Talk:Dune universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Help with a specific quote 2 Reverend Mothers 3 Chronology 4 Influences 5 Lasguns vs. Shields 6 New Dune wiki 7 ? 8 Incomplete listing of Dune works 9 Expanding Timelines 10 Dates 11 'Thopters 12 The other major movie idiocy 13 Complete and total fabrication 14 Paul's Jihad 15 Was the series planned?

[edit] Help with a specific quote

I distinctly remember an article or a quote or something, stating Frank Herbert had never intended to continue the story after God Emperor of Dune. Does anyone know what I'm talking about, or can verify this? Matrixfusion 03:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. My memory tells me it was that his original conception of "Dune" was Dune through God-Emperor. I can try to find this; I think it's in a foreword somewhere. Narfanator 3:11 EST 9 Sep 2006

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who remembers this. Thank you. Matrixfusion 03:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverend Mothers

"the complete memories of all her female ancestors"

from what I understood they gained memories from not only their ancestors but the memories of all other reverend mothers (and consequently their ancestors) as well. When Jessica became a R.M. she had acess to all the other reverend mothers of the past of Stilgars tribe, and it cannot be because the other reverend mother showed her as Stilgar previously stated "they had gone without a reverend mother before." Also Alia is present in R.M. Gohaim (sp?) when they are not related, and Leto had access to many more memories than just his ancestors in God Emperor. Perhaps its just an Atreides trait? Any clarification on this would be good, as the wiki articles on the subject are also in disagreement. (can find ones saying that they gain the memories of just previous reverend mothers in their ancestry, all of their ancestry, and all reverend mothers)

R.M. Gohaim is Alia's grandmother, Jessica's mother. - LA @ 11:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Perhaps in this case the word ancestors meant all the past Reverend Mothers.

Nope. Erm.. Chapterhouse? I think it is; the Jewish Reverend Mother "shares" other-memories with a fleeing RM (from the teaching planet.. name escapes ATM). As Jessica was guided to RM-ness by the Fremen RM, she probably did a sharing there. Have to check... As for Alia? Dunno. They do that in the movies, but... Not going there. Have to check... I do seem to remember Leto and Ghanima doing /something/ like that, but it's a hazy memory. Have to check. In any event, it's pretty specific that it's all the female ancestors. It's just that ancestral memories (except perhaps RMs) are kinda "quiet" in anyone but those born wth them. Narfanator 3:15 EST 9 Sep 2006

Oh! And see the weirdness with uber-Duncan from Chapterhouse and his "ancestral memories". There were unexplained factors at work. Narfanator 3:37 EST 9 Sep 2006

[edit] Chronology

Hmm. I'm not sure I'd necessarily interpret the timeline that way. This assumes "mankind's movement through deep space" begins around 2000 -- did F.H. assume that? To me, this only gives a minimum date: the Guild was not formed before 13200 CE.

Wasn't the first use of atomics mentioned in Dune at some point? We know what year that was, and we know that F.H. knew that when he wrote it. That would certainly help pin down the year.

Where did "400 years" come from? If a SY is 20 hours less than a primitive year (PY), that means Dune begins in 23391 CE, or as many as 23391 x 20 hours earlier = 23391 x 20 / (24x365) PY earlier, which I get to be about 53 PY. No? --Anonymous

The following is in the Dune Encyclopedia:

14255 BG: First atomics demonstrated in an intraprovincial war. Seat of empire moved to Washington, 14100-13600 BG: THE LITTLE DIASPORA: The solar system is colonized and the population of Terra eventually outnumberd by 20 to 1.

So I would assume that 14255 BG (Before Guild) is equivalent to 1945 CE/AD. --Anonymous

I see this as a proper calculation aswell. I came up with something like 2000 A.D. = 14200 BG after reading the timeline in the DE years ago. Please also consider the fact that most (if not all) veteran fans and even FH himself see the DE as 'mostly canon'. Like in; more canon than BH's books (just for the case BH decides to add another inconsistent timescale-calculation in future works). --bitterMan.lha

This entire dating system is completely wrong. "Deep space" can only mean interstellar space and humans certainly haven't been outside the solar system in the 20th century. We haven't even been further than the Moon! If this quote is the only fact we have to translate Dune's dating system into ours then this entire section should be deleted because for all we know, humans may not get to deep space for another 1000 years.

Move to delete the above unsigned comment. Scifi is predictive; old scifi has been proved wrong. See my lack of a flying car. Mmm.. Flying cars. Those'd be spiffy. Narfanator 3:20 EST 9 Sep 2006

[edit] Influences

There are very poignant symbols of Middle-eastern influence in the stories. Can anyone confirm this? --EreinionImage:RAHSymbol.JPG 00:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Middle Eastern, Islamic, Arabic influences have long since been proven; nobody doubts them. So yeah, consider it confirmed by just about every element of Arrakis and the Fremen. -- Maru Dubshinki 06:07 PM Saturday, 12 March 2005

[edit] Lasguns vs. Shields

I've always had one question about warfare in the Dune universe:

If I've understood correctly, if a Las-weapon of any kind is fired at a shield, they both explode. If this is the case, how come both are used so widely in war? The palace of Arrakeen is protected by a shield. What would happen if it took a hit from a Las weapon? --Anonymous

One of the novels considers precisely that last possibility, and merely points out that a really big explosion occurs. (Specifically it is in reference to lasgun smuggling in Dune, and lasguns on timers). But my understanding is that the explosion is essentially identical to a fission nuke, and is so covered under the Great Convention. That's why, and the mutual suicide part of it as well. So everybody simply uses shields, and adheres to the Great Convention. --maru 16:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

But what about about infantry battles? Everyone has a personal shield and everyone has a lasgun. What do they do? Agree politely on the exact moment they will drop their lasguns, activate shields, and begin close combat?

No- I said, they don't use lasguns, they use shields. Didn't you pay attention to Dune, with all the training and the talking about how to pentrate shields- didn't you notice in the description of the Sardaukar fighting later on in the novel, it was hand to hand, with knives and such? Didn't you notice the duel with Jamais, or Feyd-rautha, were all with bladed weapons? --maru 18:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The Great Convention lays out the proper ways to conduct inter-house warfare, so that the plebs take the hits and not the Noble Families. It is extremely easy to use both atomics proper and lasgun-sheild interactions to wipe out a Noble Family - But politics being what it is, no-one wants to be killed over a minor dispute and so they retaliate strongly against houses who use them. If House Harknonnen obliterates House Exempli Grati with nukes, the next House the Harknonnens have a dispute with could be nuked as well - fearing this, the Great Houses will ally and destroy House Harknonnen utterly. If House Harkonnen does use sheild-lasgun interactions in battle, which it did, on Arrakis, the have to be sneaky and be able to claim plausible deniability. --exmachina

The reason lasguns are used on Arrakis is that the environment there (before the ecological transformation) makes shield use difficult. All the sand shorts them out. So in their invasion, the Sardaukar aren't afraid to use lasers because they don't think they will enounter shields. Paul uses this assumption agains them.

Not sure about Paul using that assumption. I think it was either Gurney or Duncan who planted sheilds along the wall as a trap. In any event, memory says: Lasgun/Sheilds result in an explosion that kills both gunner and sheildee, but the severity of the explosion, while always atomic in nature, vary. Sheilds are both shorted out by static electricity (esp. in Arrakian quanitities) and drive worms nuts. Sign your comments! Narfanator 3:11 EST 9 Sep 2006

[edit] New Dune wiki

These are outstanding articles, which cover a great deal of content. However, it seems Wikipedia makes cataloging and joining the Dune Universe articles a little difficult. So I've created a Dune wiki on wikicities. Contributors to and readers of the Dune Universe articles are more than welcome to expand on it, as right now it is basically an empty shell. It can be found here: http://dune.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page.

[edit]  ?

I was wondoring which series is better: Isaac Asimov's Foundation Series or Frank Herbert's Dune Series? I just started reading the first book in the Foundation series, and I must say that it is very enjoyable. I saw the sci-fi Dune mini-series and liked it; I had planned on reading the books, but never got around to it. From what I read about the Dune series on wiki, it seems like it is "The Lord of the Rings" of science fiction. But I have also heard good things about the Foundation series. That's why I'd like to know which series is considered better among true science fiction fans and why. --Moosh88 21:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Asking a question like that is begging to get flamed. Needless to say, everybody here will vote for Dune, but what did you expect? --Maru 21:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Flamed for what? I'm a novice when it comes to science fiction, so I thought I'd ask people who know more about the subject. Anyone who flames is asking to be banned from Wikipedia. BTW: Just saying Dune is better is not answering my question. --Moosh88 22:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Because such a question raises extraordinarily subjective reasons, with a devoted and fanatical fandom on either side. This particular rivalry is not the most famous of flamewars (primarily because Asimov is dead now, and his writing is increasingly clunky, and his series as primitive; in short his popularity has waned. --Maru 22:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Asimov's writing is very good in my opinion, and since I haven't read anything by Herbert I can't comment on it. Herbert is dead too, but that doesn't change anything, so it doesn't matter if an author is dead or not. Some books become classics and others fade away. Both series have become science fiction classics. BTW: What is or are the most famous science fiction flamewars? --Moosh88 22:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

From a pure stylistic literary viewpoint, Herbert's writing is pretty much universally acknowledged as superior to Asimov's. Whether that translates to superiority is unclear and very much subjective, as I said. And Herbert isn't really dead... thanks to Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson, who have dredged up his corpse and performed unholy necromancy to get it to shamble and dance for money. As far as flamewars go, I don't really know, althought Star Trek vs Star Wars surely ranks up there. --Maru 23:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Few can beat Asimov for short stories. His are some of the best. Similarly, Frank Herbert is a universe builder and world builder, and few can rival him there. Asmov's works lack the depth of Herberts. Herbert's works lack the clarity, sharpness, and simplesness of Asimov's. Which one is better? Don't look at me!! --ssd 06:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, this goes into the concepts of Speculative Empire, and Literature (with a capital L) of Sci Fi. Herbert gets more attention because he wrote more in the traditional sense of a novel (Dune, or when the first three novels as taken as a trilogy, the so-called "Dune Trilogy"). In short, because Herbert works are considered in a more traditional sense of "fiction" (i.e. novels) then Asimov (who wrote primarily series and short stories), Herbert is considered superior for Literature.

As for meaning, none of Asimov's works approach the scale, and the overall overreaching themes of humanity that Herbert presented. Herbert wrote about survival of the human race, morality, erligion, tecehnology, politics, conservation, ecology, the human soul, but manages to make it a story about people.

Style, Herbert's Dune is unmatched by the sheer poetry in his writing. This is one thing that sci fi suffers more then other genres of literature, that sci fi is double stamped by the age it was written in. I mean that, a sci fi book written in the 1950s but is set 250 years in the future, yet the children still say "Golly gee!" and other phrases that were popular in the 1950s. This creates a sense of disbelief, that in the future has so much influence of the author's time. Asimov, Bradbury, and Clark all do this with varying degrees. Herbert in constructing Dune was aware of this, and specifically shaped the language of the novel and its characters with words of his own invention, or research (i.e. use of words from pagan holy texts, and new definitions of Arabic words). Herbert's style is simple, but it grows richer with each reading.

As for Dune Canon, *sticky subject*, I considered only Frank Herbert's works, notably the first three novel, as Canon. Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson's prequels are in are not because they are not Frank Herbert. His style, his language, his storytelling cannot be matched.

Lastly, Flame Wars. Lord of the Rings Vs. Dune is probably biggest Flame War in Speculative Fiction, it echoes the whole Fantasy VS. Sci Fi war. Heinlein was strange because he wrote was is generally considered the most liberal sci fi, and the most conservative sci fi ever (Stranger in a Strange Land Vs. Starship Troopers). Also, Stranger In A Strange Land VS. Dune is notably as both are considered religion sci fi. I'll add others when I think of them.

In short, Moosh88, YOU NEED TO READ DUNE. I have read it around 20 times, and I still love it. Dune is the sci fi Literary masterpeice. That is the long and short of it. No other single work of sci fi comes close, be it Heinlein, Bradbury, Clark, Card, or any other acknowlded master of sci fi.

Zidel333 00:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have found that, while other books have as complicated a plot, and/or present as interesting philosophy, but none of them do in the sheer quantity (and quality!) of the Dune Saga (although the last two begin to slip..). The only exception I can think to this is "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", but that doesn't count. On a side note, I'd recommend "The Gay Science" to all philosophical Dune fans. I'd also recommend reading up through God-Emperor, or atleast trying. Most people don't seem to have liked it; but it's my favorite. Another also: People who say Frank Herbert never wrote anything good but Dune don't know what they're talking about. So go read some of this other stuff. Narfanator 3:29 EST 9 Sep 2006

[edit] Incomplete listing of Dune works

This is the list I compiled for another discussion elsewhre. These works should be added to complete all works in the "Dune universe". Please note I have sorted them by author, and in chronological order.

• Songs of Muad'Dib
• Paul of Dune (a trilogy of prequels of Paul Atreides' childhood still being considered by Kevin J. Anderson and Brian Herbert; title is tenative)
• Brian Herbert's biography of his father, Dreamer of Dune

Zidel333 08:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of the works originally listed here have been added; I've left only what has not. I don't know what content of the published Songs of Muad'Dib is; is it an expanded version of the work of the same name by Princess Irulan referenced in epigraphs in Dune itself? I don't think the Herbert bio belongs here, but it's listed on the Frank Herbert page. And it's definitely too early to put the Paul of Dune stuff in, as not a word has been put to paper. TAnthony 23:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, Paul of Dune is actually mentioned in a "Proposed future works" section that I think is effective. TAnthony 23:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I think any 'Dune' book not written by Frank Herbert himself is not really part of the original Dune series. The writing style, format and underlying messages are all too different.

The original Dune books were slightly esoteric in nature and dealt with politics, sociology and religion and their impacts on each other and humanity as a whole in a futuristic setting, with very little emphasis on the 'how and why' of the technology used.

The new KJA and BH 'Dune' books are more high-tech and deal with the personal stories of people who just happen to be in politics.

Where Frank left most of the background tech and history to the imagination of the reader and focussed on the characters and situation, the new 'Dune' books spend half their pages explaining the technicalities behind everything that happens and leaves almost nothing to the reader's imagination.

On a more snide personal level I would thus remark that the cooperation between KJA and BH in mind amount to this: KJA writes another one of his Star Wars novels and BH just changes all the references from Jedi to Atreides, Sith to Harkonnen, Force to Spice, etc...

That's of course just me being cynical, but I DO have to say that the new 'Dune' books do read like Star Wars novels and while Star Wars novels are very good reads (well... on occasion) they are NOT written in the same spirit as Dune.

If you'd ask me, the new 'Dune' books are too different in contents, style and intention, that they aren't part of the same universe, let alone the same series. Robrecht 17:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agree, but we can't make that call. Narfanator 3:32 EST 9 Sep 2006

Awww, come on guys -- Frank Herbert can't write any more books, and he left behind so many notes and descriptions and such that fans of his universe should have the opportunity to learn about. Yes, BH and KJA don't write as dense a book as Frank himself (well, OK, not even close!), but that doesn't mean that their stories are non-canon or whatever. Are the multitude of Star Wars books canon because George Lucas is still alive? Um, he doesn't write them himself, you know. :) Heh heh TAnthony 23:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding Timelines

Alas it's been a long time since I read these excellent books (the original 6), but I do remember the timeline/scope as being one of the books' most striking features. One thing I do remember, from Dune Messiah, is a small scene where Paul's generals say his conquests are the greatest in history, and someone mentions the conquests of Alexander and Hitler (now in what could almost be considered prehistory). The questions come up to how many those individuals have killed, and when the figures come out they lack the impressive size of intergalatic conquest (although they quietly wonder if these individuals had actually killed millions by themselves, which also sounds impossible but for "stone burners" (nukes)). Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to add a section in the Dune timeline that addresses these lingering references to the pre-Dune universe (20k in the past), a reference that could also include the reappearence of Jews in Chapterhouse: Dune. I would add this section, but all my books are far away from me now Bobak 17:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

User:Stroika wanted this "Years are not counted before or after the Birth of Christ" leaving behind this message "Erm on Earth years are counted from the Birth of Christ. CE/BCE are parasitic on that system. If you don't like that, begin CE from some other year.)" I think this is a bit hostile and will for my part continue to use the BC/BCE system, full well knowing that it is based on the AD/BC system.

That is not the real problem, though. What is stranger to me is the reason for having a mention of Christ in this article - I'd like to know if it was put there for religious reasons... Lundse 18:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Since when has an edit summary being "hostile" been grounds for reversion?

I changed the article out of simple respect for the facts of history. The article says

The Dune novels use a different calendar dating system than of present day Earth. Years are not based on the common era (BCE and CE), but before and after the formation of the Spacing Guild, measured as "Before Guild" and "After Guild" (BG and AG, respectively).

This statement is false. The dating system we use is not "based on" (whatever that means) "the common era". The "common era" is a modern dating system used by some people, entirely parasitic on the system of dating from the (supposed) birth of Christ. Whatever wikipedia policy is on using CE/BCE as opposed to BC/AD in editing articles it cannot change the historical facts about the orgin of the dating system (that our years are numbered for a supposed historical event) and therefore it cannot force us to make statemens which are contrary to history. Suppose for the sake of argument that all memory and knowledge of Christianity disappeared and that we all woke up one morning dating things as since or before the common era, the question would immediately be asked "what does this mean?" and we could not find an answer. That is what I mean by saying BCE/CE is entirely parasitic on BC/AD.

If Lundse thinks mention of Christ is out of place in an article on Dune he clearly hasn't read the novels, he hasn't even read their titles.

I repeat: the article as it stands contains a false statement. Our dating system *is* based on the supposed date of the birth of Christ. This prescinds entirely from the question of whether one should use BC/AD or BCE/CE putting dates in articles. Please do not confuse the two issues. That is why I am going to revert. Stroika 18:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not mention the hostility because I believed it was a reason to revert, but because I believed it was indicative of a I-will-not-discuss-this stance. It was a reason to revert before discussing.

From your explanation I gather that you are saying that using "years are based on BC/BCE" is inherently wrong; I presume that "years are counted using BC/BCE" would be OK. I do not believe this makes the article "false", however, merely a bit muddled. Since we are bringing an explanation of what the before/after event of the Dune BG/AG system, you are right that it makes sense to mention the AD/BC system's before/after event.

I thought you were only seeking to bring a mention of Jesus where it did not belong, I am not against mentioning him inherently, only when there is no need. Your post here did make me understand the reason for doing it and I rescind my "gratuitous" when regards to the mentioning of Christ.

That said, I do believe a bit more WP:civility is in order. I have read Dune Messiah several times and I don't see how the mention of a messiah in a book or its title makes Jesus relevant in the discussion of dates. If we are discussing the religious imagery etc. of the books in this is another matter, and Tiresias, Muhammed, Jesus, miscellanous Jewish apocalyptics and prophets (eg. John the baptist) and god-kings are all very relevant. Lundse 06:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I thank Lundse for his gracious reply. I am sorry for appearing to be hostile in the edit summmary. There is a limit to how much explanation one can include in such a space and I was only editing this article in passing because I had noticed how many articles about Frank Herbert's Dune linked to "sand dune". I am glad that the fuller explanation I was able to give above has satisfied him. I did not think anything I said breached rules of civility. The last pagaraph but one (which I have now struck through) was a rhetorical shot in the parliamentary style (use of the 3rd person). I thought that would guard against incivility. I am sorry it did not.

This might be thought too fine a distinction but there is in fact no mention of Jesus in the article. The reference is to Christ and only in the context of a universally used dating system. I use the customary English days of the week but I do not worship the Sun, the Moon, Tiw, Woden, Thor, Freya or Saturn.

I think that Lundse agrees that I inserted a reference to Christ on historical, and not religious, grounds and therefore I do not need to defend myself further on that point.

Lundse is correct to asssume that I thought the article as I found it was inherently wrong. Nevertheless I must insist that it would not merely be muddled but actually false were the article to say that with us "years are counted using the Common Era". They are not. Even those who fastidiously say that Rome was founded in 753 BCE, or that Muhammad died in 632 CE, are in fact dating from the supposed date of the birth of Christ. There is nothing "common" about the period of time beginning in the 28th year since Octavian was given the title of Augustus. CE/BCE is a polite fraud at best. I would go further and say it is doublethink and a lie. To make CE/BCE honest one would have to pick another event in a different year from which to begin. But all this is by the way...

I would beg anyone reading to remember that this is a discussion about a statement of historical fact made as a comparison for a piece of science fiction. It is not a discussion of the merits of using the CE/BCE when giving dates in a wikipedia article. Were "Francus Herbertus Dunaeus" a Latin author of the time of the late Republic, I would not have bothered altering the publication date from 13 BCE to 13 BC. --Stroika 14:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse my late entry, but is not the problem the actual use of the phrase "Birth of Christ", especially when what really is being said is the use of the Anno Domini dating system put forward by the Gregorian Calendar? Thus it isn't the actual birth of christ that should be used here, but the historical facts behind how we came to use our current system of dating. I personally dont see a need to directly mention the birth of one religion's "alledged" deity/avatar, though mentioning the dating system itself which was created specifically to determine the first Easter based on a historical event would be sufficient. So mention the dating system, don't attach religious beliefs to it. Enigmatical 04:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Not attaching religious beliefs to Dune would kill it. The whole Dune saga is based solely around a group of religious beliefs. Paul is supposed to be the human made messiah. So mentioning Christ is not a bad thing in these articles. - LA @ 11:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Thopters

Can someone explain why in the Dune movie and in the SciFi Channel miniseries the 'Thopters are depicted so WRONG? Ie, NO FLAPPING WINGS, and even worse in the movie, NO WINGS. Someone please do a CGI reimaging on the movie and fix the bloody 'Thopters. ;) At least the videogame graphics people (Dune II for PC/DOS, SEGA Genesis, some HP graphing calculators and possibly others, and Dune 2000 for PC/Windows) had the brains to know what the key feature of an ornithopter is.

Probably becuase the idea of flapping wings on futuristic machines is so alien that the film makers didn't want to lose their target audience at that point. They had more to think about than Dune purists, they also probably wanted to reach those who had never read the books. Flapping wings on a futuristic flying machine is a bit ridiculous, don't you think? - LA @ 11:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You're complaining about the 'thopters'?! See Leto II in Scifi's production. I want to beat the guy who wrote that script with Children unto death. Narfanator 3:35 EST 9 Sep 2006

[edit] The other major movie idiocy

Next to the wingless ornthopters, the other hugely stupid gaffe in the movie was the 'weirding modules'. There's nothing in the books about any sort of technology/tool used to enhance or enable a person to use the weirding powers. These and other stupid fabrications of stuff not in the book was why the movie was such a flop. Merchandising didn't fare well either. Remember this? "He who controls the spice controls the universe, but he who has a complete set of 'Dune' trading cards will have them forever."

When the film was made, I don't think that the target audience would have swollowed non-mechanical fighting that did so much damage. They were probably targeting the people who like to see new fangled gadgets. - LA @ 11:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Plus I believe Frank Herbert himself came up with the idea of the weirding modules when discussing the script with Lynch.--Werthead 18:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complete and total fabrication

"Leto's prescient visions had shown a high probabilty of humanity being extinguished by a "Great Enemy", possibly the return of thinking machines"

The above line is completely and totally inaccurate. My understanding of the reason for the golden path was that all futures of mankind ended in disaster, and the very fact that the known universe could be controlled by a single figure who had the power of prescience and control of milange was what required it to be implemented. It had absolutely nothing to do with a "Great Enemy", that was brought back from the scattering. I just wanted to seek some conscensus before I change this. Enigmatical 03:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right as well. There was no specific reason for the Golden Path. All futures showed the extinction of the human race except the Golden Path. Some showed machines, some showed other things, but there were infinite ways it could have happened. Konman72 04:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that Hunters of Dune has been released, this line seems more accurate. Hadoren 05:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that there's no quote in the texts in which Leto brings together the concepts of the Golden Path and a "Great Enemy", right? SandChigger 11:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I share Enigmatical's understanding on the golden path here. It's been a few years since I've read through the Dune series last, but I seem to remember in Children of Dune when Paul and Leto are discussing the golden path, Paul asks for another way, but Leto makes a point that any other way will lead to extinction in one way or another? I think we should remove this sentence. --Delta Tango 23:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I also seem to remember the horror and the need of the Golden Path (namely, the scattering) was part of what trapped Paul in his visions in Messiah. --Narfanator 00:05 24 Sep 2006

[edit] Paul's Jihad

I feel as though this article, or some article, should make mention of the jihad of the fremen which Paul unleashes at the end of Dune. If for no other reason, than because I have no idea why the Fremen jihad, and I doubt I'm alone, but surely someone does understand. Nedlum 18:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking, but I think the point of why the Fremen jihaad happened is that Paul couldn't stop it even if he wanted to. The Fremen were in such a religious fevor, combined with superior military strength under Paul, that they would stop at nothing to give their Messiah-like leader the whole empire. I seem to remember Frank Herbert saying something about that Dune is about, amoung other things, what could happen if a leader used both religious fanatiscm and law to govern his subjects and do warfare. --Delta Tango | Talk 20:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was the series planned?

Did Frank Herbert write Dune knowing that the sequals would follow? Was the whole timeline planned out in advance, or did he just go one by one and keep writing until the end? Basically, I want to know if the first Dune was written with sequels in mind, or did he just make up more crap after he saw that people wanted more? Phauge 18:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

FH has written that parts of Dune Messiah and parts of Children of Dune were written before Dune was completed. So the first three books were certainly planned from the start. I don't know if that's true for the later novels. Tanzeelat 08:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)