TMA_1 Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 That is basically what Dune is all about. I think it is perfect how it is shown. The fremen blindly follow Paul and in the end they get what they wanted. Arrakis is starting to spring with life with shui hulud still protected at the time, and complete control over their planet. Once they have that though, then what? Then what do you get after you have all you wanted? Dune is like ecclesiasties. You have everything you want and you realize that it isnt as good as you thought it would be or make you feel. The fremen lost their identity and culture because of Paul. Eventually they would cease to exist in their formal state, becoming little more than a circus attraction known as Museum Fremen. That is why some of the fremen leaders conspired to kill Paul. They grew to dispise him because of their situation.Paul really didnt know how to rule a universe. With prescience he actually lost the ability to reign over all. It seemed a tool that confounded and ruined his nerve. Every little thing could screw up the future and a person without that knowledge would have actually done something, he was too afraid to do anything. He didnt even take his formal place of taking the sandtrout suit onto himself to become God Emperor. He was too afraid of being immortal within the sandtrout (COD) (GEOD). His son was the real hero. Leto II was hated, dispised, spat upon. He was the one though that saved the universe from stagnation of culture and their gene pool. Without his sacrifice of living eternity in a quasi-concious state of the sandworms of rakis, humans would all but be doomed.Paul couldnt do this. He was too afraid (COD).What do you guys think? Dont people focus Paul as the hero? That is actually the mistake. He is the figure of weakness in a greek comedy. Its ironic that such great powers given to him would make him fail in the end. His son had to do all the work for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timenn Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 You have a point here, TMA_1Paul regretted later in Dune that all his friends had gone, and turned into worshippers.But you have people who leed rebellions, and you have people who lead empires/nations (all those terms) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 exactly man. He lost what he thought he would always have. he was too human to be God-like. That is one of the reasons in my opinion why Leto II took on the sandtrout suit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 I'd like to point out that Paul didn't know humanity would ceace to exist if he would't follow the Golden Path. LetoII did. He said that in they met in the desert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 it does say though in children of dune that paul knew he had to take on the sandtrout suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 it does say though in children of dune that paul knew he had to take on the sandtrout suit.I beleive you are correct. Paul was eithor too scared, weak, or knew that letoII had to wear skin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahdi Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 I always ahd a problem with the generally accepted theory that Paul was too weak to do what Leto did. I always beleived that Pa ul did not accept the sandtrout because he beleived it was wrong, not because he was weak or too scared of losing what remained of his humanity. And there conversation in the desert after they first meet seems to bear that out. He refused to take the sandtrout because he beleived that the golden path would not work. That it would fail and result in a horrible, horrible future. The Golden path begins wiht 5000 years of enforced stagnation. What was one of the first and most important lessons Paul learned? To avoid stagnation. Stagnation is death, pure and simple. How did Paul defeat the Harkonnens so easily? They locked themselves into there fortresses, they imobolized themselves, they stagnated. Most importantly, what was the main reason for Pauls EXISTENCE? To end the stagnation of humanity. That was his purpose in life, the terrible purpose he could not avoid. To end the stagnation of humanity with his Jihad. That is stated several times in Dune and Dune MEssiah. So, he was jsut supposed to change his very essence and meaning in life, and suddenly force stagnation upon the universe? He couldn't do it, he didn't beleive in it, he didn't think it would suceed. He thought that humanity would lose the typhoon struggle that occured at the end of the enforced stagnation. That was the difference between him and Leto. He wasn't afraid, he simply did not beelive the Golden path would work, while Leto did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 I know, the point is paul could not do it because of himself. He was too weak to see through his own ego and his own emotions and opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 I'd look up a few things, but I don't have a copy of CoD at my disposal.Paul actually wanted to kill his son to prevent the Golden Path from happeningl. He thought that the future would be horrorible (LetoII said something that it would make Pauls jihad look like a picknick, or something). Paul didn't know that humanity would otherwise cease to exist, so why would he have followed the Golden Path then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 because he would have been enlightened once he placed upon himself the sandtrout suit. Paul was weak and his son was the one that was the hero. Thats the whole point I was making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inoculator9 Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 I agree, Paul's side of the argument does appear to be weakness. He was afraid of the Golden Path and what it would mean for humanity, which means he was weak. Leto II was stronger. We don't want to think of Paul as a coward, but weak is the appropriate word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 I would think he was neccesary to put things in order, and ready for Leto II's arrival. He left when he wasn't necessary anymore, and that was that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inoculator9 Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 I agree. Without Paul, there wouldn't have been a Leto II, in more ways then one lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 hehe. I disagree on that acriku, but innoc does bring up a very important point.lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inoculator9 Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Very good point, lol ;D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahdi Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 I agree, Paul's side of the argument does appear to be weakness. He was afraid of the Golden Path and what it would mean for humanity, which means he was weak. Leto II was stronger. We don't want to think of Paul as a coward, but weak is the appropriate word.I don't see there being any weakness in Paul not accepting the sandtrout. He did not beleive int he golden path, thought it would fail, and the poitning out that he was willing to kill Leto to stop it only helps solidify my arguement. It takes a lot to drive a father into killing his son. TMA_1, if you pour gasoline over yourself and your family, and then are given a match, is it weakness to not light the match and burn yourself and your family to death? That is essentially the same situation Paul faced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timenn Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 But Paul Atreides did retreat into the desert. But after that he came back, to restore his damage. So he might be a good ruler, for he tries to change his mistakes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inhuien Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Was Paul not banished to the Bled? As was the fremen custom at this time? I thought he had no control over that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 When he couldn't see with his 'vision', after the explosion, they sent him to the desert. But I believe he sent himself? He could have still stayed, but he went. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahdi Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 He was following Fremen tradition which states you have to go off alone into the bled if you're blind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 He stayed a while when he was technically blind, but he could sense what was around him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inoculator9 Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Mahdi, not choosing to burn yourself wouldn't really be weakness, because in that instance burning yourself serves no practical purpose. Paul was weak because he thought the path would harm to many to be beneficial, but he seemed to make up for this weakness by doing all he could to stop that path. So it kinda goes back and forth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahdi Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 The fire analogy is just the same as Paul and the golden path. Both are cenetered around beleifs and knowledge, and you are saying that beleifs and knowledge are weaknesses. You don't burn yourself and your family because you beleive it is wrong and you know you all will die. Paul didn't follow the golden path because he beleived it was wrong and knew that it would fail (the fact that it did not fail is irrelevant, he knew it would, like people knew the world was flat).I don't agree that beleifs and knowledge are weaknesses. And if they are, then Leto was weak for accepting the sandtrout, because he beleived it was right and knew that the risk of golden path was worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 sometimes it is good to think outside of the box. Frank though actually wrote his story based on this idea. Paul didnt continue on the golden path because he didnt know of it. He was not as powerful in prescience as his son. He didnt realize the future of mankind. Leto did and took the right steps. Paul never could have done so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inoculator9 Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 I never meant to imply that knowledge and belief are weaknesses. It is my understanding that Paul believed that the death that would result from the Golden Path wasn't worth the means. So, he was weak because he was not willing to allow that sacrifice to occur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.