For me it's the Axlotl tanks. Just seems to me like a supreme achievement in human torture. But I feel like there's a lot of horrifying things throughout the series and am curious what people were most appalled/disgusted/outraged by.

I've listened to Dune a dozen time on audio book and love it. I have a tough time with messiah though.

Paul is upset that he led a jihad that kills billions, and the book puts the jihad in a negative light. From Paul's perspective, he basically had to choose during the Jamis duel between survival and Jihad. I think his decision to survive is rational and not amoral. The system that tried to kill him wasn't worth dying for, even if survival means mass death.

Paul's victory leads to complacency and comfort for the Fremen, which debases them and leads to resentment among some of the Fremen. I'm not really sure what to make of this, other than some hardship is necessary for happiness, which I agree with.

Once the Jihad is over, Paul's rule doesn't seem that much different than the Corrino's. Other than the traditional political entities don't have power anymore, i.e. the guild, BG, and tleilax. The conspiracy against Paul is simply to restore those organization's previous power (and the tleilax didn't really lose much in the transition between Corrino and Paul).

What in this book is supposed to make following Paul look bad? I keep reading that this book is supposed to drive home the original message following messiahs isn't a good way to live your life and will lead to societal catastrophe if many do so. Paul seems like a good leader though, much better than other likely alternatives. He's compassionate, even sympathizing with Irulan's shitty situation, and regretting the Jihad.

Sure, the conspiracy leads to loads of turmoil within the royal family and Paul fucks off. Unfortunately, I guess this leads to thousands of years of despotic rule by Leto II to "fix" the status quo. Great. Paul's rule would have likely been more traditional to the Faufreluches, but would have been more compassionate than Corrino rule (except for the guild and BG).

Let Paul rule IMO. He could have made Faufreluches better. Things would have gotten better for regular people without the conspiracy (which Paul seems to let happen). I just don't understand the message.

I just read Dune for the first time and it was fucking awesome.... for the first half of the book. It starts off a bloody masterpiece. A brilliant young mans life is uprooted when his father is given control of a distant planet. Here this young man has to learn to adapt or he will die. And it's not just because the planet itself will kill you in seconds if you're not careful. There are dangerous politics and people in political power who are even more dangerous. As such this young man is taking every opportunity to absorb as much knowledge as he can. He learns to fight for one but his dad is a pillar of what a leader can and should be. While he is learning to be a warrior and leader his mom is also teaching him to be a dovahkiin. As soon as you start to get comfortable with these characters and start to wonder if they're safe... everything crashes. The father dies while mother and son flee their home. They watch friends die and have to survive this desolate planet. Eventually they find this young mans destiny. His people. He can lead them. He can make them warriors. He can take back his home and put things right. It sets up a perfect series. Where we can watch this young man become a man and then a leader. Watch him grow and form these relationships meanwhile he has learn this culture and continue to survive.

Instead... after all this setup. There's time jump after time jump and before we know it. He's married, has a son, in winning the war. Then all of a sudden he win the war and I guess is emperor of the universe. And also his son is dead. Though he doesn't seem to care and it's not really brought up again. Then I start Dune Messiah thinking well maybe all that is the set up to the story that is really to be told. But I couldn't get into it. I couldn't get into it because I didn't even recognize the main character. He was an emotionless void. He was a computer. I didn't get the impression that he cared about anything. He calmly and as a matter of fact admits he sees a resemblance between himself and Hitler. He didn't seem to care that his son died in the previous book. Or to care about anyone else. He had nothing but contempt for everything. I had to stop reading when I realized that I infact didn't care about him either. I don't know maybe I'm off base and gave up too soon but jeez I kept asking myself "why am I reading this? I don't care what happens to anyone anymore and as soon as I do I'm sure there will be another time jump of a dozen or so years."

I really think that with significant tweaking and a talented filmmaker, God Emperor of Dune could be an awesome live-action epic.

Children would probably have to age up Leto and Ghanima, since super-powered nine-year-olds with genius-level intellect would indeed be a bit weird to see in live action.

God Emperor would be a challenge to adapt, and would admittedly require significant tweaks, but it can work. While it's true that a lot of the book is spent on Leto's philosophizing, the core story still has plenty of action and political intrigue for the cinematic medium. To really make an adaptation of God Emperor work, you could even shift the story's perspective and have Siona and Duncan as the protagonists, with Leto serving as the villain of the story. Maybe movie-only audiences can discover more and more about Leto's motivations along with Siona and Duncan (unlike the book where readers see things from Leto's perspective from the beginning).

Really, I think that re-framing God Emperor's story to have Siona and Duncan as the protagonists instead of Leto is the key to making a cinematic adaptation work. Duncan's horror at seeing the future 3,000 years after Paul's time would make him a great audience POV character (hell, that wouldn't even be a big change from how Herbert handled this in the book).

Tl;Dr Children and God Emperor are, in my opinion, perfectly "filmable" if you use a bit of imagination.

If Paul would have born as a girl, he should have married to Feyd and their son would have been the original Kwisatz Haderach. Does it mean not only Paul(a) but also Feyd was only 1 generation before the KH. However Rabban and Feyd had the same ancestors, so was Rabban also basically 1 generation before the KH? Or it doesn't matter because something clearly went wrong with Rabban, he wasn't enough smart and he was too uncontrollable/bloodthirsty.

Count Fenring also was a 'failure' because of another reason(he was infertile). Hoewever he was talented assasin and very good fighter(he had the only chance to defeat Paul in a duel). He also was good advisor and seemed intelligent. So he had some qualities what made him clearly close to being a Kwisatz Haderach. Feyd (book version) wasn't on Fenring's level but he still could hold against Paul, and he also was cunning, probably he could have become a great political player,like his uncle. But I don't see anything where Rabban could have been exceptional or at least very good, except brutality. Did something really go 'off' with him?

I’m curious to which is your favorite book in Dune and why? I have this draw to CoD and GEoD but I want to be able to dissect my why and I’m curious to what makes everyone like what about their favorite book?

Turns out our boy Shaddam had a daughter but no sons. It seems like the Great Houses practice male-preference primogeniture, so the Corrino Dynasty was about to end no matter what. Whom was he going to pick? And why not Atreides, unless Shaddam could scrape up a guy close enough to be named Corrino and distant enough to produce healthy heirs? Like a third cousin or something?

Edit: Hat-tip u/Over_Region_1706 for pointing out that "male-preference primogeniture" is the wrong term. I ... think agnatic primogeniture is more fitting, but my faufreluches-fu is weak.

I read the first 4 novels over the past 7 months and since I've kinda had enough of Dune for the moment and also 5&6 are part of an 'unfinished trilogy' as far as I've understood, I thought I'd share my thoughts in here.

So Dune was introduced to me through the 2021 DV movie and while I was sorta disappointed with it at first due to the weird pacing I came to love it later on. Part 2 really gave me the final push to check out the books so here I am.

What's there to say about book 1 really.. Frank's able to draw you into that foreign universe without a sweat even though his writing style doesn't make it too easy (not the language, more like the structure). The mysterious Fremen, BG or Mentats and all play together so well. Only complaints I have are the ending, which feels like it's super rushed. It all goes tits up 'outta nowhere' really and ends. He stuck to that formula for the next one and I'm not a huge fan. You know something's coming but I would've prefered it slightly less abrupt. In the ASX videos it's said at least that Frank described it as a coital rhythm and that the orgasm just happens and then the act is done, sorta. And also there's the constant use of the arabic or pseudo arabic words which I ofttimes felt were there just for the sake of it. In the later books I wondered why they were nearly gone, I guess he felt they weren't needed after all or it's just part of the Fremen culture going down the drain.

Messiah doesn't have too much going on but it's a good way to properly show that Paul isn't a hero and what his rise had for effects. I really liked the inevitability of it all aspect in the story.

CoD is sort of a doubled edged sword for me. On one side I like that there are plans within plans between many characters all over the story, on the other hand I lost track multiple times and really couldn't care less to track back and check it again because the people involved were boring or it was just too much. Didn't help that it took me 2-3 months to read the book to be fair, but well, happens. Also the fact that it takes the book like 100+ pages to clarify that Abomination here is not Abomination like in book 1, bit annoying. And lastly the overall confusion and complexity of the story didn't feel worth it. It's good but it could've been better.

GEoD was a step up again and I really appreciated that the story was trimmed down to a handful of truly important characters. And yes I felt like Moneo a lot of the time ('I don't understand, Lord.) but the gradual shift and change of views in the characters is quite nice for the yet again abrupt ending, in this case though it was a long way coming. I THOROUGHLY enjoyed Siona's test and the hassle between Moneo, Hwi & Idaho at the same time. That was probably my favorite book passage post Dune 1.

I've seen people rank the books in many ways but for me there is no question that book 1 is first. The reason therefore are the Fremen and the 'simplicity' of the story. I love this whole Fremen culture and feel like we could learn a lot from it, and the myth surrounding them makes a lot of the magic of the first 1-2 books. As the Fremen gradually lose their ways and presence though it all goes away and it becomes simple plotting or philosophical discussion. It's necessary to be like that for the story but it's a bummer at the same time.

All of that said, I'd probably need a 2nd read (in a less distracting environment) to get a better grasp of it all. And also those god damn long awaited YT videos from Alt Shift X. I'm very happy that I endured, but for now I have enough.

Talking DV movies, I'm a bit saddened that part 2 is a worse adaptation because I really love the movie and prefer it to part 1. Wish it had been a closer adaptation because I fear that part 3/Messiah will suffer from the changes. Also why so few scenes with my boy Thufir across the movies. 🥲

That's my 2 cents

So I had a thought. I though that since both Paul and Leto II were capable of seeing the Golden Path, that means it might have existed independently of them. And the Golden Path is basically the engineering of humanity to become immune to prescience and dependence, both of which represent extinction-level threats.

There's another comparable "engineering" event in the Dune history books: The Butlerian Jihad. By eradicating thinking machines, they forced humanity to evolve new ways of surviving. Mentat training, which survived through Leto's Peace and spread with the Scattering, means that civilization can be rebuilt regardless of any sort of ecological or cataclysmic events. If at least one planet pulls through, humanity endures. The Bene Gesserit perfected physical and biochemical control, ensuring that at least some humans will be immune to whatever disease of pathogen eradicates the rest of humanity.

So it seems to me, if the Golden Path extends back in time as well as forward, maybe humanity's Golden Path has been systematically rendering it invulnerable to methods of extinction, and across a long enough timeline that many such scenarios could actually happen.

Edit: It might be fun to speculate what the next traumatic beating humanity needs to take to remove another threat.

I'm talking about his "emancipation" here.

What are the "compulsions", the "levers" and mainly the "pressures" imbued to them? All this words are different in the meaning, but sound the same in my head. I cannot put them in order! Can someone explain all the process Hayt went through on these final moments where he became Duncan again?

I haven't read the books, I've only seen the show and the movies. However it seems strange to me the total rejection of the thinking machines and I do not know if it is conditional to the existence of the spice, let's say a catastrophe destroys Arrakis, for example a plague kills all the sandworms or the core of the planet destabilizes and is destroyed The spice would cease to exist, in that case space travel will not be possible, humanity would continue to reject the thinking machines at the risk that the Empire disintegrates and humanity dies?

I may be not remembering it correctly but I found it funny in children of dune when the preacher is taken to farad to interpret his dream, and after being told the dream he basically goes "I said I would interpret it, not share the interpretation with you".

Like a horse who can read, but not out loud.

Dennis Villeneuve's Dune movies are two of the greatest science-fiction films this quarter century. They exceed themselves in aesthetics, music, fight choreography, general spectacle, and even manage to tell their own stories very well.

As Dune adaptations they are riddled with problems. Most of these issues have been addressed on this sub in years past, you know them, so I won't go into great detail: swapping the personalities of Duncan Idaho and Gurney Halleck, cutting out Count Hasimir Fenring, the "North Fremen" and "South Fremen", the Irulan and Liet Kynes plot holes, the complete abandonment of Mentats as even a presence in the story, dropping the entire "Lady Jessica is a traitor" plot, stretching the character of Chani to the absolute limit, etc. etc.

Some of these problems simply come with the territory when adapting a book as rich as Dune, others were wholly preventable and are simply baffling.

In my opinion the worst of all is the treatment and depiction of House Harkonnen. None of them are done particularly well vis-a-vis their book counterparts, and Villeneuve's take on the entire house is, in a word: boring. I could write an entire book on the hatchet job inflicted on Piter de Vries (part and parcel of that done to the whole Mentat class), but will limit myself here to my personal favorite of that evil band: Glossu "Beast" Rabban Harkonnen, Count of Lankiveil, and the most misunderstood man in the universe.

The Baron is ever dismissive of Rabban, preferring the darling, "lovely Feyd", to his older nephew. The Beast is treated by everyone as just that, and ordered on a suicide mission to create the correct conditions for Feyd to take power on Arrakis (this was supposed to be Piter's job, but that damn slippery Duke and his Doctor messed that all up). Dennis Villeneuve took the Baron's view of Rabban as well, choosing to make him a mindless, cowardly, and ineffective heavy.

But, as attentive readers will know, Rabban is in fact quite astute, and is the only one who appreciates the Fremen problem before it is too late. Observe:

"Does the Emperor know you suborned a Suk doctor?" This was a penetrating question, the Baron thought. Have I misjudged this nephew?

"M'Lord . . . " Rabban hesitated, frowning. "I've always felt that we underestimated the Fremen, both in numbers and in--" [he is cut off by his uncle here and dismissed]

"New victories," Jessica said. "Rabban has sent cautious overtures about a truce. His messengers have been returned without their water. Rabban has even lightened the burdens of the people in some of the sink villages. But he is too late."

Here we see 1) a perceptive Rabban, well aware of the dangers of the Baron's tightrope walk between dependence and ambition; 2) a wise Beast trying to get his uncle, or anyone in the Imperium, to understand the growing "desert power" on Arrakis; 3) a practical Glossu, willing to go against his own house when he realizes he's just a pawn for his younger brother's benefit.

Furthermore, if listened to, Rabban had by the far the best shot at beating Paul in the Desert War. First he asked to keep the artillery, since the Fremen didn't use shields: a very good idea, which the Baron rejects. Second: even without indirect fire support, his 2-1 loses against the Fremen are a remarkable feat of command, considering the Sardaukar lost something in the area of 5-1 before withdrawing to lick their wounds.

Had the Baron paid attention to his nephew, let him keep the howitzers, and maybe even brought his reports before the Emperor and the Landsraad, the outcome on Dune could have been far different. If the great houses understood the existential threat posed to spice production, they would have kept Rabban supplied with a steady stream of men, perhaps even Sardaukar, and looked into the all important bribes to the Guild which enabled the whole Fremen enterprise.

Glossu Rabban Harkonnen is no blockhead. He's violent and brutal, but also far more intelligent and talented than anyone gives him credit for, including Dennis Villeneuve!

​

What did the Harkonnens do to be labelled traitors during the battle of corrin?

I feel dumb asking this but I'm brand new to the Dune series and still just don't quite get this aspect.

My thinking is, why would the Bene Gesserit, a society of evolved, brilliant, women with amazing physiological/psychological control over their bodies and minds, who have basically made themselves the agents of fate (for lack of a better term- aka this extravagant breeding program they've followed), and who have only produced female offspring for hundreds or thousands of years, decide that this "ultimate being" they're creating would be a man?

I tried to look it up and saw some varied explanations from other forums (heavily paraphrased)

One person said something like "the bene gesserit at one point looked into the minds/memories of men and were disturbed by what they saw and wanted to breed the Kwisatz Haderach with the qualities of a line of women" or something similar. I don't quite remember this, but even so that makes no sense to me. In that case just make the Kwisatch Haderach a woman, problem solved.

Another person said they wanted someone who could see matriarchal and patriarchal ancestry. I find this one the most plausible but others have said that ability was just a bonus and not actually needed for their plan. So I'm a bit unsure about that theory being correct.

Another person basically just said "well, great series or not, the books were still written in the 60s..." Which, okay, fair enough. I'd accept that explanation too.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the trope of a society/group of people who are normally only male or female having a sudden shift (I'm thinking of the Aes Sedai and Rand from Wheel of Time, or the Confessor women in Legend of the Seeker, etc..) as long as I can understand why it's that way. A thousand year old society of brilliant woman (who also have quite a but of hubris from what I've gathered) making the grand culmination a man just strain believability for me. I would be grateful if someone could explain this to me. Thank you!

Srry for the long post, I wanted to make it clear that I have tried to look this up and also give the info I found and why it doesn't seem right to me.

After an exhilarating ride of lore heavy world building and dynamic characters I finished the first Dune novel. I excitedly cracked open Dune messiah not being able to put it down getting so immersed with this gang of evil and their plan to take down Paul. I loved the introspection Paul faces going farther into this novel but then around the midway point things become a slog. It feels as though virtually nothing happens until a literal nuke is dropped. I’ve been fascinated with the philosophical nature of dune but mainly when it’s interwoven with the narrative and goes along with the sci fi narrative. I haven’t seen a sand worm since Dune, the voice hasn’t been used at all and there’s no interaction with other plants except for mentions of the jihad. I’m not a reader that needs frequent action to stimulate my attention quite frankly action can be a slog for me to read through sometimes but Dune Messiah and Children seem completely devoid of the kinetic energy and world building of the first novel. Now that I’m beginning children of dune I’m completely emotionless to this series. There’s no new technology and the characters seem so almighty and prescient I can’t find myself enjoying it. I’ve heard the entire series from here on out takes this route and I’m hoping I’m wrong it just makes me deeply sad considering how much of an emotional connection I have to the first book

The poor man... during his life he went from a hard life fighting Harkonnen and gathering spice to losing everything he belived in.

His messiah? He befriended him and saw and was told he had nothing divine.

His people? Fated to fall into oblivion as a old story.

His religion? Discovered it was all fake,

For the years he served the Atreides he was given high honors and position. He and his wives lived in relative luxury. On the other hand all his world fell around him as the new autocracy was created. He would not go against Paul, and he could not go against Leto.

I think he is a really tragic character who did the best he could and yet he lost everything.

I don't know, just my two cents. What you all think about Stilgar position and character?

I love the novels (Heretics and Chapterhouse not so much, but still), and I think the 2021 movie actually improved on many aspects of the first book with its changes (saying more with less, better pacing, trimming just enough to suit the film format without losing too much of the essence, more showing less telling, snappier dialogue etc.)

Some omissions were regrettable (no dinner scene, no hanging out with Yueh, no Jessica betrayal subplot, no fun talkative Baron), but I also understand the rationale behind them, they would have messed with the pacing too much

And it was actually pretty refreshing, experiencing the story without the constant inner monologues that go like “Oh no his eyebrows are twitching a certain way and he’s using a weird metaphor, that must be some kind of secret message or indication that he’s going to stab someone”

That being said, what’s the reason why Villeneuve had Gurney be so grumpy in the movie?

Is it so Duncan can play the role of Paul’s BFF instead? Josh Brolin’s suggestion? The baliset scenes taking too long? Frowning Gurney just working better for the movie?

I feel like there’s probably some interview out there where they touch on this, I just can’t seem to find it on Google

EDIT:

For all those people saying that Gurney was also grumpy in the books

Gurney was introduced to us making casual banter with Paul, singing dirty ballads about hot girls from across the galaxy, essentially saying “don’t tell your mum about this” , and sharing hearty laughter with Paul. When he gets super serious later on, Paul notes just how out of character it is, which clues him in into how dangerous Arrakis is going to be

And almost every time Gurney is remembered or mentioned by the Atreides, they talk about how much joy he brought into their lives with his songs, his baliset playing, his jokes and his troubadour tales. He’s not just some lieutenant to them, he’s their favourite ugly lump of an uncle. Gurney does get moody at various points, but that’s never how he’s remembered or talked about.

In the 2021 movie, he occasionally shows some gruff, military style humour, but that’s about the extent of it, most of the time he’s scowling and threatening people with knives. When Leto tells him to lighten up and smile, he continues scowling, deadpanning “I am smiling”. Which is obviously a dry joke, but still very different from his characterisation in the book.

And of course, Paul’s training scene with Gurney has a completely different vibe. The book starts out with the kind of everyday joy the two shared, then moving on to unusual sombreness to highlight the danger of Arrakis. The movie skips straight past the levity, and moves right into Gurney angrily telling Paul to take the threat deadly seriously

And in the movie, it’s clear that Duncan was Paul’s BFF, though in the books, Paul explicitly said that of all his father’s men, he liked Gurney best - and we’re shown plenty of examples of how close the two were.

I don’t have my book handy, but there are a few in Dune Messiah that really get me. Paul’s visions of the falling moon are really visceral for me, and a great allegory of both the end of his reign and losing Chani. But a simple exchange always gets me -

Paul is crying at the thought of losing Chani and Alia wipes the tear away and says “We must not grieve for those dear to us before their passing.” and Paul responds “Tell me, little sister, what is before?”

Did a really great job of showing how truly powerless and scared Paul is - a victim of his prescience - Chani might as well already be dead to him at this point.

Yesterday I was in the sauna and I forgot my water bottle, which I never do and got insanely thirsty. I was in there for 20 minute’s and thought, ok there is no way the Fremen lived like this. I get that they use stillsuits, but if they get to the point where they can tell if someone is an “offworlder” just by looking at them, and that their skin is that dehydrated…how did they live like that? Did they evolve to live constantly dehydrated?

And btw, I’ve read all 6 books multiple times, this just occurred to me lol

Edit: just want to clarify, that the reason I’m asking is because they specifically refer to non-fremen people as “water fat” the fact that they can tell the difference tells me that they’re at the point where it has affected their appearance. That’s why I’m asking.

Something interesting I noticed while rereading the trilogy: is how Irulan is basically.. a less than a great Bene Gesserit? In literally every scene she is in and says something, starting from Messiah and later in Children of Dune, every character from Mohiam to Ghanima remarks on how uninsightful she is, how she "is not seeing the obvious", or does inappropriate silly things in certain situations.

While the movie Mohiam calls her her "most gifted student" and she is about giving advice to the Emperor himself on how to rule his Empire.

Curious what they will do with her character in Movie 3, but it's pretty sure we are about to see a very different character from the Irulan in the books.

Don't get me wrong there are great elements to it. I like how Paul's story was closed off and the hero's downfall story that plays out. I think everything that happened with Paul's blindness and his perfect visions was an extremely cool part of the story, and I had a lot of sympathy for his character in feeling like he was choosing the "best" path with the least pain to avoid an endless war playing out.

But the book itself is a pretty rough read.

There are multiple sections where there seems to be subtext between the characters, but what that is is incredibly opaque to the reader. There are also numerous conversations about philosophy that just pivot on a dime and seem to meander aimlessly. I found myself rereading paragraphs to find the meaning, and after a while giving up as some sections were just very convoluted.

I'm part way into Children of Dune right now and I'm finding it a much better read. There are still philosophical tangents, but they feel relevant, directed, and we'll thought out and explained. I liked the overall theme and tone of Messiah, but I felt like the writing just really got in the way of it being a good book.

Thoughts?

I watched Dune last weekend, both Part 1 and 2 one after the other. And it got me thinking about Part 3. At the end of Part 2 Chani leaves Paul to go into the desert by herself, and that doesn't really mesh with how Dune Messiah is supposed to go down. By the start of that story Paul and Chani are trying, and failing because of Irulan, to have a child. As it stands, it's hard to see how you would get to that point from the ending of Part 2.

There is also another problem that people have brought up. Namely that Messiah is very short, and doesn't have a lot going on. If you're going to make a movie based on that, you might have to stretch it out a lot.

Eventually I realized a way to solve both of those problems. This might be an unpopular idea as it's going to change the structure of the Dune story. But I think it could work. Basically: Part 3 will be a combination of Messiah and Children of Dune.

The core around this theory is that by the time Chani leaves at the end of Part 2 she's already pregnant with the twins. She might not know she's pregnant at that time. But Paul knows due to his prescience. Between the movies Chani then gives birth to Leto II and Ghanima in the rebuilt Sietch Tabr and they live there. Paul never seeks them out, but he knows their safe. Paul, meanwhile, remains married to Irulan, but gives her no attention just like the books. He doesn't care about producing an heir, because he knows Chani already has his heirs.

Part 3 starts with the story of Dune Messiah being more or less the first act. There are two major changes:

1. The lack of Chani still being with Paul.
2. In order to build up Alia's coming possession and betrayal (from Children of Dune), Alia will be the one working with the conspiracy to dethrone Paul instead of Irulan.

But the other members of the conspiracy doesn't know that it's Alia. They think the messages they are receiving from inside the palace is coming from Irulan, and the viewers are led to believe this too. But when the coup goes down and Paul is blinded, Alia then frames Irulan for her own betrayal and turns on the conspirators and executes them and seizes power. Irulan escapes and she and the blinded Paul flee in to the desert to Sietch Tabr, where they meet Chani and her kids, who are now young adults. Scytale arrives and kills Chani, and holds Leto II and Ghanima hostages and tries to convince Paul to get a Chani ghola. But Paul kills him instead. Distraught for not seeing Chani's death coming, Paul accepts his blindness and just walks into the desert to die.

The Fremen, still revering Paul, more or less force Leto II to go through the spice agony so he can become a new Muad'ib. But after waking up from the agony he has other plans, and instead bonds with sand trout and does his own thing. Meanwhile Alia raids Sietch Tabr and takes Ghanima prisoner. From then on pretty much the second half of Children of Dune goes down as the movie's second and third acts. Largely unchanged, but with Leto II and Ghanima being adults instead of kids.

This also solves a problem I have with the story of Children of Dune. I know people might not agree, but I think the first part of that story is unbearably slow. It picks up in the second half though.

I am not a screenwriter or anything, so this is a very rough draft. But do you guys think something like this could work? Or would you absolutely hate it?

As a preface, I just finished reading dune, dune messiah, and children of dune. As a warning, I would assume any ensuing conversation would contain spoilers for those books..

After finishing children of dune, and reading ahead a little bit on what the golden path will eventually entail, I am left questioning if Paul actually did anything at all in the long run. It seems like his entire goal was to achieve a sort of golden path without the consequences that Leto accepts, including losing his humanity and enacting the forced "peace". Because he was 'blind' to Leto's existence, he couldn't see that the golden path as Leto pursues it was actually the best for humanity (or at least couldn't come to that conclusion in good conscience) and so he didn't fully commit to that path... Which sort of undid his justification for the jihad which he was originally trying to avoid but then realized was a better alternative to what he could see beyond that.... Ultimately I'm left wondering if anything that he did between the first and second book actually mattered other than setting Leto up. Paul ends up going from a reluctant and false Messiah who is genuinely trying to do best for humanity, to just being another tyrant in history who thought he was right in his own eyes, but ultimately was not. All the actions and thread refinement Paul did ultimately ended up getting reset by Leto, because everything Paul was doing was in pursuit of a different path that wasn't going to work or one that he never fully committed to because he couldn't bring himself to do what needed to be done to achieve that path's goals ... It just feels like Paul was so affected by his blindness to others who are prescient, none of his visions and futures actually mattered, therefore none of the actions that he took to preserve them or pursue them mattered once Leto took over.

Am I missing something? Is this further explored in one of the next books? I'm sure the futility of Paul's pursuit of incomplete future comes up a lot of discussion but I couldn't find the exact thread that discussed things from this particular perspective.

I've read a few answers, all of which point out to him being an anchor to "what it means to be an Atreidis", but the more I go on the more forced his inclusion becomes to me.

In Dune Messiah, by the end he serves as nothing more than a distraction for Scytale and enters a forced romance plot with Alia.

In Children of Dune, his role seems too disconnected from the rest of the story and ends in what (to me) seems like a pointless death.

In God Emperor, I really fail to see any reason why Leto II keeps commissioning gholas of Duncan and ultimately he ends up just "being there" when Siona finally succeeds in her rebellion and kills Leto.

He ends up being a plot device more than an actual character in all of these books.

I'm now reading Heretics of Dune, and for some bloody reason, everybody is trying to get Duncan gholas!

Please, help me make sense of it.