Should I read "Paul of Dune" by B. Herbert and K. Anderson?

[_Zoot_]

Well, the title says almost every thing that i want to say, I have just been given a copy of Paul Of Dune and am wondering if it is worth my time to read it. I ask because i have heard conflicting reviews of the new books, some say that there ok, others say there really crap. If i don't read it i can return it to the store and get a different book.

I have read Dune (but not he rest of the series yet) and really loved it and am now a little worried about potentially spoiling the series with inferior works.

So, is Paul Of Dune worth my time to read or should i go and get a better book?

[Texas_Ben]

I read dune, and have re-read it many times since, since it is fantastic.

Then I went out and bought the next three (Dune Messiah, Children of Dune, and God Emporer of Dune) While they were decent, and worth a read, I've only re-read them once after the first time and don't see myself reading them again.

That said, I haven't heard much that is positive about the books Frank Herbert wrote after God Emporer of Dune, and I haven't heard ANYTHING that is positive about anything that his son has written.

So, although I can't speak from personal experience since I'm avoiding them, I'd advise you to skip on reading it because from what I've heard not only will it not be a good read, it will lessen your enjoyment of Dune as a whole by cheapening the setting, bringing it down to the level of poo.

[Myshlaevsky]

I don't understand how it would spoil the series for you to read a book which is by a completely different author, and which (to be honest) probably has very little to do with and is not based off much in the original series.

However, if you think it might spoil it for you then don't, because the Dune books Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson have written are pretty awful.

[bosssmiley]

If it ain't Frank Herbert, it ain't really Dune (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2003/10/15/)

Read some Charles Stross or early Stephen Baxter instead.

[Texas_Ben]

I don't understand how it would spoil the series for you to read a book which is by a completely different author, and which (to be honest) probably has very little to do with and is not based off much in the original series.

God Emporer of Dune spoiled the rest of the Dune books for me somewhat, with the implication that the Butlerian Jihad was a war waged against sentient machines. That just seemed so... cliche, and stupid, and so very out-of-place for the Dune universe. Previously, I had always assumed that the Butlerian Jihad was more of a social shift, like the Renaissance or the Enlightenment. There was one passage in particular which caught my interest, describing the new bureaucracy and how, although it adheres to the tenets of the Butlerian Jihad, it was spiritually mechanistic and counter to everything the Butlerian jihad accomplished.

So yeah, after that I figured I should just stop reading before it retconned or made anything else suck.

[Joran]

God Emporer of Dune spoiled the rest of the Dune books for me somewhat, with the implication that the Butlerian Jihad was a war waged against sentient machines.

The implication was made in the first Dune.


"Why do you test for humans?" he asked.
"To set you free."
"Free?"
"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man's mind," Paul quoted.

While the premise of sentient robots attempting to overthrow humanity is a very old one, I thought the solution that Frank Herbert came up with was pretty novel: Mentats and Bene Gesserit. There's a strict ban on thinking machines, so humanity replaced them with people who can think like computers.

I'm of the faction that chooses to believe that the Dune series ended at God Emperor of Dune. It ended at a pretty natural conclusion.

Leto succeeds where his father failed and humanity is set free from the tyranny of prophets who can see the future. The end.

[Muz]

It's my experience that the words in any question that go between "Should I read" and "by Kevin J. Anderson?" are pretty much meaningless, as the answer to any such question will always be: No.

That said, since you already have the book, no sense in at least giving it a shot. You'll figure out pretty quick if you like it or not, and if you don't, then you can dismiss it as non-canon fanfiction anyway.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Read

Kevin J. Anderson
No.

Muz beat me to it, but it bears repeating.

[bibliophile]

No.

The prequels are Abominations that make Baron Harkonnen and Alia Atredies look right, and normal.

In my opinion the prequels should only be bought to be burned.

[pita]

The prequels ought to be burned along with the witch who writes them.
Or just because I like fire.
WEEEEEE

[Texas_Ben]

"Why do you test for humans?" he asked.
"To set you free."
"Free?"
"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man's mind," Paul quoted.

That was actually another key quote that led to my interpretation of the Butlerian Jihad. Allow me to explain:

Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them

The implication is not that the machines enslaved humans, but humans enslaved humans, through mechanistic thinking. Think of the early 20th century, what with all that "industry" and "progress", and "power of technology". The Butlerian Jihad, in my (apparently wrong, but I like it and I'm sticking to it) interpretation was not about simply destroying all the computers, but the rejection of a mechanistic, dehumanized and dehumanizing worldview in favor of an extremely humanistic system, which focuses on developing the human to the maximum extent possible, hence groups like the Guild, Bene Gesserit, and Mentats.

I could go on for pages, I just think that having the Butlerian Jihad as a social and cultural revolution is much more interesting and fits in much much much better with the setting then "oh there were these robots and they were killins everybody and then there were some boom boom sploshions the end".

[Joran]

That was actually another key quote that led to my interpretation of the Butlerian Jihad. Allow me to explain:


The implication is not that the machines enslaved humans, but humans enslaved humans, through mechanistic thinking. Think of the early 20th century, what with all that "industry" and "progress", and "power of technology". The Butlerian Jihad, in my (apparently wrong, but I like it and I'm sticking to it) interpretation was not about simply destroying all the computers, but the rejection of a mechanistic, dehumanized and dehumanizing worldview in favor of an extremely humanistic system, which focuses on developing the human to the maximum extent possible, hence groups like the Guild, Bene Gesserit, and Mentats.

I could go on for pages, I just think that having the Butlerian Jihad as a social and cultural revolution is much more interesting and fits in much much much better with the setting then "oh there were these robots and they were killins everybody and then there were some boom boom sploshions the end".

I like your interpretation too. I'm unsure if there's something in the early books that contradicts this, but I think your version holds up.

With some more Wikipedia surfing, I found this quote in God Emperor of Dune:

"The target of the Jihad was a machine-attitude as much as the machines," Leto said. "Humans had set those machines to usurp our sense of beauty, our necessary selfdom out of which we make living judgments. Naturally, the machines were destroyed."

And in the glossary of Dune, we had: "JIHAD, BUTLERIAN: (see also Great Revolt) — the crusade against computers, thinking machines, and conscious robots begun in 201 B.G. and concluded in 108 B.G. Its chief commandment remains in the O.C. Bible as "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind."

[Texas_Ben]

With some more Wikipedia surfing, I found this quote in God Emperor of Dune:

"The target of the Jihad was a machine-attitude as much as the machines," Leto said. "Humans had set those machines to usurp our sense of beauty, our necessary selfdom out of which we make living judgments. Naturally, the machines were destroyed."

And in the glossary of Dune, we had: "JIHAD, BUTLERIAN: (see also Great Revolt) — the crusade against computers, thinking machines, and conscious robots begun in 201 B.G. and concluded in 108 B.G. Its chief commandment remains in the O.C. Bible as "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind."

Heh, I missed those. Or at least didn't remember them, it's been awhile since I've read through them. I'm going to stick to my guns though and say that I only see mention of the machines being destroyed, not of an apocalyptic armed conflict in which doom bots of fail (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/Machine_Crusade.jpg) try and wipe out humanity for no reason. I like the Duneverse too much to accept that.

[hamishspence]

Dune Messiah does make reference to artificial intelligences- Alia exercising with the sword against an automaton- pages 80-81:

And risking her life in that foolhardy way! Eleven lights in the fencing prisms! That brainless automation loomed in his mind with all the aspects of an ancient horror creature. Its possession was the shibboleth of this age, but it carried also the taint of old immorality. Once, they'd been guided by an artificial intelligence, computer brains. The Butlerian Jihad had ended that, but it hadn't ended the aura of aristocratic vice which enclosed such things.

[Winterwind]

Because this:

No.

Muz beat me to it, but it bears repeating.is true, I too shall state that this:
It's my experience that the words in any question that go between "Should I read" and "by Kevin J. Anderson?" are pretty much meaningless, as the answer to any such question will always be: No.is my experience as well.


Also, my interpretation of the Butlerian Jihad was the same one as Texas_Ben's. Is it really explicitly stated somewhere in the books written by Frank Herbert that it was against sentient machines? Because the passages quoted so far could all be interpreted to the contrary...

[hamishspence]

the "crusade against thinking machines and conscious robots" bit in Dune glossary?

Also: God Emperor page 168:

And I must continue tolerating them, Leto thought. The Ixians operated in the terra incognita of creative invention that had been outlawed by the Butlerian Jihad. They made their devices in the image of the mind- the very thing which had ignited the Jihad's destruction and slaughter. That was what they did on Ix and Leto could only let them continue.
I buy from them! I could not even write my journals without their dictatels to respond to my unspoken thought. Without Ix, I could not have hidden my journals and the printers.
But they must be reminded of the dangers in what they do!

However, it looks like they aren't quite as dangerous by the end of the book- page 450:

"Do not fear the Ixians," he said, and he heard his own voice as a fading whisper. "They can make the machines, but they can no longer make arafel. I know. I was there."

[Winterwind]

the "crusade against thinking machines and conscious robots" bit in Dune glossary?This does not necessarily mean the conscious robots were the army opposing them. All it means is they made a crusade to destroy thinking machines and conscious robots whereever they found them; the ones opposing them may as well have been humans not opposed to the usage of conscious robots.

Just like you could say a modern nation makes a crusade against drug abuse - they would be fighting criminals then, not conscious pills and flying syringes.


Also: God Emperor page 168:

And I must continue tolerating them, Leto thought. The Ixians operated in the terra incognita of creative invention that had been outlawed by the Butlerian Jihad. They made their devices in the image of the mind- the very thing which had ignited the Jihad's destruction and slaughter. That was what they did on Ix and Leto could only let them continue.
I buy from them! I could not even write my journals without their dictatels to respond to my unspoken thought. Without Ix, I could not have hidden my journals and the printers.
But they must be reminded of the dangers in what they do!

However, it looks like they aren't quite as dangerous by the end of the book- page 450:

"Do not fear the Ixians," he said, and he heard his own voice as a fading whisper. "They can make the machines, but they can no longer make arafel. I know. I was there."This part, too, only means the Jihad was started over the question whether to use sentient machines or not, not that sentient machines were the enemy.

To bring another example, the American Civil War was fought (at least, claimed to be fought) over the question of slavery. So you could say that slavery ignited the Civil War's destruction and slaughter, even though it were not (primarily) slaves being fought in that war.

Mind, those segments do not exclude the possibility of it being the machines that were the enemy itself, either, but I see nothing that makes this the more probable interpretation.

[hamishspence]

it can be interpreted both ways.

Dune: the appendix on how Space Travel affected religion:

Then came the Butlerian Jihad- two generations of chaos. The god of machine logic was overthrown among the masses and a new concept was raised:
"Man may not be replaced"

The implication is- machines were replacing humans.

Yes, in theory "conscious robots" could be tools, rather than agents in their own right. In which case, why would they be objected to so strongly?

Making it just a case of "Luddites vs artificial workers" is a little implausible.

"Arafel"- also referred to as "the cloud darkness at the end of the universe" and "Krazilec- the Typhoon struggle" all these imply something more apocalyptic than just versatile tools.

[Cracklord]

That depends.
Are you done withthe series, never want to see them again, and want closure? Because this book will do that to you.
He's not a bad writer, not by any means, but he doesn't get it.

[Winterwind]

The implication is- machines were replacing humans.

Yes, in theory "conscious robots" could be tools, rather than agents in their own right. In which case, why would they be objected to so strongly?

Making it just a case of "Luddites vs artificial workers" is a little implausible.I always interpreted it in a similar fashion to Texas_Ben - that it was an ideological war between two philosophical extremes - far-end humanists against a dehumanised, mechanized, machine-reliant society.


"Arafel"- also referred to as "the cloud darkness at the end of the universe" and "Krazilec- the Typhoon struggle" all these imply something more apocalyptic than just versatile tools.Yes... but it might just mean that some terrifying machines were constructed for the war, but still used by humans against other humans, not by machines.

[Texas_Ben]

Then came the Butlerian Jihad- two generations of chaos. The god of machine logic was overthrown among the masses and a new concept was raised:
"Man may not be replaced"

The implication is- machines were replacing humans.
No, the implication is that the "gods" of efficiency, technology, science, "progress", cold inhuman calculation, were overthrown in favour of human vitality and creativity, which is the whole reason the stagnation we see by the time of the first Dune book is so dangerous.



Yes, in theory "conscious robots" could be tools, rather than agents in their own right. In which case, why would they be objected to so strongly?

Making it just a case of "Luddites vs artificial workers" is a little implausible.

Because the conscious robots are symbols of everything the Jihad was not. To understand where it's coming from, look to the Industrial Revolution, and see how fitting the line "Once men turned their thinking over to machines in hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them" really is. We see the repetition of this in the Butlerian Jihad in which, once again, people looked to technology alone to solve their problems, and found themselves still wanting, and in fact worse off. Technology without humanity. This is the problem the Butlerian Jihad aimed to correct.

[hamishspence]

Because the conscious robots are symbols of everything the Jihad was not. To understand where it's coming from, look to the Industrial Revolution, and see how fitting the line "Once men turned their thinking over to machines in hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them" really is. We see the repetition of this in the Butlerian Jihad in which, once again, people looked to technology alone to solve their problems, and found themselves still wanting, and in fact worse off. Technology without humanity. This is the problem the Butlerian Jihad aimed to correct.

The alternative approach, that the "other men with machines" who enslaved them were the Titans, and eventually, they were enslaved themselves, may be simplistic, but its still a valid way of making the quote work.

How about an assessment of Paul of Dune itself, rather than the Butlerian Jihad trilogy? Its resolution of how Paul became tyrannical a la Dune Messiah, its use of the daugter of Feyd-Rautha by Margot Fenring, mentioned in Dune, etc?

Kevin J. Anderson does seem to use the "Your punishment will be to live" trope with alarming frequency though.

[Joran]

How about an assessment of Paul of Dune itself, rather than the Butlerian Jihad trilogy? Its resolution of how Paul became tyrannical a la Dune Messiah, its use of the daugter of Feyd-Rautha by Margot Fenring, mentioned in Dune, etc?

Hard for me, since I gave up on Brian Herbert's stuff after reading two of the "House" books.

As I said before, for me, I like to pretend that the first four books form a nice arc and ignore anything that came out after that. I do the same for the Foundation series.

[hamishspence]

I've read them all- and while I find the BH & KJA books a little less good than the originals (and this is most common when I spot KJA reusing phrases he is prone to overusing anyway) I'm not a hater of them, either.

[Texas_Ben]

As I said before, for me, I like to pretend that the first four books form a nice arc and ignore anything that came out after that.

This.

apparently my post was too short so now it is longer.

[hamishspence]

Another quote from the Butlerian Jihad comes from Children of Dune- Leto having a vision of the past- page 243:

One moment he felt himself setting forth on Butlerian Jihad, eager to destroy any machine which simulated human awareness. That had to be the past- over and done with. Yet his senses hurtled through the experience, absorbing the most minute details. He heard a minister-companion speaking from a pulpit: "We must negate the machines-that-think. Humans must set their own guidelines. This is not something a machine can do. Reasoning depends on programming, not on hardware, and we are the ultimate program!"

He heard the voice clearly- knew his surroundings- a vast wooden hall with dark windows. Light came from sputtering flames. And his minister companion said: "Our Jihad is a "dump program". We dump the things that destroy us as humans!"

And it was in Leto's mind that the speaker had been a servant of computers, one who knew them and serviced them.

The phrase "a servant of computers" is pretty distinctive.

Had a scene like that been in the Butlerian Jihad trilogy, perhaps they might have been better books?

[Nancy08]

I believe that in every book there is always something on in which we can gain understanding. And every writing should be appreciated because we never know how it is hard for the author in finishing that thing.

Books... I found, had the power to make time stand still, retreat or fly into the future.

Books should given an importance.

"Burning a book is a worse crime"

[Kiaran]

Personally?

I listened to it as an Audiobook on a long drive, and very much appreciated it. It was decent. I think I liked some of the 'house' books better, but this really tied in a lot of things and I look forward to the next one.

Of course I enjoyed the prequels too. I don't get why so many people think they murdered their childhood or something. To me they were fun reads in an interesting setting and helped flesh it out.

So there you have it, the devil's advocate from a new poster. But I really am telling the truth. So ultimately, if you liked the Prequels, give it a chance.