I mean in terms of the actual family name; I know part of this and Dune Messiah (and to a lesser extent, the other novels) is devoted to the theme of the tragic irony of knowing one's fate and being nigh helpless. But the "fatal flaws" are not typically those explored in say the plays of Euripides. It is much more "political" in nature and the source is much more external than it is internal, although this balance shifts in Dune Messiah (which I will argue in some aspects is a better-written novel).

As for the characterizations, I seem to recall more depth to Orestes, Electra, Agamemnon, and Oedipus than I found in this volume (Paul's character is developed better in Dune Messiah, I thought). Conflict was expressed better, there were more nuances, and not so much blasted dependence upon internal monologues! Dune's failure (in my opinion, of course) to develop these nuances and to express these conflicts in more subtle fashions weakened the novel, making for several moments where scenes that should have great power only have moderate power, with extraneous verbiage trying to stand in for depth of expression. In other words, for me, it was sloppy in its execution.

The characters in

Dune rarely seem to be "human" in their thoughts, actions, or mistakes. In large part, this is due to Herbert's unfortunate tendency to overuse internal monologues, with several scenes containing multiple characters, each of whom will be shown to say something, only to be followed with their internal monologue indicating whether or not "truth" was spoken.


Yes, when talking about perceived intended effects and how some were muted due to these, as you say, calculated effects, yes indeed they were flaws. Not fatal flaws, but flaws that to me seemed to weaken the power of the narrative at inopportune times.




Don't see it, unless my memory of the typical usages for the Chorus is faint, but the purpose of the chapter epigraphs wasn't overly "theatrical" in the sense of developing the tragedy of Leto. Several were used for several purposes, some of which were to supply situational information and not always insights into the characters.



I don't know about that. Sounds more like an attempt to justify a story that didn't feel "real" in places where it appeared the author might have intended for there to be some emotional resonance. This "woodenness" isn't as present in Dune Messiah, where another tragedy unfolded. This time, however, that second tragedy felt more "real" and less stilted in its presentation. Of course, I may end up being one of those rare people who'll argue that Dune Messiah contains near the power of the original book...



Except I wouldn't have argued that about Wolfe because I could read the game going on. With Herbert, this re-reading just merely felt a bit strange because the style didn't fit with the narrative in key places. It shifted, but not always in ways that accentuated what key elements were being developed.



To a point, I would agree, but only to a point. Although I'll address this more when I write the review of Dune Messiah, the narrative isn't anything like a chronicle, but rather a mixed bag that attempts to portray omniscience when limiting such might have produced a conflicted document similar to that which you argue is taking place.

But before talking about how the second novel influences the reading of the first, perhaps it's good to start with just an interpretation of the first by itself and then see how (or if) the succeeding volumes alter perceptions of the first? You'll probably see the same things occurring in my commentaries on the WoT books, as I explore not just what I've read/remembered, but also how the information flows back and changes perceptions of the earlier works.



It's "sloppy" in part because it doesn't allow for the characters to develop and to be more than just ciphers. Sure, you may argue that's what the author intended, but as an interpreter of the text, I see this narrative device as being poorly executed and questionable at times. Irulan as a character I'll address in a latter post.



True, since they weren't overused as much in the second volume





I also put "ecology" in scare quotes because I wanted to focus on the meaning of the word. It is unfortunate that people tend to overlook the give/take aspects of ecosystems on humans themselves. I saw this book (much less in the second, though) attempt to place human motivations within a complex ecosystem of stimuli/responses. Politics is but in the end merely another form of ecological interaction.




Archetypes are fine to an extent, but one may be pardoned if a reader found the archetypes to be too limiting and untrue in parts to the narrative setting. Noting possible reactions to these limiting, stiff characters is a valid observation, even if it might conflict with the notion that the author was solely (or predominantly, if you wish) (re)telling a tragedy. I happen to believe that there were missed opportunities that would have reinforced the story rather than turn it into a totally different type of tale.



I was thinking more of the Fremen women than the Bene Gesserit, to be honest.





Just merely casual, right? There's an almost (un)holy trinity in a story: Author-Text-Reader. To discount what interpretations the readers will bring to this is not good. Authorial intent has its limits and I suspect what lies behind some of our disagreements here is the weight we place on it. I only accept it to some extent, while you seem to place much greater weight upon this. Conversely, I view the Text as being a very malleable entity and I'm not certain if you don't view it as being a more rigid object.



From whence do you derive this interpretation? I saw making the Baron a homosexual who prefers pretty young boys (younger than 1 to be the underscoring of just how depraved he was. And describing homosexuality as being symbolic of "the antithesis of the procreative drive"? If I'm not mistaken, that viewpoint today, by some, would be considered to be a sign of homophobia. It's an issue that's far too complex, I suspect, to be boiled down in those terms.



Perhaps, but it's interesting that you mention this in light of your disagreement about how some "modern readers" might interpret Herbert's purported narrative views on gender and sexuality.