1786
Dunes vs Star Wars
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 May 2024
1786 points (99.2% liked)
Memes
45535 readers
324 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I would say Dune (at least the first book before it goes really fucking weird) has a sort of anti-colonial, indigenous(ish) peoples under occupation themes that Star Wars just isn't interested in exploring. With Star Wars it's basically just "There's an evil empire, okay that's enough, let's go" vibes to OG Star Wars. Like you don't have to pay attention to the political background blurb at the beginning that serves as pasting a veneer of political intrigue at all and the story basically makes sense. It's a War story, whether or not a Monarchy is involved barely matters. It could be "Ambassador Leia" and "President Palpatine" and basically nothing would functionally change. Empire requires no monarchs to function.
Dune does come across as "The Indigenous peoples of Dune hadn't a hope until this one random outsider self insert character showed up and joined their cause and was amazing at everything and was lifted up as saviour because vague prophecy seeded by generations of matriarchal Jedi (Bene Gesserit) manipulation reasons..." It's sympathetic to indigenous peoples in a vaguely problematic for a host of familiar reasons kind of way. Like the world building is great and all but I feel like you could swap Luke Skywalker and Paul Atreidies and end up with a generally better story on both counts.
I somewhat agree. The theme of indigenous-ness is critical and is nicely explored in Dune while Star Wars may have too grand stakes and had to simplify the fight to Good (value lives and give freedom) vs Evil (power for me is yummy).
It sounds like you've also read the next few books..
As you probably know, Dune was made to subvert the Chosen One trope. He's "self insert" with all the magical powers and strength and intelligence and prophecy but even that couldn't help him be a "Good" guy because of his perverted intentions (avenge his family and gain power to do what's "right"). Even the movie starts off with the good guys in White and bad guys in Black. Then things get Grayer as time passes.
But don't think you could swap the protagonists. Luke and Paul are completely different characters. But you've raised a fun hypothetical! Let's see...
Luke would be less ambitious than Paul. There were a few moment where both characters had the choice to go to the 'dark' side. Luke rejected the main? call (killing his father), Paul accepted the main call (during his first duel). Assuming both have equal strength and plot armor.. If you gave Luke the same Power as Paul (foresight), would Luke just choose to die than subject the indigenous people to centuries of war? Or do as Paul did and in his way, try "free" the indigenous people?
I still think that absolute power would corrupt absolutely and Luke would probably turn into Palpatine (as Paul and and [mild spoiler] God Emperor did) if his family was directly slaughtered in front of him and he was a little more emotional. We see some of that when Luke decided to leave training with Yoda and go save his precious ones. Foresight is an anxiety inducing power... If he could see into the future, would he have stayed and allow a few sacrifices for the Greater Good? We don't know.. but that same emotional reasoning would probably indicate Luke would probably do the same as Paul and sacrifice future lives for the Now.
It would also depend on what stage of his character arc Luke was plucked from and replaced with Paul. I might even argue that Paul(/or swapped Luke) never even had free will and was just doing things because his mother chose emotion over duty and kicked off this saga.
Happy to be corrected! This was fun.
I feel like that's a pretty well thought out theoretical! Will admit to still not having seen the new Dune movie so mostly going by the book.
I don't know if I explicitly ever read into Dune that particular "Dark Side" interpretation of the Duel before as since it is so solidly from Paul's perspective it seemed to be painted in terms of something nessisary to survive further and thus more like a morally neutral painted thing. A loss of innocence for sure but not nessisarily any more so than other fantasy protagonist who took the same sort of step of killing for the first time. He wasn't granted much autonomy to completely peaceful exit the situation by Jamis so his options were more or less try and kill or cement his one likely route to survival. With the "locking in fate" thing painting his choice to die in the duel rather than kill as maybe for the greater good for nebulous wibbly wobbly timey wimey reasons.
It almost felt to me since the books were so bloody weird with plot points shooting the moon (though after awhile more like jumping the shark in personal opinion) and the factor of such grand prescience weakened a lot of the moral picture of any grand themes of Paul becoming an absolute monster as he's got such a solid "greater good" he's working towards that doesn't really have theoreticals?
Like okay, Paul sees literally everything that will happen from the arrayed options so his demise is always placed as being stopping a series of dominoes from falling by plucking the first one to fall out of the lineup... but those grand losses are almost always impersonal. He at the same time is a human with human desires for personal safety for him and his loved ones which doesn't place him as nessisarily "bad" just kind of instinctively alive. The plot always frames this as ultimately selfish but really only from the perspective of having a complete and total knowledge of how everything single action is going to eventually play out. It's eclipsing human moral frameworks by this bizzare aspect of sizing it up to a Godlike scale. Paul can make a "good choice" as essentially a God working on that scale of knowledge or a "bad choice" as singular human with a bias towards survival. While an interesting hypothetical I think that removes him strictly from the territory as being at all relatable on a moral scale to a conventional ethical paradigm. Like for all Paul's prescience he is limited in his ability to affect the board state so a lot of what happens is painted as his fault because of a choice he makes but if you look at the choices made where he really sort of fucks the dog on a God-like scale it's generally for reasons which make him relatable as a person.
Absolute power corrupting absolutely or later themes that people really need to not think too collectively and not create cults stikes me as not being Paul's downside. He didn't ask for the power he has to be dropped into his lap and can never fully get ahead of the consequences of having that power so I don't think Paul is painted as being a complete subversion of being a self insert turned bad guy so much as being a " tragic hero Chosen One" just being a hell on earth situation that he needs to weather with highs and personal lows. The framing sort of struck me as a fairly typical compounding trauma storyline where all the terrible things that happen to him make him more "heroic".
This is all sort of personal opinion though. I feel like I don't exactly love the Dune universe. My reading of them was largely because while I was staying in Japanese guesthouses I tended to read whatever English novels were left behind by previous occupants.
Dang you've made me reconsider a few things. You're right in that Dune is not subverting the Chosen One but more the Foreign Messiah trope. And also the fact that the Paul's arc is shown as tragic than a decent into Evil. Having Power didn't necessarily make him Evil but that depends on who you ask.
(I also love your phrases. "Wibbly wobbly..โ and fucking the dog...)
I do see your point of the lack of free will removing any morality conundrum off Paul. Depending on the scale of foresight (next week, next 10 years, next few centuries), the weight of each decision flips on its head. E.g. killing millions of sandpeople is bad on a small scale.. but super necessary when the entire human race is on the line. The more books you read, the more it feels that Herbert 'retcons' everything. The only insight into Paul's character and his decisions have to be judged before he went all Godlike (pre drinking Water of Life).
My introduction to Dune isn't as cool as yours as I mostly audiobooked so it's hazy. Maybe not with Jamis but potentially with Fade Rautha, he was faced with a Choice. With fight against Jamis for example, Paul knew he could most probably win so his actions were chosen. I brought the Dark Side theme (and conversely the Good) into this since the Taoist philosophy of the Force is quite sympathetic to the message of "understand your role is on a cosmic scale and please try not to have ego". Luke, if he was a Yoda level Jedi, may not have made same Choice as Paul (assuming Paul could only see glimpses into small future at this stage). He would have simply be struck down as Obi Wan had done? If we give Luke prescience, then yeah, he'll probably do as Paul does and try for the Greater Good.
True test of character is when you have incomplete information and then are judged by your intent.. and there are only a handful of moments where Paul consciously pushes the dominoes available to him. Paul is shown, in those few moment of actual agency, to make the Choice towards survival, revenge and Ego (one of which in my head can classify him as somewhat Evil on my scale, but different on yours since survival+family is a relatable and human trait). Whether he could glimpse 1Million years into future or 10 years, that's up to debate. Extrapolations on incomplete information is dangerous.. But he chose to consciously trust it. Surprise surprise, it was the bestest decision in the universe! Luke is shown as well meaning Good and, if in Paul's shoes, therefore would push the dominoes that favor immediate bonds and choosing the Right thing (not killing Palpatine when he had the chance for example?). Surprise surprise, it would be the bestest decision in the universe.
Yep, throwing in foresight completely allows Paul to sidestep ethics. And cue years of trolley problems. We don't have counter factuals and just have to play along with Herbert's word which as you said, jumps many sharks and takes plenty of narrative shortcuts.
My entire argument hinges on this assumption: prescience, as depicted in the books was not a 100% Omniscience. More like hallucinogenic coffee where your previous knowledge and biases affect the path of extrapolation. When Paul gets generations of Matriarch knowledge, he can extrapolate better and further. Before that, he's somewhat relatable and makes choices which can be looked at as self serving. Luke would have done the same.. Yoda may not have due to his trust in the Force.
(Sorry for the length. Thank you for engaging)
I dunno if it's nessisarily subverting the Foreign messiah trope either particularly.
In parable there's a lot of overlap with the white messionic saviour trope just the indigenous peoples are obscured by sci-fi. The Fremen are depicted sort of as braves of the "noble savage" variety having an innate connection to the land in the form of their connections to sandworms, walking without rhythm etc and are visually othered blue by spice. Paul learns things about himself by their adoption and ultimately rises up through their ranks to lead them, takes a concubine in their ranks who represents his "love" but ultimately marries and legitimizes his connection to an offworld Princess. The Muslim/Islamic coding doesn't particularly help matters. The whole Sandworm thing is coded to bring to mind oil drilling. Uplifting the Fremen society is also not without consequence - doing so is destined to perpetuate a massive out of control religiously motivated slaughter across the universe... Which is not so great. Smacks a little of replacement narratives which puts emancipation always at someone's expense of being just replaced on a heirachy. Even the names Atraidies is Greek coded and Harkonnen is ripped from Finnish making the houses kind of White coded, particularly since the whole "Western Civilization" thing is often coded as the legacy of the Greeks and Romans (its part of why important government buildings basically are built to resemble faux Greek temples).
Paul also gets his powers basically from a Eugenics based breeding program which more or less legitimizes that process.
So while many look at Dune as a subversion of colonial tropes the framework that paints Paul as a devisive figure also sort of hinges on this idea of him being a good spirited race traitor who manages to become more Fremen than the Fremen whose fall from grace inevitably sparks the downfall and replacement of the (Western coded) civilization he comes from killing billions...
I recognize generally the instinct is to go with the kindest spirited read about these things which I can't slam anyone for. I don't think good faith readings aren't nessisarily a moral failure, it's human to want to extend the benefit of the doubt, it's just critique is evolving to see things more pluristically. People like what they like and this particular author isn't exactly reaping any benefits of influence, he died almost 40 years ago. People are gunna reintegrate his work to try and adapt it to modern attitudes just like they do with things like Tarzan, Lovecraft and Dances with Wolves. There is however a kernel of supremacy in the work, unwittingly placed or not (I haven't looked into the personal deets of the author's beliefs and maybe it's better that way) that is a product of the compounding and normalization of other like works that we are growing up to see weren't particularly good for everyone.
Maybe however my particularly harsh read is an extrapolation of my own background. I am a West Coast Canadian. We are encouraging ourselves as a society to have a really hard think about indigenous affairs and attitudes. Like its pretty normal where I am for all events, meetings and performances to be preceeded by a Land Acknowledgement and a lot of my friends in acedemia and the arts world are actively trying to fully subvert, credit or recognize and append this stuff so we can start dismantling the structures we're all unwittingly complicit in. I have buddies from the States who are pretty leftist who are just entirely mystified by the depth and breadth of the process. Yet I am no angel. I love the Anno series of video games which very uncritically depicts a very sanitized version European expansion and capitalist Empire. I watch and enjoy anime that routinely has aspects which are often ridiculously sexist in treating women more like beloved pets than people. I think Miyazaki was right about anime while still enjoying the fruits of that industry. So I am not gunna say "We should spurn Dune once and for all!" but like... I also think we can learn from it and not let it entirely off the hook.
Trying to summarize your treatise, please correct if mistaken..
You're saying that Dune doesn't subvert the foreign Messiah due to the fact that Paul isn't shown to be wrong. As discussed above, for plot reasons and due to prescience. He represents a different face of Western colonial expansion and since a hierarchical undercurrent is always present, the subversion doesn't really happen.
Ugh, I agree. At least for his arc, it is shown to be a heavy burden but a necessary evil. It does propagate the idea "sometimes you just need to hand all power to one man who knows more than you". My bad.. I realize I may have been confusing the book and Villeneuve's portrayal of Paul (hope you do get to see it one day!).
For my education (as I am curious to hear you're thoughts [if you'll humor me but no pressure]), I will try to push the "benefit of doubt" narrative and still try to justify Herbert a bit in regards to the pluralistic viewpoints you've laid out.
I get what you mean by seeing the broader context. The Fremen are shown to have a fluid government, more democratic than the Empire. They have more connection to the land, understand their shared history, value of life, value of resources and balance. I'm imagining a rosy native tribe close to nature, drugs and shit. Paul goes there, learns how they live, somewhat adopts their values and is free from the matrix.
If Paul is shown as narratively perfect, then the 'indigenous' views he carries are also weighed higher than the Imperial mindset. Yes nothing may have changed since the Fremen slotted into a hierarchical structure and paid for it, I think still Herbert acknowledged that indigenous views were 'better'. A 'civilized' white man didn't teach them a better way of living, instead he was corrupted to their way of thinking and worked with them to defeat the Empire.
As to wielding power and somewhat adopting a hierarchical mindset, I naively believe that intentions matter. In Paul's example, he had the bestest of intentions. If there was no war, I think he would happily abdicate power, fulfill the dreams of the Fremen by giving them a healthy ecosystem and go live with his love (I would sidebar argue he actually loved Chaini and kept the princess as his concubine). I know power corrupts but what could he do other than fight for what he believed in.. I know it's all on trust and faith and lovey dovey stuff.
In your case, you acknowledge structures you're complicit in and with what power you have, you are trying to nobly change for better. Yes wielding power can be done "humanely" by asking for permissions and consulting everyone before making decisions etc.. but in times of urgency/high stakes, autocracy with a philosopher king/Jedi Master/Omniscient Paul is generally preferred. People who may try to fight you/Paul, probably do not want to pay the price of emancipation/equality. How else are we supposed to enact change other than using our power over others?
I don't really have the issue of using power over others. At some level Hierarchy is efficient which is why a lot of Democratic structures have in built heirachy to address speedy action...
But there's more nuance in what's going on in Dune. Fremen are kind of Bedouin / Islamic / Haudenosaunee confederation coded. On the one hand you have the tropes around the Confederacy, fierce warrior culture, connecting to the land, noble Democratic society and then you have the Islamic religious belief system represented in the cult of Paul basically becoming something analogous to the Prophet Muhammad. Both of the cultural trope bodies come from places that have dealt with Colonial occupation. There are aspects we are meant to see as noble and admirable. We see through Paul's eyes as he witnesses injustices and gains an appreciation of the culture which adopts him. There is a long history in the west of Romantization of indigenous peoples. Benevolent racism is still racism though. We follow Paul so we see as he does but the narrative framework doesn't always match what Paul does. His ability to understand the grand weight of his actions puts him beyond normal human senses of scope. When he behaves in ways based on personal sentimentality Prescience essentially pops up in the corner of the screen and says "The world will Remember this."
The frame always pops back up to tell us that by sympathizing Paul is going to cause a massive war. He is the fulcrum which the universe balances on and it is his choice whether he causes a massacre of incredible proportions. He's coded as morally principled- A good man maybe but also the narritive paints weak, unable and unwilling to stop the rising tide because his alliegences are ultimately to the indigenous peoples. He cannot get ahead of the war because the people beneath him of that indigenous culture will never be satisfied with peaceful emancipation but enact instead a holy war. Others must suffer for the Fremen of Dune to be self determining. The deaths of billions rests on the nessisary exploitation of Dune's spice resources the same way the world relies on oil. The deaths of billions is always cast as the inevitable consequence which is the main problem I think.
Take this back to it's roots and you see some of the regular pushback you see against civil rights movements. The idea that people fighting for rights or emancipation are instead just looking to turn around and subjugate others. That it must enevitably come down to a war where someone replaces the old form of subjugation with a new format. The jihad is this idea codified. Paul's actions are often framed as ultimately bad in the story but he fills the role of the person both enchanted by and betrayed by romanitic exotisism.
The story seems to be of someone who sympathizes with indigenous plight but also legitimizes the need for it. Paul is a tragic figure because he is given no third option. The story isn't interested in exploring any positive potential outcomes. It's a seesaw where the pain always lands on someone not in reasonable concessions but all or nothing battles. This is where the idea of Dune being an anti-colonization narrative starts to get very shakey.
I don't know if this was a struggle internal to the author that he was working through in real time as he wrote it, , if we are supposed to see the points of both Paul and the Framework as legitimate or if we are ultimately supposed to conclude that Paul was ultimately misguided... Of those two options both are problematic in multiple ways. In the Framework and Paul are right model you have essentially "what's done is done" Colonial apologism. If Paul is ultimately supposed to misguided by sentiment that's basically the plot saying "Do not sympathize it will only lead to the bad stuff happening". The Fremen can never be stopped from worshipping Paul as saviour and moral guide and the resulting massacre is his reward.
This narrative ignores the idea there are a range of different potential options to deconstructed colonization which are based on different peaceful reconciliation measures that are admittedly less narratively interesting than a winner takes all war. These are based on the appeals to seeing pluralist takes where compromise and actual respect is the work of non-romantic empathy. Different places are currently handling it differently...but that's not really what Dune seems to consider. It's structured so that at all times you know as a reader for certain that Paul's actions and particularly his bleeding heart sentiments will cause death on a scale far beyond Arrakis. It seems mired with ruminations more in line with Utilitarian ethics trolley problem situations which paints Paul as an ultimately divisive figure. The main issue is that it's using themes of indigenous emancipation to ask these questions which have fairly direct and poorly concealed real world counterparts. Precience exists to force the framework as emancipation as only choosing who is ultimately the worthiest of violence or what is ultimately worth sacrificing because of personal sentimental attachments.
You've helped me stretch my benefit of doubt to more than I expected. You hit on a crucial point that there was never a third option meaningfully explored. Think it's the problem of increasing the stakes so much, in that every people's opinions and ideas are taken to their extreme.
Regarding your moral struggle dichotomy, I'm more inclined to think that Paul being misguided since there is an acknowledgement that all of this is utterly chaotic and Rationality isn't as prevalent as one expects. Other than a few key decisions, evening falls into making the lesser of two evils based on naturally biased reasoning. No one is perfect and this is what happens when errors in belief aggregate to galactic levels. But as you say, it has quite a few moral implications and problematic in its own way.
Right. I think I've taken too much of your time and should cap this discussion before you end up writing a novel. Haven't had this much fun in a long time and I appreciate your engagement. You have a certain clarity of thought which is enviable.
Thank you Drivebyhaiku! Here's my attempt at a summary haiku:
Do not judge humans,
for you will always suffer.
Foresight makes it worse.
I mean I am having a blast writing a novel here. This has been one of the funnest interactions I have had on one of these platforms in years. I came from a family that couldn't afford to put me through a philosophy or literature based degree and had to be more practical about vocational training for the job that would feel more fulfilling because I didn't want a job in acedemia. I have way too much ADHD for that. Still I imbibe to a god awful number of podcasts and books on the subject and pick the brains of my buddies who did go to school mercilessly. My sibling actually wrote their dissertation for their Masters on dystopias in science fiction and became a librarian and got a lot of benefit telling me about the major points as a way to codify their own understanding. It has been requested that if they ever display a desire to go for their PHD that I should smack them... But I secretly hope they do.
I love Dune particularly as an example because it's got a lot all of these weird neat sticky points that intersect with the field of indigenous philosophy and unpacking colonialism which has become a personal interest. I would shake your hand if I could button masher. This has been a good time!
My circumstances were similar in that I studied engineering in order to have a "useful" career. Only when I got working, I realize how important the reading comprehension and philosophy actually is. I can't even imagine, like in the case of your sibling, that institutions would encourage mental dissection of such "silly fantasy stuff". Quite lucky.
Yeah I don't get how Herbert managed to construct this in his head. Everything from the Butlerian jihad to the shenanigans in God Emperor is still (in it's twisted way) relevant to our times.
I'm annoyed I can't follow people on Lemmy but don't worry, I'll try stalking you on the Internet just asking hear your thoughts on other things ๐ I may IM you for some podcast recommendations if you're willing to share. This was fun.
And good luck with your political work ๐ Enacting change in any form is an uphill battle so fair play even getting in the arena.
Same!
I think I am hardly a mover and shaker politically aside from showing up to town councils a few times a year and doing some union safety and advocacy stuff and occasionally hyping Raven Trust. It's a weird place to be because with indigenous issues you want to be kind of tasked with something to do or at least have a signoff that what you are doing is helping but if you don't belong to those groups you really don't want to recommend any courses of action? I mostly do a lot more LGBTQIA+ related stuff because that is my wheelhouse. A couple buddies of mine are way more personally impactful in their work regarding Indigenous advocacy because they operate inside more exclusive power strucrures. I think I am kind of the layabout.
I think one of the most nerve wracking things on the indigenous front I ever did was run a D&D one shot for the former National Chief of Canada. Like I have done a lot of thinking on the implicit colonialist history of the game and the implicit bias wherein that reinforce that mindset through mechanics... But it's one thing to know that intellectually and another one entirely to pick through your homebrew materials with a fine tooth comb looking for fault.
I also feel like there is no silly in acedemia. Stories tell us a lot about a culture and picking things apart can tell us a lot about psychology, culture or philosophy. Like RPGs they have mechanics that inform the tale though everyone interprets those mechanics differently and sometimes they aren't really there to "say" anything. Sometimes there is no moral of the story you're just being invited to have fun. Like Star Wars I think is one of those. Like the Jedi give the veneer of mysticism but I don't think their internal logic is meant to be extrapolated out to be the author's world veiw. I think they are basically just a warrior stoic fantasy... But there are thousands of acedemic papers on Star Wars. Every student who goes through the system is there to demonstrate they can think and dissect thought using the current methodology. It creates a body of convention which then they might use to pointed effect in their own work one day. The process refines and changes the process which in turn alters the process and the cycle goes on. It's fascinating.
If you are into podcasts I might recommend "Revisionist History" "Invisabilia" "Radiolab" and the like for wonky dives into minutia and seeing stories from interesting angles. On YouTube I recommend the trans philosophy suite of Philosophy Tube, Shanspere, Kat Blaque and Alexander Aliva, the history and lit stuff with Crash Course, Extra History, Kaz Rowe, J Draper... I wish I had more indigenous forward stuff to offer but I tend to get a lot of that through books or personal connections willing to talk shop. The book "The Red Deal" was pretty evocative but also at odds with a lot of the things that we tend to have going on with local efforts. The books deal with efforts to make society at large run less on a western colonialist mindset but through a more combative nature. Like you can lock horns with the government as the book more suggests ... Or you can just change the dominant culture at ground level to normalize forms of reconciliation and restorative justice and work inside those systems indiginizing and hybridizing the structures. Like there's surprisingly little stopping my union department meetings or say public library management from adopting a restorative justice circle model for arbitration. Anyhow I hope that list of things has some fun stuff on it for you!
Doesn't the story portray Paul Atreidies' messianic rise as a bad, albeit opportunistic move? I only watched the new films, but it did not feel like we were supposed to think it was a good thing.
In the books, the role of the Atreides family was not to be the good guy but the necessary evil to reach the final step of saving humanity. Even Paul can't stand his own role in the story.
I actually fucking loved Chalamets performance in the new movies because I felt his anger and resentment when he finally submits to fulfilling the prophecy and becoming the savior figure
It's complicated. Paul isn't really a good guy, but he's not really a bad guy either. He's just a dude. He's a dude who has limited vision into the future from which he cannot escape. He's not using his future vision to pick the bad choices he's trying to pick the best ones he can and the hand he's dealt kinda just sucks.
Not so much opportunistic but unavoidable. He's a slave to the powers surrounding him, and the more real-world power he attains the less choice he has in how to wield it.
The real gut-punchers of how his station is betraying Paul's actually and genuinely good character are going to come in the second book, that is, subsequent movies.
And, yes, Paul, the Atreides in general, are good people. Noble, honourable, just, wise, kind, upright, everything, to a fault. Which is the only way to tear down the Messiah archetype, the Messiah has to fail despite their virtues, the failure has to be dictated on them by the universe, in a way that's not incidental but an unescapable truth about how the universe works. Or at least humanity.
I only read the books so the movie may have course corrected somewhat to make that clearer. I feel like in the books it was a little bit like greek tragedy but Paul gets the "shades of grey" treatment for much longer than he deserves.
I have to admit a bias though that since the books kind of go off the rails pretty quickly I tend to prefer to look at Dune as a stand alone work strictly from an enjoyment standpoint.
I'd say Paul's rise is portrayed as a mixed event throughout the books that depends on the perspective of different factions and what time period you view it from, but overall the main characters see it as good as the end of the first book. The movie doesn't try to explain many of the details that didn't fit into it's cinematic storytelling style (you get almost none of Paul's thoughts and struggles) so there is a lot of clarity that can be provided by the book. I think the movie left less of a sense of his ascension being motivated by good intentions (and magical foresight/inescapable destiny) than the book did, so it's a less optimistic ending.
The Fremen saw it as a good/liberating event and Paul as a true member of their tribe, and he genuinely seems to internalize that into his sense of self. (From the reader's perspective, this is disregarding the white savior bias of the book that the comment before yours alluded to. Paul is a colonizer who is sympathetic to the natives and helps them lift themselves up in ways the book implies couldn't have been done without his help). Overthrowing the Harkonnens and the Emperor's forces leaves the Fremen and moreso Paul in an overwhelmingly powerful position as Arrakis is the only planet able to produce spice at the time.
This is juxtaposed with the view of the nobles, the spacer's guild, and the populations of other planets that is explored in later books. Fast space travel is only possible due to the effects of spice that allow the navigators of the space guild to see short distances into the future to avoid collisions, etc in space travel. Control of the key to space travel grants the Fremen immense political and economic power, but also puts them at odds with the rest of the empire who are reliant upon the spice.
One aspect the movie didn't explain well is that the Fremen were not motivated by gaining the political and economic power of spice, but instead envisioned an Arrakis that was no longer a wasteland. They developed plans to terraform the planet to make it more hospitable and liberation allowed them that opportunity. On the flip side, spice is produced by the worms, but water is toxic to the worms (the scene with the worm dying in water isn't just from it drowning), so if they are able to accomplish this goal, spice production will be eradicated, affecting space travel everywhere.
I don't want to spoil the story after the first book because I believe they will explore it further in the movies. Ultimately, the first book is a story of liberation as well as a coming-of-age story for Paul and the outcome is generally seen as positive by the majority of the characters you get the perspective of. The ones who are opposed are portrayed as grotesque embodiments of evil, like the baron Harkonnen (the movie was too nice to him and cut out the pedophilia, though it kept some of his sadistic and cruel tendencies).
Whether your views of the events of the first book will hold up over time might depend on the events that happen next in the series. There is fallout from everything that happens in Dune as it's very much a story focused on political machinations. Something that is good or bad may turn out to have consequences with the opposite effect down the line.
Lots of contextual details were left out of the movie as well as a lot of the character building, so I suggest reading it if you are interested. The first 100 pages are tough to get through, but then it goes smoothly. For example, the lack of detail in the movie makes Chani and Stilgar feel fragile and insecure rather than resolute and pillars of strength/growth for Paul, Jessica sees less focus and you get little exposure to her thoughts, there is a miniscule amount of light shed on Paul's thoughts throughout the movie, so he comes off as callous in the movie while he is far more empathetic in the book.
Rebels did that pretty well. Andor is digging into it too.
Oh damn really good point. I was thinking the same as OP until your comment. Rebels definitely dove into this aspect in a very similar way like the Fremen. Andor hinted at it as well. Both explore what life is like for the everyday inhabitants of the galaxy, which is why they're so cool.
Although Dune was certainly more deliberate with making the indigenous people rising as a core part of the main story. Haha the Jihad was also a significantly different response than the Rebellion though.
Dune has the sub-theme of tough conditions create tough people. The sand people were just waiting for the right spark.
I mean yes, but that's a bit of a surface level read and I would argue more of a trope than a theme. Like there's a lot of fantasy where there is a scarcity based culture that makes for skilled people with very survival forward approaches to things normally governed by sentimental attachments that paint kindness as a privilege of those with resources to spare...
Those conditions in fictional tropes pre 1960's were just more often than not just temporary generational stuff. Famine, war, extreme poverty and so on were popular places to draw touch characters from but the sci-fi boom just elaborated it into death worlds where things are always horrible as a matter of a more overarching environmental nature. People have otherwise been on their box about the effects of soft living on moral character since as long as the written word has existed.
If by surface level read you mean reading what the author wrote, then I agree. I think in this case, what the reader brings to the story is most important. I have training as a biologist so, survival of the fittest is right in my arena.
It is what the author wrote but it's basically like saying Winnie the Pooh has themes of childhood innocence... Yes. It does, sure, but would you bother writing an essay on it? Deeper reads of the text give you a lot more subtext. Like for instance how the plight of the Fremen and the spice trades mirror the political situations in the Midde East, Atraidies and Harkonnen are rips of Greek and Finnish names with many of the main offworld characters having Biblical (Hebrew or Roman) names while Fremen are specifically sort of coded as Bedouin /Islamic Zen Buddhist mashups and sometimes they straight up speak Arabic. So the offworld Empire gets kind of "Western Civilization" coded and the desire for emancipation is taken over by an inevitable religious fanatism caused by essentially an offworld sympathizer who is the result of hundreds of years of Eugenics becoming a messiah figure basically being a better indigenous people then the indigenous people who are ultimately pawns in a female lead conspiracy that fucked up because of one woman's choice to have actual reproductive autonomy...
Dune's got a lot subtextually going on worth talking about but "Tough conditions tough people" isn't what I find interesting about the story. I get that from a lot of places so it doesn't feel particularly unique or special to the story.