Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chickie807

God Emperor of Dune question

Recommended Posts

Towards the ending of this book right after the chapter where Leto begins to test Siona, Duncan confronts Moneo in the hall. Can someone explain this conversation between the two and what Leto is actually doing to manage his army? I'd really appreciate it.

"He's our best hope to perpetuate..." (Moneo)

"Perverts don't perpetuate!" (Idaho)

Moneo spoke in a soothing tone, bbut his words shook Idaho. "I will tell you this only once. Homosexuals have been among the best warriors in our history, the berserkers of last resort. They were among our best priests and priestesses. Celibacy was no accident in religions. It is also no accident that adolescents make the best soldiers."

"That's perversion!"

"Quite right. Military commanders have known about the perverted displacement of sex into pain for thousands upon thousands of centuries."

"Is that what the Great Lord Leto's doing?"

Still mild, Moneo said: "Violence requires that you inflict pain and suffer it. How much more manageable a military force driven to this by its deepest urgings."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's quite simple. Duncan's problem was that he couldn't understand how can there be a good army if it's mostly lesbian? To what, Moneo explained that in fact it's better than an army driven by sexual lust, this means raping and that's violance, pain and destruction. The things that Leto doesn't promote. Lord Leto believes that it is much better to allow... intimate relations amongst the soldiers. That makes them stronger, caring more for each other on the battlefield. Atleast I understand it that way...Anyone thinks differently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, one of the main things was that it promoted bonding between the soldiers, so they would fight with zeal not only for the God Emperor, but for their comrades, with whom they've been intimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, one of the main things was that it promoted bonding between the soldiers, so they would fight with zeal not only for the God Emperor, but for their comrades, with whom they've been intimate.

Much like many ancient militaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed.  I recall hearing (I believe TMA-1 could be credited for this information) about an ancient Greek army, where the soldiers would pair off as couples (of course, homosexuality/bisexuality wasn't the horrendous sin it was considered to be in more recent times), so that during battle, a soldier could theoretically perform 'superhuman' feats to save his lover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Israeli idea of army is much better - malesfemales are equal in the army. Much like from the movie "Starhip Troopers"  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah in sparta, they had a system of weeding the weak from the strong in young children. At about 9 they were placed with a mentor, usually an older teenager or young adult. They would be so close as to mimic relationships, even fooling around. This was NOT considered homosexuality though, so many people think it is. See, when you were younger you would "sow your oats", and well adults figured that boys would be boys. It was not wrong at all for younger people to express those kinds of feelings with one another. WHen they became true adults though at the age when they could marry, they would find a woman. Once they were married they were not to have any more homosexual intercourse because that was just something boys and young men would do, it was a kid thing basically. You had to become a respectable adult though and that required shoving all those young passions out of the way.

I mean this kind of thing was so wide spread that even some greek cultures thought it was okay that sex was enacted between adults in the military to strengthen bonds. even in the east, there were many homosexual relationships in feudal japan between warriors.

I think this is what was happening, like vanguard said. There were relationships between the fish speakers because there would be a bond that would be created. In the book it especially points out that females were used because of the extreme female and familial bond between the lesbian relationships. You can see this kind of stuff in some female prisons, where there will be female "families" that are organized with a dad, mom, son, daughter and so on. it is disturbing, but quite interesting how important this bond is to society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FH likes to challenge your morality, especially in GEoD.

Possible spoiler:

[hide]

Duncan (and the reader) thinks the Atreides are the good ones.

But LetoII is the one worm and almost immortal, so he is beyond the good and evil categories.

Despite the many LetoII lessons, the Duncan keeps thinking inside narrow categories, especially when it comes to love.

[/hide]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FH likes to challenge your morality, especially in GEoD.

Which is why he is so awesome. He was challenging everything about his time, politics, religion, economics... and all of it still applies today. Well, it hasn't been that long... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dune is a mirror of our world. There's an article @ www.dunenovels.com , where FH gives some usefull info, I mean, for understanding the duniverse better  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A point to consider about the "classical" times. There was no homosexuality, no hetrosexuality, no gay, no straight, no bent, no dykes, no lesbianism, until christianity. Before then, it was only "sex". And ancient greek men still took lovers - male and female - after they were married. It was permitted under law, as long as it wasn't with a married woman or a member of a lower caste. It was the women who had to stay chastised, on pain of death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uhh that is a little generalistic be-la kaifa. In fact most cultures hated it utterly. Some didnt find it repulsive, while some did. Hello they were humans with the same satisfactions and dis-satisfactions.  It is dangerous to generalize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm

see that is generalizing a bit again. Some city-states didnt mind many practices of that sort, while others were strictly against it.

Again with rome it depended on what time you are thinking of. If you are thinking of the days of the early republic, no it was not an acceptable practice. Later though during the post imperial age it was not as disregarded, though it was considered a bit seedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm just saying what I was taught in Classical Civilisation at advanced level. The ancient greeks and romans saw it as just sex, and that most of the 'civilised world' did too, until the time chrisianity became widespread.

Don't know why we had to go into that part of society in so much detail, seeing as the fnial exams concentrated more on the differences in society regarding Athenian and Latin women, Juvenal's 12 Satires and The Odessey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as I said, certain city states of greece were a bit more open with that issue than others. Some didnt differentiate at all between the two while some groups dispised the practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey sorry if I have made a bunc h of posts here, this computer is really messing up royally and it keeps saying that new posts were made and blah. again sorry if I have messed it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't so much Christianity that caused this mind-set in modern society so much as Catholocism -- by which I mean St. Augustine and the Manichee sect. If you've ever studied them, then you know where the modern Western squeamishness towards sex came from. It isn't really Christian so much as Manichee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't saying that it was christianity, because there were other facors involved. I just said that it started to dwindle out the same time that christianity was rising. Partially because the christian governments had a sterner view of soddomy than judaism ones had. Partially due to similar  moralistic questions being raised about the same time by the Empire, as well as beliefs being imported in to the State Religion from the celtic "barbarians."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A related question: does anyone remember why they are called fishspeakers?  Leto II (or Moneo maybe) explains it in GEoD, but I've forgotten...

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't saying that it was christianity, because there were other facors involved. I just said that it started to dwindle out the same time that christianity was rising. Partially because the christian governments had a sterner view of soddomy than judaism ones had. Partially due to similar  moralistic questions being raised about the same time by the Empire, as well as beliefs being imported in to the State Religion from the celtic "barbarians."

Hello, the Jews also hated it. Or their Messiah did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am reading it now, and the reason given was that they spoke to fish ! I think... :O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...