Jump to content

Need Help With Questions Concerning Dune? Ask Here!


TMA_1

Recommended Posts

House Harkonnen wasn't completely wiped out after Feyd's death. It lasted, in name alone, for several thousand years. These Harkonnen had pretty much zero influence, power, or money. It may be that Feyd and Margot's child was the originator of this line, but more likely there was some random cousin or something with the name Harkonnen. If I had my copy of the Encyclopaedia with me I'd look it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

House Harkonnen wasn't completely wiped out after Feyd's death. It lasted, in name alone, for several thousand years. These Harkonnen had pretty much zero influence, power, or money. It may be that Feyd and Margot's child was the originator of this line, but more likely there was some random cousin or something with the name Harkonnen. If I had my copy of the Encyclopaedia with me I'd look it up.

Exactly, although they must have had very limited power, perhaps being relegated to a house minor as I beleive it is stated somewhere that Gurney took over Gedi Prime eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got curious. I just decided to see how some looked at Dune, and someone said that Paul could not get into the Golden Path. I thought it was that he didn't want to, for moral/emotional reasons (and perhaps the hope that some better way would come up), considering the well-living of humans. Leto II took the cold amoral choice by pure rationality, considering his rationality to be absolute and complete both in extension (space) and time, considering only survival.

I never delved further so I wonder how you guys looked to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul had 2 problems concerning the Golden Path :

The first, he was in the end a coward fearing the worm-transformation most than anything else, even the survaillance of humanity.

The second he was not a fremen (like Leto II was) with a so strong sense of "tribe" (and in a wider way of humanity as a "tribe") that Leto II had.

And finally he hadn't the extra-long visual of the future like Leto II, and so he could not know the worm-transformation was the only way to save the human race.

Infact in the Third book, when Leto II and the blind-Paul met, Leto II explain the farest future, and Paul says : "Oh, i could not look that far...".

In the end, from one point Paul was a coward, from the opposite point, he could not know how important was the choose the golden path.

So in the end, equal points, not guility, nor innocent :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bah, Paul was no coward.  He saw the path, he saw the possible outcome, he did not reject it because he was afraid.

He rejected it because it was the antithesis of everything he had had drilled into him birth.

He rejected it because it was the exact opposite of his purpose.

The Golden Path was enforced stagnation.

Everything about Paul was anti-stagnation.

His training, military and otherwise) said stagnation was death.

The entire purpose of the Mahdi was to end te stagnate path humanity had fallen into.

It is state dint eh books:  The human genes were becomeing stagnate and needed the wild mingling that only one thign could provide: Jihad.

For Muad'dib, his destiny was to end stagnation.

For Paul, he had been taught, both by teachers and warfare experience, that stagnation was death.

He refused the Golden Path for he did not believe humanity would survive it.

LEto chose the Golden path for he believed humanity would.

Hence the whole "Stagnation!  Death!" arguement when LEto and Paul meet face to face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"But after Leto's enforced stagnation, Krazilec would follow. As Leto II says, Mahdi's jihad would seem a picnic in comparison to it. Did Paul not see it?"

"He refused the Golden Path for he did not believe humanity would survive it."

Leto, on the other hand, thought they would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bah, in the second book the main concept Paul repeat, over and over and over is : "i'm afraid of the terrible scope", "i'm afraid of the terrible end", and i think this is pure cowardy, nothing less. On the other hand i can admit he could not see so far as leto II, and so he believe that Golden path was stagnation without end (he could not see Kralizec).

But for all the rest, he was terrified in the true sense by the trasformation Golden Path would have caused, and so (i can suppose), he did not *voluntary* wanted to see beyond the trasformation, fearing he could find a motivation (and an higher value) that obliged him to stand up and face the "terrible scope".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bah, in the second book the main concept Paul repeat, over and over and over is : "i'm afraid of the terrible scope", "i'm afraid of the terrible end", and i think this is pure cowardy, nothing less. On the other hand i can admit he could not see so far as leto II, and so he believe that Golden path was stagnation without end (he could not see Kralizec).

But for all the rest, he was terrified in the true sense by the trasformation Golden Path would have caused, and so (i can suppose), he did not *voluntary* wanted to see beyond the trasformation, fearing he could find a motivation (and an higher value) that obliged him to stand up and face the "terrible scope".

I disagree.  His "fear" came from the fact that he did not believe it would suceed and must be avoided at all costs.

If you want mroe you should do a search for this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah I did change my mind about it a bit.

Paul was afraid in some ways as well that he just didnt have what it took to guide mankind along the path. I was too stuck on Paul's fear of sacrifice, living in a half death of hell within each worm after the death of the worm body. It is more than that though. WHat Leto II did was lead mankind upon a razor thin path of hope. The Golden Path was a narrow one, and only a few blunders could have caused mankind to spiral into extinction. I think Paul totally realized this and was so scared of a mistake made.

I just dont think Paul was destined to do it, he was not ready, and he probably was not fully capable. Leto II was, and he paid the ultimate sacrifice.

I think also that when Paul went into the desert, it was his way of trying to help the future of his son's mission. Emotionallyhe didnt want his son to have to go through the hell he would eventually go through, and the touching andsad moment when Paul and Leto II are in thed esert together at the end of Children Of Dune says it all.

Damn I have to read these books again.lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul was afraid to fail. He could see that future but he was also struggling to find a way out of his own universe.

the universe HE had created.

He was afraid to do what Leto II did, he knew that it had to be done, but he was appaled of the idea of opression that he woulkd have to enforce on mankind.

thought:

maybe he saw the future as it happened: Leto becoming the worm-god-emperor. His task in history was to give the universe the son ( that is why he only saw one child? and not two in 'messiah') He saw that the son would follow the golden path, he could not (he knew that) escape his own dexteny or was afraid to trie.

he did state in some form that he was afraid....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, i forgot that the cause of the "needing" of the Golden Path was produced by the blind and unresponsable actions of Paul himself that looked "too much" into the future without realizing that "looking was making". In the end all the situation was not his fault 'cause he could not know that seeing the future could lead the humanity to extinction.

But even if Paul was not strictly a coward, he was for sure SELFISH because all he was thinking was his own salvation from the worm-trasformation. He didn't think at all about the human destiny.

Infact after he became blind, and went to the desert he shouted "I'm free!!". We can say he TRIED to repair what he had done in his own way (second book), but in the end he realized he could not be done without the worm transformation (EDIT: and even with worm-transform there was no hope), so he simply refused to do it, thinking there was no hope (and only for this reason i can consider it no coward).

But as i've already said earlier, indeed he didnt' see ALL the future so far (as Leto II did), finding the salvation-solution (the golden path). So in the end he's justified.

To conclude : we know FOR SURE that he didn't chose the Golden Path, 'cause he hadn't seen the GoldenPath conclusion (Kralizec then human-salvation), and so from his point of view, humanity was doomed and condemned without hope and solution. And so he's "justified".

But at this point my question is :

Because of he ABSOLUTELY feared and was terrified by the worm trasformation, if he would have seen beyond the Golden Path (kralizec and human-salvation), he would have choosen to do the trasformation?

Sincerely I have doubt about it.

Words to you :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, that is what prompted me to say that paul was a coward, that he was afraid of damning himself with the transformation. Not just because the transformation would eventually make him inhuman, but also because once the sandtrout fell off of his body they would all contain a part of his consciousness, which would leave him in a half life forever. It is more than that though.

Paul was afraid of the future, and his interpritation of the future. He realized that the future was not linear, but contained many pathways, and many he couldnt fully understand. Because of this he was afraid of starting the golden path and not being able to follow through, since the golden path left for almost no room for error. If he would have screwed up just a little, the entire fate of humanity would be obliterated. HE wasent sure if he could save humanity and it seems that he was afraid he might end up damning it.

He was no coward, he may be weaker compared to Leto II, but he was no coward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They would die if Leto acted like his father. Wouldnt they be the greatest cowards in history, letting humanity die, because they feared being responsible for its death?

It's like a doctor who won't perform a surgery on a patient because it is very dangerous and the patient might die. So he lets him die on his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, from this point of view, as i've said, Paul is not so coward, but as TMA said, weaker (MORE weaker :)) than Leto II.

This is a very good conclusion, because Paul was not able to districate the many future pathways because he had know that only seeing a possible future was modifyng it.

Instead Leto II (third book), was able to BECAME ALL THE FUTURES, compenetrating himself in the structure of the universe itself, indeed BECAMING THE UNIVERSE.

In this way he was no more observing, because being himself the universe, he was "directing" or even better "pulsating" it. Terrific :)

EDIT : I can add that Paul was not "pushed" to choose the Golden Path by the sense of "the sake of the tribe" like Leto II, because Paul was not a fremen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, yes! Leto II was the giver AND the taker. Paul was only the Taker. Leto II was male and female, God/worm and man, rationality and animalism, savior and tyrant all in one. Leto II was the divided God who saw what needed to be done and saw all inside one body. Leto II was more equipped to deal with the Golden Path. Paul is no coward for fearing the path, heck he was wise not to takeit because he might not have succeeded, hell he may have not even been able to take on the sandtrout suit in the first place.

Good points 3ngel! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmm I only remember that in the movie...

In fact I remember Dune referring to the Bene Gesserit as the takers, since they are female and it is apart of theri genetics, evolving from being the caretakers, and that Paul was the Taker, being from the male side of the spectrum, of the hunter gatherer type. I am not being very eloquent here, but you get what I am saying hopefully. I remember hte book mentioning that paul was the Taker because he was male. SO he kinda made things whole. I dont remember it mentioning that he was both the giver and the taker, but it hasb een awhile since I have read the books. please find where it says that though so I can correct myself. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

err no, Leto II was also an abomination, having past memories even before he took on the water of life. He also was more in tune with his abilities and was more focused at his skills than Paul was, in my opinion even in those seasoned days right before he took the water of life. Leto II was a totally different power all together. You can see this when he took the water of life, and you could also see this when he talks with his father.

Paul was more than just the Kwisatz Haderach, he was more than any design created by the bene gesserit. Paul was the lever that turned the universe on itself. Leto II was a more perfected person from Paul that could fulfill all of the things that needed to be fulfilled.

Sometimes I just wonder if frank had all of these things in mind. It just shocks me that all of these concepts could have all been incorperated into six novels, blows me away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I just wonder if frank had all of these things in mind. It just shocks me that all of these concepts could have all been incorperated into six novels, blows me away

Yes, i think same too. I have read a same situation in the Stephen King Sixlogy : "Black Tower".

In these six books, there are so many complex, differential, opposite and astonishing concept, and they are all perfectly compenetrating one into another, making such an incredible complex and coherent web.

In the notes, King says, that after a certain point, the book writes itself, it calls you to write, and all the things you write can't be different from what you want to write, despite the complexity.

So i think for Frank, it's been something like that too. At a certain point i think for him, it's been a sort of Joician "wave of thougth", but in a way controlled and rationalized. Things he had to write couldn't be different from things he wanted to write.

And this is absolutely visible in GEOD, where sometimes FH goes into pure "flux of mind".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, yes! Leto II was the giver AND the taker. Paul was only the Taker. Leto II was male and female, God/worm and man, rationality and animalism, savior and tyrant all in one. Leto II was the divided God who saw what needed to be done and saw all inside one body. Leto II was more equipped to deal with the Golden Path. Paul is no coward for fearing the path, heck he was wise not to takeit because he might not have succeeded, hell he may have not even been able to take on the sandtrout suit in the first place.

Good points 3ngel! :)

Yep, Leto II was a fascist. Good boy.*

Someone brought something interesting. Why does Paul only foresee one child rather than two?

One's vision can be uncomplete, and someone in this situation might prefer to base himself on "moral feelings", which can be interpreted as weekness. All this fits pretty much with my first view of it, although I didn't debate it. As Faith, where someone suspends his judgement because he still has faith in his former vision as he considers that his limited personae might not catch everything of a harsh picture. Like people questioning theologic beliefs in front of catastrophies or Mankind's suffering (take Job in the Bible). It is at times interpreted as weakness or cowardice, especially by different brands of nihilists.

All this hasn't to do simply with Dune, it has to do with ideas behind, without the gymnastic of poetry (bringing litterature). Thus my new question brought to your minds:

Someone brought something interesting. Why does Paul only foresee one child rather than two?

As for this form of automatically coherent writing, it is no surprise. If someone writes entirely from one coherent stance, everything that will come from the whole will also lead to the whole.

*I'm not being simplistic with fascism (although I am broadly speaking), neither am I diminishing the caracter of Leto II, nor am I really even discussing his moral justifications. I simply state his stance and am ironic about it. In a world (fictional or real) where only survival or primal instincts are left, also only crisis reactions are still adapted. Right now, many would be quite unsure about such "mean for Mankind's end", and would suspend their judgement instead of blindly following a perhaps incomplete rational lead. Just as Paul, and it is what brings my interest in the question.

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...