I had a dim memory of reading this book. Like I’ve said in some of my recent posts, I have read the first 3 books at least twice but the second 3 only once. I had a vague memory of the major plot and what happened at the end, which was confirmed when I accidentally wikipedia-spoiled the ending for myself. In this post I want to focus on 2 things: foreshadowing, and homophobia.
Quick summary: this book takes place approximately 3500 years after the third, where Leto II enclosed himself with sand trout that interacted with is spice overdose blood to form a protective barrier. Now, in the present day, Dune is no longer a desert. The Fremen plan, begun by Keynes, has completed, and Arrakis is now a lush world. The spice is carefully hoarded, safeguarded, the Bene Geserit and the Guild Navigators fight for control. The Tleilaxu have continued their experimentation with ”forbidden” technology and have been producing Duncan Idaho gholas for the Emperor.
Let’s handle the craft first. Since I knew the ending, I was prepared for it, and my god, he really gives it away throughout the book doesn’t he. Almost every chapter involving the Emperor Leto II has him interacting with water in some way or other. We know from the previous books that the life cycle of the sandworm has the sand trout first, who encase and encapsulate water wherever they find it, as it is deadly toxic to the worms. Once the land is dry, a trout can metamorphosize into a worm, and when the worm dies, it creates a prespice mass that converts to spice at the surface. The Fremen would kill little worms with water, creating the water of life for their rituals. Every aspect of this life cycle is shown in one way or another by the God Emperor as he finalizes /his/ breeding program. He talks about his own upcoming death in ways that are subtle if you don’t know the ending, and obvious if you do. This is masterful craft and since this is only my second read (I think), I really noticed it.
Lets turn to homophobia. This was certainly present in the original Dune, where the Harkonnens were portrayed as obese, and as homosexuals: two personified characteristics of evil in one body. Not ok, on both fronts; wouldn’t fly today. Shouldn’t fly today. The portrayal of homosexuality in this fourth book is, at first glance, very similar, though not as prevalent. However, I think upon further reflection that the book shows the growth of Herbert as a person, and of our society, moving from the 60s to the 80s. A big part of this book is the portrayal of soldiers through history. Leto II has ancient memories going back to the Greeks and before. Most armies on Earth have been male dominated, and in order to show the change, Herbert has Leto II use female armies in his society. There is one section about 2/3 of the way through the book where Leto and Duncan are discussing warmaking, and how armies of old (in other words here on Earth) are all male, and they have repressed sexuality so they can transform that desire into killing. That section was a little hard to read at first, but the more I thought about it, the more it rang true. And I don’t think that Herbert is saying homosexuality is bad in this passage; it is described more as a tool of war (one of several) and control of soldiers by the elite. Like today, where the ones who fight are not the ones who decide to fight. There is certainly a lot of homoeroticism in war films (Top Gun, anyone?) and Herbert is claiming that the sublimation of this pent up sexual desire leads to better warmaking. Let me note that a quick google search found several who vehemently disagree with my claim, and ascribe anti-gay and even anti-soldier to this passage. Let me also note that I was not in the military and I have no real direct contact with people in the military. Also, Leto/Herbert is plucking a generality of war leadership and showing it with homosexuality, and also with other factors of control of the pawns.
That being said, I think my claim is further supported with another conversation later in the book between Moneo (Letos right hand) and Duncan. Duncan has just stormed down the hall of the female soldiers and has seen a pair (or multiple pairs) of women having sexual relations. Moneo tells Duncan, basically, to get over it and accept it because it is normal and natural Here, Duncan represents the past, the society he grew up in, 3500 years ago, while Moneo represents the present, the future with more accepting practices. I think this shows the growth (at least somewhat) of either Herbert, or our society.
Do I think this book is a celebration of homosexuality? No. Can it be read as anti-gay? Absolutely. However, I think a deeper read is warranted and the evidence is there to support growth of the society and its mores through the centuries.
I will close this blog post by saying that another quick google search found that this is perhaps the most hated of the Dune books. The first trilogy is a complete story (that doesn’t finish) while this is the first in a new trilogy (well, quartology… or quintology depending on how you count the books written by Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson post Chapterhouse). There was not a lot /really/ happening in this book. It was a character study of an emperor nearing the end of his self-imposed reign and exile from humanity. But it showed the end of the Golden path, the path that Paul feared to tread, and it set up the no-spaces and Siona, his descendant who is invisible to him. I remember that this is the general arc of the next two books, which I am starting… right now.