters of different moral status, but all of them have to live out their lives among the background of a corrupt, feudal galactic empire, with many deeply-embedded manipulative power centers, so nobody gets to have a straight heroic story.
Now many of the Harkonnens, though, are straight-up evil.
Exactly. Paul is not a villain. His powers of the mind aren't even the problem. He unleashed a beast w/ the Fremen, which are what caused the holy war.
If anything, the Paul is a victim of the Bene Gesserit's insane schemes, of the religion and culture they groomed on Arrakis. He didn't make the Fremen, the Bene' did. They then maneuvered him into a position where he basically had to unleash them.
He's not omnipotent, but he can read a lot of the future. The Bene Gesserit crafted their plan around just such a figure, which included toppling actual villains, the Harknonens and then the evil Emperor. Herbert went through great lengths to outline how evil these people were, how hungry for power, willing to eat up major families...etc. It's said in the books and the movie, "I see a way, one way...." That's the only way that Paul could go, that's the cost of taking Arraakis and saving his mother and soon to be sister.
Better that Paul take the reins of that than Feyd Ratha. He did it very reluctantly when he finally gave in.
"But he killed so many people" No. His fremen did, ostensibly at his order, but the books don't detail any of that. He accepts the burden, but the books do touch on how he tries to keep the Fremen in line, iirc, it's just impossible, so Paul focuses on mitigation.
Reluctant hero winds up sacrificing his agency, and even takes responsibility, even though it's not totally his, and he tortures himself over all of it, even though it was really the only way to avoid much worse. Those are heroic traits.
The books are pretty clear on most of this. Paul doesn't see himself as a hero, no, most iconic heroes don't, they don't get that ego. He accepts blame, another heroic trait.
He didn't set out to do any of this, he set out to end tyranny, and once he started on that path, it snowballed because it was organized or "destined" to, thanks to the Bene Gesserit. He's not a tyrant, he isn't doing it to have power, he never wanted it for the power. He's doing it to try to stave off worse things, that's his whole character arc.
It's sort of like the trolley problem writ large across a universe.
Paul chose to make the train take the track with one person on it, and it tears him up inside, even though he saved five. Fayed would have gleefully made those five die just for the lulz if he could have, the Bene Gesserit might have been able to somewhat control him more directly than Paul, but the result would have been worse than Paul regardless because they can't actually fix insane, they are insane themselves.
Paul wasn't a villain, Jess has just doesn't have perspective because of the large numbers(in comparison to real Earth history) were overwhelming.
I see much of the Greek tragedy in Dune. The 'heroes' are tragic heroes who fall, not so much because of innate wickedness, but because fatal circumstances close in around them, bringing to the light of day their worst flaws which would otherwise have done little harm.
Paul could probably be considered an antihero.
I think Herbert made it clear when he inserted a dialogue in the books in which Paul himself openly admits that "he is much worse than Hitler."
Blame Jessica, she was supposed to have a girl .. 😂😂😂
And when she did that daughter was arguably MORE dangerous than Paul was. It is possible (however unlikely) to have controlled Paul. His sister was fully aware AT BIRTH.
@@chadmueller6128had Paul been born a Paula, she would not have been exposed to the water of life while in the womb - which is why Alia was born fully aware.
@@chadmueller6128 yeah, but that was because Jessica did the Spice Agony while pregnant
@@chadmueller6128that's 15 years after the actual daughter was supposed to be born
Also they were never going to be attacked if they unified through marriage with the Barons side
Yeah Jessica messed up even Paul said so 😂
Superb overview. Dune is nothing if not a modern Greek tragedy and the "Golden Path" is such a bitterly ironic term.
As you may know, Frank Herbert drew the very name "Atreides" from Greek myth: the "House of Atreus" is the English version of that Greek term and refers to multiple generations of a family that suffers under a multi-generational "curse of the gods".
The "original" adaptation(s) of those myths were done by the playwrights of Classical Greek theatre. Many from the Atreides line got tragedies written about them that have survived from Classical times.
The ancient Greeks knew full well that there were many ways to be a "chosen one" and the very morally ambiguous nature of their gods meant this was typically a very dangerous business.
Dune picks up a lot of these themes - albeit within a godless universe. I can only hope that Villeneuve's series of films at least makes it to the end of Paul's story arc (i.e. at the end of "Children of Dune") and his ultimate tragedy - that Paul's "feet of clay" condemned his own son to sacrifice HIS humanity and to be cursed by humanity for all time.
It's almost like Herbert thought it possible that overthrowing a corrupt monarchy might lead to a Cromwellian pogrom or a reign of terror. :)
Doctor Yueh's choice is better represented with the 'prisoner's dilemma" than the "trolley problem", especially with the justification you provide.
I don’t think that’s right. The essence of the prisoner’s dilemma is that
1) two (or more) actors are presented with the choice to do a “good” cooperative thing or a “bad” selfish thing;
2) collectively, they would both be better off if neither did the selfish thing than if both did the selfish thing; but
3) individually, there is always an incentive to do the selfish thing whether or not they expect the other actor(s) to be cooperative or selfish.
I can see how Yueh’s situation could fulfill two of these conditions, depending on how you frame it, but I don’t think it fulfills all three at once.
@@Best_Stressed As you present them,
1) "Good" maintain loyalty or "Bad" give in to blackmail
2) Not having their house fall, and collectively die off, is definitely favorable for the group
3)Blackmail, which Yueh reason's they could do with any number of members.
Love the hair and the content. Nice to see another great franchise getting some love.
Unrelated to the excellent video but the Hobbit hole in four seasons paintings in the background are lovely!
Thank you! They were a gift from my sister
@@Jess_of_the_Shire That's awesome! She did some excellent work!
There is a problem with the Trolley Problem.
No one ever picks the third possible option, or even realizes it exists as far as I can tell.
Just jam the switch halfway and derail the trolley.
P.S. I love the new look for your hair.
What about the emergency break on the trolley itself?
@@nottheguru The problem is classically phrased as that the brake is not working, hence the "runaway" trolley.
I needed this video today!
I need the second movie on 4k at home.
I've been in a Dune mood lately!
I liken Paul to Magneto. Great video as always, Miss Jess.
And I like your hair. It goes with the whole image you project.
Please continue to dive into other non-Tolkien subjects.
“Explorers in the further regions of experience.
Daemons to some; Angels to others”
Another Jess upload!!! \o/ your hair and makeup look so magical this time :3 It's always great watching your videos, I love your choice of words and stuffs when dissecting the stories you talk about :3
Thank you so much!
I like to think of the first 2 books as one massive gom jabbar that Paul fails. In the end, he couldn't do what objectively needed to be done and fled from the pain.
Paul saw himself as the villain for a while and then just saw himself as inevitable.
I'm digging both of the movies. Beautifully shot and a story compellingly told. It's been decades since I've read the firs three books but it feels *right* to me so far -- while there are some differences between the books and the movies, I can understand why that is. Anyways, I really enjoyed this video, as I usually do with your content. Good work!
Good day and Happy Friday, Jess and fans!
My fave Dune bit was always the Littany against Fear, especially the fear is the mind-killer line. I also remember a parody of Dune in which the chapter intros said things like "Incoherent Ramblings of the Princess Irulan."
Took me a bit to get used to your channel, but I really enjoy it now.
Thank you
I like your hair! It would be extra cool if it grayed naturally like that.
It probably will! I have my mother's hair and she has a lovely gray streak. I'm pretty much just copying her haha
Fantastic discussion/analysis, as usual, Jess! 👏
You can talk to us as much as you like about Dune&Dune2... I saw both when they first came to theaters @ 1/2 dzn times, and watch Dune-related content at least once a wk, so you won't bore me!!!
I would love to do a deep dive on the films eventually. They're such a masterclass in adaptation
To be honest I was actually kinda disappointed by Dune: Part Two. I felt like it lost a lot of the nuance present in the book due to having the internal dialogue of the characters. Also my favorite scene in the whole book is the part where Gurney Halleck tries to kill Jessica and Paul talks him down. That scene is just so packed full of tension and raw emotion and I loved it so much. I get why they removed it from the movie, because the whole plot point of Gurney and Thufir Hawat and everyone suspecting Jessica was the traitor was removed from the first movie (as a side note, one of my biggest gripes with the first movie was how much of the tension and setup they removed from Dr. Yueh's betrayal), but I'm still sad I didn't get to see it play out in movie form.
I personally find it very satisfying, that the question in this video cannot be answered so easily.
In the end, humans are complex beings capable of demonstrating even more complex behaviours.
Reducing this to two extremes (hero / villain) does often not honour that complexity.
Most often taking a deep dive into the question why someone did something (the motive or motives) is much more rewarding. I think Frank Herbert is a master in portraiting this.
Stereotype characters which can clearly be attributed to either villain or hero honestly bore me. I am glad that there are stories which offer so much more depth in character development.
This reminds me of Code Geass.... The hero of the people turned emperor and enemy of all to eventually die/fall for a world to unite back again in a semblance of peace
Paul is not a hero or a villain, he's a smart guy swept along by fate. Albeit one who never ends up in a cubicle.
Excellent presentation. Seeing the relationship of the human being, a potential hero or villain, as a spectrum diagram is a brilliant idea.
Holy crap!!!! I ❤️💕❤️your take on Paul!!!! I actually saw him as a good guy, but I’m just a common reader! U r way smarter than me!
That's why Herbert wrote another book in which he made things pretty clear, because too many people understood Paul's character wrongly.
You look Galadriel after she took the ring.
Got the hair on point today Jess!
You have mastered the sponsor segue. Well done :)
Haha thanks so much!
He started as a hero, and could have died a hero; instead, he lived long enough to see himself become a villain.
And yet if he had died a hero, many more people would've died.
Another good one! Your work in elucidating Dune's often-ponderous themes is quite heroic... Or should I say villainous? I'm not so sure now...
I click on your videos because you are attractive and you voice is soothing. I don't really hear what you say until I turn my head back to my video game. Then I am not distracted by your physical beauty and instead I am attentive to your words. You speak well and with depth.
Fun fact: John W. Campbell wrote the novella 'Who Goes There?,' upon which is based the 1982 film _The Thing._ You're right regarding Campbell: McReady in the novella is much more the upright superhero than Kurt Russell's R. J. MacReady. Definitely worth the read.
Can someone please show me where this rumor came from that frank wrote messiah as a sort of "i'll show them" or reaction to public reaction, i've heard a lot of people say it but I've also seen from franks interviews and brian herberts commentary that this is not really true and I can't find sources where he said this apart from hearsay.
Because he never did. Parts of Messiah & children of Dune were written before the first book was finished. And he wanted to add Messiah to Dune but the publisher wanted him to split it into 3-4 novels. So, he went with 3. Everything God Emperor and beyond was him deciding to continue. But Dune, Dune:Messiah, and Children of Dune were always meant to be one thing. Don’t mind people stating things without knowing what they’re talking about.
These videos really help me parse out the books. Still trying to make sense of Dune Messiah's fallen moon, though.
I can’t imagine to put myself in Paul’s shoes. It feels like his free will has been taken away by forces far greater than himself. He had all of the potential paths of life right in front of his face, being able to see down every path as clear as day. It’s almost as if instead of authoring his own life, he’s just filling in the pages with a story that he had no choice but to copy down instead of pen himself. I’m so conflicted so much on whether or not to pity him because of his wrongdoings, but at the very least I pity that such a situation was thrust upon him. Loved the vid!
To summarise this entire 27 min plus video - Heroes or villains? It's complicated! 😂. Seriously though another great vid Jess. 👍
It's fascinating - ok, to me - to compare Paul Atreides with Robin Hobbs's FitzChivalry and Le Guin's Ged. I think it's fair to say that all three protagonists represent a rejection of the hero/antihero dichotomy. However, Atreides' character arc and denouement are significantly more (though not entirely) postmodern than metamodern by comparison with the other two. To me, this endears FitzChivalry and Ged, while leaving Atreides more akin - I'm reaching here - to a Turin or an Oedipus.
I read Dune when I was in high school. It’s a good example of the maxim that the golden age of science fiction is 15.
You are just too mature for 'Dune' now, eh? That's for sharing, Big Boy.
The thought that haunts me when I think of Leto 2 and his Golden Path is... what if he was wrong? How do we know he wasn't? Like, yes, he wanted a humanity that he couldn't predict, that was beyond the reach of prescience; he wanted a humanity that was safe from *him*, and that at least was achieved, but what if it didn't need to happen that way? What if he subjected humanity to millennia of suffering and oppression and tyranny *and he was wrong*, and beyond the path and beyond his vision just waits more of the same, or perhaps a long, slow, eventual extinction.
I think Leto II is a hero, at least in the end. His life characterizes taking “the ends justify the means” to an extreme, and since part of the means were so horrific to him personally, overall, he truly does become a superhuman hero. Paul was completely human. He even derived his own existential philosophy, which truly was a sublime and profound series of revelations about inner humanity. He had to become all of this in order to survive, and once he had, he found that to destroy this hard-fought self definition was beyond him. He took only his humanity with him into the desert.
I like Dune part two plenty as well, but they still didn't quite capture the novel properly even here. Gurney is Paul's conscience, here he gladly eggs him along the path of revenge and the galactic system is dying because of genetic drift and inbreeding. Something they don;t mention in the two movie parts.
I think that calling Paul a victim takes too much of his own agency away. He actually saw different possibilities, but he kept compromising with himself because he wanted revenge and could see only one way to achieve it. Eventually he damned himself. He's a tragic hero and that is hinted in his last name. The Atreides are the descendants of Tantalus who slew his own son and feed him to the gods to test their omniscience, of Atreus who killed his own brother's children because he cheated with his wife, of Thyestes (Atreus' brother) who had a child with his own daughter for revenge, of Agamemnon who killed his daughter to allow the ships to leave for Troy, of Agamemnon's wife who killed him to avenge her daughter and who was killed by her own son.
Paul is a tragic hero, but his choices are his own, like his ancestors. Yes, there are always greater forces at play, but when it comes to choosing he always had a choice.
I think what Herbert is really attacking is the social relationship of the hero or the messianic figure to those who exalt them. Paul is personally heroic -- almost maximally so, yet he becomes a kind of anti-villain, failing to do the one thing he is desperate to do from the start of the story: avoid jihad. Leto is similarly personally heroic, but being preborn frees him of some of the constraints of "normal" humanity -- he does even more harm than Paul, committing not a brief galactic genocide, but an entire age of totalitarian despotism. Leto's plan is in his own terms literally to be as bad as possible for as long as possible until humans learn to stop him. The story is tragic for both because both feel trapped by their knowledge and abilities, but that sense of personal confidence that their charisma extends to their supporters (and to us in the audience, rooting for them at least at times) is the same confidence that real leaders have in their even-more fallible plans and abilities. That's a key part of the critique: the confidence, whether born of prescience or arrogance, in the story or real life, is always invalid and inadequate to justify the behavior of the heroic or messianic leader, and we are proven susceptible to it when we side with them in the story.
I think anti-villain is the best word for them: they behave in overtly villainous ways despite great personal nobility because they want to save humanity. Whether their actions are ultimately narratively justified or not, they can't really be ethically justified, and they bring ruin on those who exalted them in the first place.
The hero/follower relationship, Leto's mystiques, are just examples of the systems of control Herbert is critiquing.
Most characters in dune as simple as hero or villain and in the second book Paul And stilgar Have a conversation of how he makes hitler look like a joke but The morality is murky More so When you get to the third and fourth books but That's also where you start to realize Who the real main character of the story is...sorry i love the dune books a little to much ngl😅
It's more of a deconstruction of the Messiah Narrative common to abrahamic religions Among other things
Those graphics make your point very well. I didn't like the movies. They could've been worse, but I don't like what they did to a lot of the characters. They're so much less than they are in the books.
Finally someone who actually has read the books and not only pretends to it while only talking about the films. Great analysis Jess, I agree Leto transcends the categories of Hero and Villain, his father was broken by the decisions he had to make and inthe end couldn't.
I don't recall the context, but wasn't there something that Herbert said the Dune story was a warning against charismatic or messianic leaders? A problem, whether hero or villain, is that Paul and Leto both descend into authoritarian leadership. As an individual yields to authority they cease to function as a voice for sny reason, and become a tool of the leaders vision. We lose our own humanity it would serm to serve that messianic leader, even if there does seem to be something justified in his or her thinking.
I would love to know if you have any thoughts on this:
Christopher Ruocchio has said that Frank Herbert did not actually succeed in making his point in the first book, thereby creating that need in the first place FOR the second book.
Do you think that’s the case, or far more likely that people just didn’t really care to look deeper into that first book to find it?
Basically: was the evidence there from the start?
The evidence was there from the start. Ruocchio doesn’t understand storytelling i don’t think.
The most obvious example of this is in chapter 30. Liet’s death scene.
But there are other things that give this away in the FIRST BOOK. Some of these are:
1) the structure of the book. Dune is told in epigraphs being written/ narrated by the Princess Irulan. Often times there were statements made in those epigraphs that seemed to take a neutral stance on the thing she was discussing as it relates to Paul. But, when we get to the end and find out what her role is going to be and we get a pay off for the epigraphs, we see just how much he’s changed. Writing immortalizes a person and Irulan by writing about Paul-Muad’Dib while pulling off the cruel act of using her to further his Empire (becoming Emperor) really cements the change he undergoes.
2) there are several times we see Paul’s changed. Ever since the tent scene (the end of part 1 of the first book) we get to see a different Paul, he’s never quite the same. There’s also the scene with Gurney where he notices that Paul’s worried more about equipment than human lives and the scene after the time jump where he doesn’t even KNOW where he’s at. Stuck and trying to waddle his way through past, present, & future.
3) throughout the epigraphs, there’s a feel of wisdom Muad’Dib is worth being remembered again by writing/immortalizing and what this is doing to the narrative is its getting us to hype Paul up in a way and believe that he did the right thing and he’s wise and all that but giving us hints along the way that it isn’t as it seems. This further Paul’s LEGEND.
When we take these points i made above (&there’s a couple more) alongside what the author had to say about his work: 1) that in order to get people to get a deeper message or impart something useful to them, you have to entertain them first & foremost; 2) that where you stop a story is the line between a hero or villain; 3) that he wanted to end the first book in a way in which it felt abrupt that there might be more to this story than that, leaving people a bit unsatisfied was what he was going for. All this tells us about Dune (1st book) is that Dune is the rise of a ‘hero’ and a mythical figure and Messiah is the tearing down and reminding us that he was and will always be A MAN which is prone to error. In order to tell us a story in the first book, he wanted us to be entertained before anything else hence why he sprinkled several nuggets of Paul and the Atreides in general doing shady stuff but ultimately still beating to the familiar story of heroic legends. Dune does something interesting in this sense- and that is withhold aspects of what it’s getting at to make us care for the characters first and foremost. So, to the people who read Dune and didn’t understand and were rooting for Paul, it’s fair to say they were right to root for him while pausing at certain parts and wondering why the author would choose to do that. I call withholding good storytelling device.
As a rule, the hero is a moral character, while the villain is an immoral character. Herbert's characters were neither. I found them to be amoral characters who did whatever it took to achieve their ends.
Thank you, Jess. ❤❤
Regarding the Trolley problem analogy, I do have to ask: Given what the Harkonnen are like, what's your take on why Yue could ever come to the conclusion that they would actually stay true to their word when it comes to leaving him and his wife alive?
Okay, agree with basically everything you said about Pail, he's an incredibly complex and tragic character, but Dune 2 thoughts! I saw it late in its theater run and it was absolutely transcendent. Taken together with part 1, this is a genuine masterpiece of scifi and I can't stop thinking about it.
These movies have really set the standard for modern sci-fi films
Late to this video, but I too loved both Villeneuve Dune movies. I rarely go to the movie theater, but I had to go for Dune: Part Two. Amazing cinematography. Need to re-watch both films.
Your points about the story was brilliant...
I think right now the world is captured by ideologies/politics.....
But the doctor didn't save his wife he killed the Atreides for nothing.
never got into Dune, I read the first book, plodding through it and it just never flipped my interest. However, I enjoy the trips down the rabbithole into your mind as you discuss something so important to you. Keep up the great work!
Quinn's Ideas has done numerous videos breaking down and analyzing Dune if you're at all interested.
I also liked you putting the villains stage left!
@@stevewatt4819 In regards to the Hero vs. Villain graph and what it resembles, Horseshoe Theory is an idea in political science that asserts that the far-right is more similar to the far-left than to the center-right and vice versa, and is often used as argument for centrism. Several scholars have dismissed the theory as an oversimplification and generalization that ignores their fundamental differences, and have questioned the theory's general premises, citing significative differences of the left and right on the political spectrum and governance.
@@sebastianevangelista4921 you're not a theatre person, are you? My comment has nothing to do with politics but back in the day when they were doing morality plays to exit stage left was to go to Hell. The villains always exited stage left. To this day it's still considered where the bad folks go.
@@stevewatt4819 Oh okay my bad please forgive me. I'm a Political Science major and jumped to conclusions. Yes that is a really cool tidbit.
In the books, Paul is the coward who refused the Golden Path.
Sauron, from Sauron's point of view. Sauron began as an angelic being, he was motivated all along by the greater good. Say, the trolly problem.
I think that Herbert saw all men as a Sauron, and he wasn't far off. But Tolkien had hope, and gives hope, for a greater destiny. We don't need to die as Gollum, or float away as a mist, into oblivion
Your hair is neat. ^^
Was Oedipus a hero or a villain? As a child, I read ancient Greek myths and legends about heroes, Scandinavian, Indian, something Chinese. All the "Heroes" in these books constantly committed various abominations and outrages. At the same time, they did not cease to be heroes, as I understand it. They are such tragic figures. Well, if you have Superman and Captain America as heroes...
Maybe a different signoff for the Dune material? I don't feel very hobbity after contemplating the destiny of humanity and its tragic cost of billions of lives and a hero's soul... 😅
Please do a deep dive on Jessica, Chani, Irulan, Alia! The strong and resilient women of Dune. Loving the look today!
Absolutely! Will love a video like this.
Absolutely. Their cycles of abuse are one of the things that really got me to love Dune. It'll be out around the same time as the new show this december!
"No more terrible disaster could befall your people than for them to fall into the hands of a Hero."
Yeah, Paul is surely a hero...well, to be precise, a Hero...
What I love most of all is that Paul is a Hero who fails. Of course I also love Leto II who is a Hero who succeeds, but that's a different story.
It’s a common misconception that Herbert wrote Dune Messiah in part as a response to people’s misunderstanding of Paul. There’s simply no evidence of that. In fact, he already had preliminary drafts of Messiah written before 1965 Dune was even published. I don’t know where you’re getting this idea from.
Exactly this!
Making this comment before seeing the whole video. I'm fairly certain from my recent rereads of the first three books that Paul didn't know about the Golden Path until after book one, and didn't know that if it wasn't followed humanity would go extinct until Leto II tells him in book three. With that in mind, his actions in book one are purely about revenge, which he knows will ultimately lead to the jihad - he isn't doing it for the overall betterment of humanity, except maybe the Fremen. His actions in book two seem to center around preventing the Empire from shattering, which would certainly lead to more doom than he had already caused. I still believe that he thinks his rule would be far better than the Corrino's, or the Harkonnen, who would probably take the Imperial Throne if he did nothing. There's a lot of nuance and gray when it comes to Paul and his son - I think calling them both villains is making the situation too simple, calling them heroe's is frankly stupid imo, and calling them anti-heroes doesn't seem fitting.
Green top got the Rouge look going on zjess
This Jess girl is amazing ❤
I always think Dune is a story of victims, rarely do the characters want to be where or who they are, and there is an emphasis on inevitability. Characters are forced by circumstance to be what they become, I feel in Herbert’s world there is no good or evil just need, so hero or villain are hard labels to apply, like in Tolkien the monsters are made rather than born evil
Haha I made that comment half way through listening, then you said the same, I’m glad we agree 😉
I really enjoy your English/Philosophy professor "food for thought" discussions on this and other stories that you critique. I also enjoy how you change your "eye candy" appearance on your Dune and LOTR videos. Best regards always!
Frank Herbert: Paul shouldn't be admired, messiahs bad
Dune movie fans: What did he *mean* by this?????????
I liked the movie. But I feel like Denis either didn't understood any theme in the book other than "Paul bad" or purposely ignored the other themes to the detriment of the adaptation
I very much doubt that. If you've seen Villeneuve's full filmography, it's permeated through and through with morally ambiguous situations and characters.
Frank Herbert once said that whether your character is seen as a hero or a villain depends on where you stop telling the story. He might as well have continued on to say that if you keep on telling the story you ultimately end up with a tragic figure in the classical Greek mould.
If we get to see Villeneuve's take on the full story arc of Paul Atreides in the Dune series, I have no doubt that the gut-wrenching, thought-provoking nature of many of his other films will fit right in with the story of Dune...
My biggest issue is that I was never really convinced that the jihad was necessary. Humankind was stagnating and at risk of extinction? How? And the only solution is a bloodbath? Huh?
There are no heros in dune lol just people
Full Hobbit and devout Arrakeen, this was beautiful. I love both Paul and Leto II (though technically he was III, read the books and you will understand....) But still, wonderful video. Happy to be one of your (many) subscribers!
What do you think of the Prospects or the Potential for AI to be used to animate the Silmarillion
Idigs the futuristic element of appreciation for Humanity due to previous calamity. Which fits the background as human civilization for the storyline.
The lack of a hero in Dune is why I like stories like LOTR better. Don't get me wrong, Dune is well written and compelling. However, the tone is depressing. Tolkien had a view of the world as one who loved chivalry. Herbert was a cynic (not without reason).
An aside… i Am absolutely loving your aesthetic!
Thank you so much!
I think Paul is a villain as he knew exactly what is going to happen and let it happen while also trying to save himself, Leto saw the bigger picture and "sacrificed" himself for the bigger picture
I think Herbert was at odds with his own audience. Dune was received as a heroic story. Herbert the wrote book after book claiming otherwise.
But that heroic tale was the success, and the rest rode on its momentum.
Leto 2 was created as Herbert's answer to the fanbase - but nobody cares about him. He is far less interesting.
Humans want heroes. Left wing authors want us to worship the collective instead.
But Rorschach is the man we cheer for.
Lo que tu te refieres como historia, yo lo escucho como una definicion de idiologia. Y el plan de crear al ser supremo es un intento de crear un imperio eterno congelado en el tiempo.
I love God Emperor the most out of all the books. Leto II puts his arguments as unquestionable.
But he's known to have lied and manipulated people.
No one in the books is infailable. And I often wonder if Leto II was wrong, or even not as right as he believed, or if that's yet another level of his manipulation.
I'd love it if you'd do a similar video about Alia. Her story in the Sci Fi miniseries was done so well.
I think Leto had to be certain in himself to avoid madness. Were there other options? Maybe. But he had given up so much already.
And I will definitely be giving the ladies of Dune some love in a little while!
after the first 4 Dune books, I always viewed Duncan Idaho, and his myriad clones, as the closest thing to a hero that the Dune saga had, as well as the "everyman" in galaxy that has largely overwhelmed the autonomy of the "average man". Just my take.
He's Samwise Gamgee. 😂
I haven’t read the book which might explain my confusion but why is the golden path needed to save humanity?
Even when I first resd Dune, as a teenager a long time ago, I saw it as the story of religion as a destructive force.
In the books he becomes a worm.
How do you feel about “Lynchs” adaptation?