I suspect that Tolkien as a deeply spiritual and religious person was appalled by Herbert’s profound cynicism with regard to religion in Dune, treating it as nothing more than a way of manipulating and controlling the masses. Although there is no trace of any formal religion in Tolkien’s world it is “charged with the grandeur of God” as Hopkins would have it.
@@sebastianevangelista4921 There certainly are worse ways it could have gone tho. A religiously zealous route instead of the hopeful optimism trying to redeem even the worst. I think that's a nice message regardless of one's spirituality.
@@sebastianevangelista4921Yes Herbert is very cynical about religion. There are two forms of religion in Dune. There is the Zensunni faith, which is clearly a Muslim sect modified by Buddhist influences. This religion has clearly been deliberately twisted for selfish reasons by the Bene Gesserit propaganda branch, who injected a prophecy about A mythical Mahdi and his Bene Gesserit mother Then there is the faith followed by the most of the Galaxy, as expressed by the Orange Catholic Bible. This religion is not really explained in any of the Dune books except for the tenet that the human mind is sacred and that any device that attempts to duplicate it or its functions is a blasphemy and strictly forbidden. Apparently modifying the human mind to duplicate the functions of a computer is perfectly all right. I can see why a devout Catholic like Tolkien would be repelled by both of these "religions" where God and his love appear to be totally absent. Dune is not fantasy. It is purely science fiction. There is no magic, no wonder, and the battle of good vs evil is entirely lacking. The Atreides use kindness to insure the loyalty of their followers just as the Harkonnens use cruelty to insure the obedience of theirs. Both are only too willing to expend any or all of their followers in the struggle for power. It is a fascinating world, but one which Tolkien would despise as godless and morally barren.
Is Dune really cynical, though? It's certainly very serious and not really optimistic, but it doesn't feel cynical to me, the way something like Warhammer 40k is.
i liked dune, until i found out what the writer of it was and his ending to the tale. basically space jews fly off into the galaxy to start a new civilization after leto reigns as the worm god. its f'ing cringe and the whole story is kinda lame and full of communist, woke nods even for its time. its not a good story.
Herbert wasn't cynical. He was pragmatic. People tend to wildly oversimplify his ideas based on one little snippet of a quote without context. For example, I've always heard this idea that Paul is not a Hero, yet Herbert has says, "It’s my contention that the difference between a hero and an anti-hero is where you stop the story." It's easier to say "so and so is this or that" but Herbert wrote with conscious nuance designed to generate ideas in the reader's own imagination, which is why Dune Messiah was such a divisive response to the first book. It blatantly called into question the hero-worship of Paul without outright invalidating it, but also presented more challenges to those who saw Paul as a villain to begin with. Herbert's greatest triumph was the intentional ambiguity embedded in his critique, because critique is exploration, not explicit condemnation.
The ironic thing is that JRR Tolkien once considered the idea of a LOTR sequel set in the Age of Man 200 years later, but decided against it because any sequel set in the Age of Man would have to be very dark. So he understood this, but he chose to avoid it.
You say oversimplified and I agree yet also strongly disagree as plenty of readers vastly overanalyze much of dune as well. While we do know much of FH’s ideology and beliefs, I’m not so sure how much of it was placed in the story directly or just bled out of him indirectly into it. I think his pragmatic and realist mind simply thought these set of cultural and historical circumstances fit his universe best. Sure he explored ideas and beliefs but I think ultimately the lesson was secondary to the journey.
Love the angle! Yes, J.R.R. Tolkien was very particular, and spiritually minded. However, he was a huge fan of trees! In Dune, there are no trees! How can one write a fantasy without the beauty of trees? I'm sure that was it.
Tolkien was correct in saying that he could not be a good critic as a competitor, and that was not his role or place. That was truly the best take, because he knew he would be unfairly biased.
I think that the competitor reason is a polite excuse. They obviously had vastly different philosophies and I think Tolkien didn’t want to go there. I think competitors are often the ones who appreciate each others skills the most. I think that breaks down in this case because the skill in question is putting each of their personal philosophies into a book. That’s just my personal take on it.
@@TylerWardhaha It wouldn't have mattered what he'd argued, people would have said he was just slandering a rival. He was in the wrong position to criticize.
@@Lilliathipresupposing that others wouldn’t bother to hear his reasoning but rather dismiss it outright seems a strong assumption to me. Obviously there are people who are biased and won’t hear an argument out, but assuming those are the people Tolkien is worried reacting seems a bit of a stretch. Due to his position as an influential writer Tolkien is in possibly the best position a writer could hope to be in when it comes to people being willing to hear him out.
@@TylerWardhaha I didn't say everyone would dismiss him. Yes, him being a successful writer is a good position to criticize from, but not this "rival" book. Doing so would risk his reputation.
There's also the fact that ANYTHING he said negative about Dune might unfairly damage Herbert's rep and sales. Even if Tolkien didn't like it, he doesn't need to bias his own readers against another author.
My take goes as follows. Tolkien was a devout Christian. The very idea of breeding a Messiah would have shocked him to his very core, perhaps even disgusted him. The supernatural doesn't exists in the universe of Dune. No god in the sky, no angelic beings, no multitude of spirits. Every fantastic thing that happens is the result of hard work by humans with no assistance or intervention from beings on high. Dune is materialistic. The Dune saga is about looking forward towards a perilous future. Tolkien's legendarium is about looking back at a golden age. The world of Dune is grounded in technology. >Everyone< in the stories has a "Mind of machines and wheels." Were Saruman a wise and powerful human being, he would have fit into the power structures portrayed in the Dune saga. We all know how Tolkien felt about technology, complex machines, even Saruman himself. I am not at all surprised he hated Dune.
Not just that but the Fremen religion in Dune was propaganda used for control. Tolkien believed legends and myths were "largely made of truth" in that they are the means by which a deeper truth can be unveiled. For a myth, a religion, to be explicitly stated to be a lie used for manipulation, and for the people propagating those lies to be the "heroes" would have been as you say shocking and disgusting to Tolkien.
You obviously read a different version of dune to the one I read. It is full of magic and the spiritual and religion. The spice itself is essentially magical in its properties. I think it is more that many of the ideas in Dune are extremely blasphemous to Christianity.. Like you said creating-breeding your own messiah.
@@Lucien86Spice is in no way magical. One day, it might be possible to extend life as we see fit and the human mind still is full of secrets and mysteries for us to discover. Regarding religion, i think what religious people might hate the most here is, that Herbert went the logical way and _evolved_ the different Religions, which will happen anyway. Your typical for example muslim expects that his world view and beliefs will never change and always stay relevant, because thats what he was told from childhood on, backed up by holy scripture, but then, there is this Frank Herbert guy, writing a science fiction book, where Islam is combined with buddistic concepts and philosophy of all things. Shocking! Blasmephous! Same goes for christians. I cant remember how Herbert described it, bu basically, christianity also changes drastically over time. Shocking! Blasphemous!
@Lucien86 the "magic" in Dune wasn't magical. All of it was achieved by mental disciplines, genetic engineering, and chemical stimulation. For example, the Bene Gesserit mental compulsions were vocal techniques that essentially hypnotized people into compliance. All of Paul's abilities were derived from having knowledge of one's past lives, which allowed him to fully see the past and foresee how possible futures could unfold based on knowledge of the past. Everything else was explained by technological or mind altering effects from the spice. It may have seemed like magic, but it was not supernatural. As for religion, Dune represents a cynical view of it. It was portrayed as a powerful framework that could drive followers to achieve what many would think to be impossible, but it was also ultimately portrayed as illusory, something fake used by the powerful to control the masses. That's exactly what Paul did, which is why he isn't really a hero despite being the protagonist. It was also shown to be dangerous rather than benign, as even charismatic leaders who use religion can lose control over the masses. This is why Paul struggled with guilt in the second book: because he could not stop the Jyhad once he overthrew the Emperor. If he tried, he would have been martyred and the Fremen would have continued their campaign in his name. And all of this came about because of the power of the Fremen's faith in him and in their religion.
The Bene Gesserit and their powers are kinda supernatural/spiritual. Their training is inspired by practises that are meant to attain spiritual powers in several religions. They also mention souls. Souls are part of the spiritual realm....and having visions or prophetic dreams is also something. Engineering a messiah actually reminds me of the antichrist prophecy. Something/someone who will appear like a saviour and fulfills almost all the foretold criteria but is a deception by the powerful to lead people away from God. And didnt the author say that Baron Harkonnen was meant to be the embodiment of the 7 deadly sins? Btw.....sky and heaven are 2 different things. I dont know a single person whos into theology and spirituality who says the geographical sky is were God is.
I think most people are forgetting a rather crucial part of Tolkien's life that heavily influenced his outlook on life and perhaps offer a reason as to why he disliked Dune. WW1. His time in the trenches and the traumatic events inflicted upon him there more than likely would have led him to become even more grounded in his beliefs as they, along perhaps with his wife and children, may have given hope for the future and helped him cope with whqtever trauma-related issues he may or may not have been struggling with. So upon reading Dune, perhaps he found it's more somber and morose tone to be too cynical, jaded and defeatist in regards to life and humanity itself as he would've experienced first-hand the worst of what men could do to each other and yet throughout his life, expressed countless times throughout his works, he always had hope. At least, as far we know he did.
@@TheGrifhinx No. That's not at all what PTSD is. It's a matter of philosophy greatly affected by each author's time in war. When Tolkien fought in WW1 people had a much simpler view of things like good and bad and who was or wasn't moral and that along with his religious beliefs likely led to his time in the war confirming that world view. This contrasts with Herbert's (and many others) experience fighting in WW2 where many could not clearly tell who was or wasn't in the wrong. With hindsight it's easy to see the Nazis for what they were and the atrocities they caused, however in that era many people truly did believe in their cause and were groomed into submission by their propaganda. And even on the flip side, many simply did not care. A majority of Americans held the opinion that it did not matter and there was no reason to get involved before Japan attacked. There was just overall greater divides and moral questioning on both sides along with the fact that times were changing and American culture as a whole was slowly progressing into what it is now. Tolkien's more idealistic beliefs simply fit his era and the experiences he likely had whilst Herbert's are more fitting for a time when the people in power began to all look equally despicable. The second world war was just a significantly more complex experience for many involved and the fact that there even was a second world war kinda shows that what Herbert thought about humanity falling into old habits didn't come from nowhere. It's easy to feel trapped in a cycle of misery when less than 30 years have passed since the largest war in history and it's already been upstaged.
@@TheGrifhinx not really, but he at the very least had a deep knowledge of PTSD, so likely had it or knew fellow soldiers who did. Its not shown in the movies, but in the books Frodo experiences a textbook description of PTSD in the events after destroying the ring. He shuts himself away, writing of his experiences, perhaps a reference to tolkien himself, while the rest of the hobbits in the fellowship go on to have successful careers and father up to 10 children (iirc) in the case of sam. He seems to get flashbacks every year on certain anniversaries, both being stabbed by the nazgul in the fellowship, and of his failure to destroy the ring at the end of his journey. Which ultimately is what leads to him sailing off to valinor, the home of the gods in middle earth, for a hope of being healed. Its made clear it isnt a "magical healing" really, more of a healing of spirit and mind by being surrounded by everything good in the world. The shire had sort of lost all luster for him it seemed.
This is why I can't stand the Dune fandom. All of you are so condescending to anybody with any belief. Reductionists. Everything must be explained not by science, but by lack of meaning. "Ww1 must've grounded home in his beliefs by giving him hope for a better future" . No, that is not what religion in general does. That's not what it's for. If anything, Christianity helps solidify that there is little hope for a better future for the world. The only reason anybody likes this series is because it happens to be a (rather poor) commentary on religion. It's much more than that but the internet attracts the worst fans
@DoubleOhSilver If my OP came across as such, please know that I did not intend it to. I have great respect for all Christians... except Catholics. Jokes aside, I assume that when you say "that there is little hope for a better future for the world," that you are referring to Judgement Day where most of humanity will be dammed to Hell for all eternity because they are sinful. If it were as hopeless as I take you to mean, then why does the Lord, via the Church, encourage preaching and attempting conversions of all non-believers and sinners if they deserve it. Why would he send down Christ to redeem us all if he did not have hope for us? I do agree that the series is a poorly constructed critique of religion, but that does not mean that the narrative is completely without merits. And I and certainly many others do not appreciate being told that we merely enjoy something because it attempts to criticise something we do not agree with. As if we are incapable of judging something for its objective merit. That, to me, is more condescending than anything I mentioned in my OP.
I know in my brain LOTRs was published in ‘54 but my heart has a hard time coming to terms with the fact that Tolkien and Herbert were contemporaries. It’s like how Dali and Picasso lived far into the 1900’s… just doesn’t compute lol
I'm always confused by people confused about Dali and Picasso living in the 1900s. Their work could only have been from the 20th century. It would be way, way weirder if their work existed in the 19th century or earlier. (That's not an attack on anyone, I'm just honestly baffled that people see these quintessential 20th century artists as anything else.)
I said it once and I'll say it again, Jim, you are one slippery son of a bitch and your gumption is only surpassed by your moxie. Now get the hell out of here.
Tolkien wanted what all fantasy writers want - to have their readers dream. Herbert wanted what all science fiction writers want - to warn their readers. Neither is inherently better or worse, right or wrong, both serve their intended purpose... and the fact that both these men used so many similar elements and techniques throughout their biggest works shows that they are indeed good stories made by great storytellers... Only one question remains: which effect you are in the mood for :)
I'd strongly disagree that science fiction is about warning your readers. It can just as well be the dream of an interesting and promising future. Just because modern sentiment sometimes has trouble having a positive outlook doesn't have to mean it's a truth of some kind.
@@johnnyhunter3869 science itself has its foundation in dreaming of better ways, which makes dreamy stories easy and expectable. Bland and unimaginative. Good scifi story uses science to be the basis of a dream, but the fiction is a basis of grounding that dream, anchoring the reader. It's easy for humans to dream sometimes, harder to accept risks of reality, sci fi explores those risks and even with best of intentions and best possible outcomes it's not as compelling of a story unless you juxtapose the dangers posed by taking the dream too far. It was an obvious simplification for comparison sake on my part in the original comment, of course there is nuance and science themes can be used in lighthearted way or with a mean to show positive possibilities and improvements, but that's not fiction - that's just how it is IRL all the time. That's not as fun. If you want only the good parts then you can just read ads and marketing documents...
@@Jump3RPictur3s I simply too umbrage with the simplification. Things are always more interesting when they are complex, but to ascribe depression as a centerpoint to a genre that may just as easily focus on the more positively themed struggle against the potential dangers the future holds.
@@johnnyhunter3869 absolutely, good dialogue and storytelling demand complexity, you could not be more right about that my friend... however warnings and cautionery tales and risk assessment doesn't mean depression by default... it is often correlated in most popular works, to some extent, and if not depression then we can observe other states of concern for alertness... all of which are very human aspects everyone struggles or struggled with at least once in their life... taking them to extremes with convenience, comfort and compliance are effective recipies for compelling scifi storytelling and worldbuilding because humans are very easily self-destructive like that. Just look at our vast history. And I did not say anything about negative or positive notions of "warnings" and "dreams", you jumped to that conclusion on your own, which is a bit biased if you ask me. Personally I struggle with dreams being positive things only and warnings or caution being something bad or to be frowned upon, to me they always were the opposite - dreams are the danger, and warnings are what keeps you alive.
I wasn't expecting to cry during this video, but I got a little misty-eyed during the spiel about love and honor being special because while you were saying that I was thinking about the way Tolkien talks about friendship and the combination of the two hit me in the feels.
Why do I love both LOTR and Dune, even though neither is perfect? They both take their audience seriously. Both authors assume we will care deeply about their ideas as they do, and they each worked as hard as possible to make their ideas interesting.
In a lot of ways, they're really 2 sides of the same coin. Dune has all the shades of grey where Lord of the Rings feels more black and white in their themes, just to start
I think that one of the commonalities that make me love both Dune and LOTR is that both hint at a much wider universe than what is actually written in the pages. You get a sense that there are vast sweeps of time -- both forward and backward -- and they help enrich the story even if there are not any specifics. So many authors try to specify or canonize their entire world that those worlds feel smaller and less inhabitable.
If you like this feeling I highly recommend Foundation by Isaac Asimov. It’s criticised for not having great characterisation, but once you realise the characters are nothing but vessels to tell the greater story as time jumps between short stories/chapters it grows into a larger tale on a galactic scale and long term time frame.
Yes one that you can put yourself into. I always kind of thought of that too but never understood it until you said it. Like Harry Potter there's a hint that there's more going on there is other characters you could follow and you can self insert yourself into it
I dislike this sort of take on the stories. Dune is no less a work of fiction than LOTR. It provides no greater insights into the human condition. You really need both the heroic vision and the awareness of the dangers to live a fulfilling life, regardless of the era. You need to have an ideal you strive for, as well as an awareness of the potential pitfalls (no one is more dangerous than a zealot). Without the ideal to strive for you just spend your time grubbing around like a rat, trying to merely survive--Saruman after Isengard fell, or the Fremen before the Planetologist showed up. If you don't have an awareness of the pitfalls you end up betraying your own ideal--Saruman in Isengard, or Paul. In that way, BOTH authors are telling people to wake up. Tolkien wanted the reader to wake up to the heroic inside them ("from bucolic vice to heroic virtue" is his words); Herbert wanted them to wake up to the dangers around them.
I imagine the reason he didn’t like Dune is the same reason he wouldn’t like ASOIAF if he had lived to read it: it’s very cynical and almost hopeless. Nothing is really redeemed.
I feel like Tolkien had some Augustinian pessimism, the world's declining but there's hope at the end. Whereas ASOIAF is extremely nihilistic. I would say there's hope in Dune, but there's so much suffering you wonder if it's really worth it in the end.
@@RestingJudge Tolkien may have been conflicted personally, but we know in his work the universe is just an orchestral display for Illuvitar. Of course for some melodies to rise others must fall in volume. Tolkien likely wanted to write a story of after the elves left, but found it depressing. He also unfortunately is not immortal, so he was not able to finish his works (if he ever would have finished them, or only expanded).
@dylanc9174 I think it can come across as being conflicted, and we humans are, to a certain degree, on many things. Tolkien's ideas of decline and hope are actually extremely consistent with the Catholic tradition, though. If you're familiar with Augustine's City of God, and Tolkien most certainly was, it demonstrates these ideas to their fullest religious context. I think a story after the elves leaving would evoke too much of where Tolkien saw the world going, more industrialization, exploitation, and the end of simple hobbit life. It's probably too depressing for Tolkien to continuously reflect on. Still hope would be there, but focusing on the eclipse makes it seem like the sun will never shine in a sense.
@K.C-2049 yeah, I don't think Tolkien would've been a big fan of the ends justifying the means in Dune. In regards to ASOIAF he would've been disgusted with it's nihilism, but the work isn't finished so he'd probably hold his tongue until there was an actual end to the story.
@@RestingJudgeAsoiaf isn’t nihilistic. Game of Thrones might be but they missed the point Martin was trying to make. We are currently seeing a bunch of randoms fighting for the North due to their love of Ned Stark, who we know is a fundamentally decent man, and we’re seeing Tywin’s children torch his legacy. Martin has spoken at length about how he loves the bittersweet ending of LOTR.
I first read On Fairy Stories as a teenager. Almost two decades later, I still cry every single time Tolkien talks about the value of escape. It speaks to me on a level I cannot describe. The feeling of “wanting to get out and go home” lives inside me and has only ever been spoken to or seen through fantasy.
True, but unfortunately the fugue keeps playing, so the escape can't be forever and people have to keep getting back and climbing the rigging to out-sail the storms
For him tho, it wasn't fantasy. Catholics literally call conversion 'going home' like if you find TH-cam vids of people that convert to Catholicism check the comments people will be saying 'welcome home'. I think the Catholic Church has the best claim to Truth I've seen...something to consider.
It was reading Tolkien's explanation of eucatastrophe that hit home for me more than reading The Hobbit, then Lord of the Rings. I understood immediately what it meant...to me, and it encouraged me to continue reading more of his works, or at least the parts that Christopher Tolkien and others have compiled. I had always wanted to know or maybe had a hint of understanding of why I felt the way I did with certain stories, how they were constructed, how I felt when that 'turn' came, and why they touched me deeply in certain ways, and reading On Fairy Stories was the key to help me accept and understand why I had those feelings.
Dune’s sand worms are based upon the predatory nematodes, especially the genus Monochus. The 3 lips is the key. Originally these microscopic creatures had 6 lips, but as they evolved lips fused together. In the case of Monochus pairs fused given 3 lips each bearing a tooth. I have degrees in plant pathology and nematodes are actually studied under that heading. They can be vectors of plant diseases or cause injuries to plants themselves. Monochus feeds upon other nematodes. I saw one illustration of Monochus that looked just like the cover illustration from Dune.
@@saschafeld5528 at least two I remember but my point was more the fact worms of themselves are eldrich horrors if you look too closely. I could see there being a direct reference to lovecraft’s worms, but it could just be one of those things were we keep going back to it collectively. Norse mythology’s got a great worm, egyptians, and probably many more. They are horrible little creatures 😂
It reminds me of how Mark Twain disliked Jane Austen's works. It seems inconceivable as both are extraordinarily beloved authors, but people are different and they can like and dislike things for their own reasons.
Except that Twain's reasons were the right ones. 🙂 Read his two essays on James Fenimore Cooper - apart from Twain's confusion about the size of riverboats in Cooper's day, it's probably the best and funniest literary criticism put to paper.
As far as I know, the only contemporary genre writer’s work Tolkien enjoyed was Robert E. Howard’s Conan the Barbarian books. Its a shame that Howard died quite young and the two never had chance to meet, with a smoke and mug of ale in hand.
Holly Ordway's Tolkien's Modern Reading discusses a lot of the stuff that he read, and he definitely did enjoy some modern authors. It's been a minute since I read the book, but I remember it being quite educational.
This is overblown. At most Tolkien probably read one Conan story that was sent to him in a collection by either Lin Carter or L Sprague DeCamp and in the letter he sent back he vaguely said he sort of liked one but whether that was the singular Conan story or one of the others. DeCamp or Carter then started making out that Tolkien was a huge fan to boost sales of their own versions of the Conan books which were coming out at that time (as if the Frazetta covers weren't enough).
When i was 14 and strolling around i literally found a book laying beside some rubble written "Dune" on it. I just picked it up to read it later. And so began my life long love for science fiction. :)
Fantastic video! I first read lord of the rings twelve years ago and have loved it ever since, I read it again every couple of years. Have also been a huge tolkien fan ever since and I admire many of his thoughts and writings, even though I feel like he and I are very different people, especially on the religious side. My father has been a dune fan since the 80s when he first read it, and has always tried to get me to read the books, which he still has since he was a teen. I tried reading the first one a couple of times a few years ago and for some reason stopped in the beginning. Now, after the second movie came out, I decided to get back into it and have already read the first book and messiah. Almost halfway through children of dune now. Both dune and lotr are fantastic sagas and before now, I hadn't really tried to compare them. I can see some similarities and many differences, but this video was so well crafted it made me think so much more about this. Just subscribed to the channel and am looking forward to more. Keep it up!
FWIW I _love_ the name Duncan Idaho, because it actually makes perfect sense: in the distant future, who knows which names from history will be remembered, which ones people fill find intriguing and exotic and interesting. It seems like such an absurd name today, or 60 years ago, but I think it's that contrast of "absurd today" versus "maybe they would a thousand years from now" that makes it interesting.
Have you watched The Postman? There's a character born after the apocalypse by the name Ford Lincoln Mercury. Yet stranger: people are still alive who remember those words from the signs in front of car dealerships.
It's like if you went back to the 1600s and told them one of the 20th Century's most popular action/adventure heroes is named Indiana Jones. I'm sure their response would be nearly the same as our is to 'Duncan Idaho'.
Duncan Idaho is a great name. I, however, refuse to believe that the jesus of year 10,191 would be named 'Paul' 😂 at least, not unless Christianity had persisted in some capacity, and I can't remember if that's the case. 'Jessica' is another name that I find out of place, at least for a main character. I think that some common names could survive into the far future, but having the two most common names used for the most central characters feels more plainly like Herbert trying to make the protagonists accessible to people of his time. After all, immigrants with the name 'Jose' were changing it to 'Joe' back then, people were a little sheltered lol (and some still are).
"Duncan" is an ordinary male name, found incidentally among the Kings of Scots. I couldn't figure out the "Idaho" part, though: Why would a guy millennia hence bear the name of a less-peopled Western US state--unless his ancestors held a related title (as in "Prince Elector of Idaho")? It *has* given me a smidgeon of inspiration, though, imagining a character with a Celtic first name coupled with another US state's....
Tolkien didn’t hate Dune. He even said that it was a good story. It just wasn't the kind of story that he preferred reading about, which is completely fine. We all have our own tastes.
I think there is a missing link between Tolkien and Herbert that has value being explored; author Michael Moorcock. I would say in many ways Tolkien was an author of an earlier time of classic certainties and reassurances that evil will always be its own undoing. Herbert was an author that in many ways was re-telling the story of 'The New World' (the spice trade, the influence of other nations and religion on a different land) but with many of the more jaded mindset that was relevant in the Americas. Then there was Michael Moorcock, who was a major force in the sci-fi and fantasy world of the 60's and 70's that updated and flipped many of the genre escapist stories and turned them on their head. Moorcock himself met and spent time with Tolkien, and though respected he has voiced his opinion of how he found fault with Tolkien's classic trope of "trust the old man who knows best" way of thinking that was rather traditionally English for the time. I honestly believe if there was an Elric of Melniboné series of movies (which there absolutely could be), he would sit close enough between these two stories to value being spoken about. And the fact that he is not spoken about more is a failing of literature.
The other writer you can look to from that era is Philip Jose Farmer. But if you want an in-depth sociological analysis on mankind both in a fantasy and a sci-fi setting, that’s Ursula Le Guin. She’s one of the all time greats and her books have absolutely influenced my worldview
@@agatazietek9098Probably somewhere in between. Elric, the protagonist of Moorcock's most famous series, is profoundly selfish, somewhat evil (he has a moral compass but often ends up choosing to do awful things and being haunted by them afterwards) and spends much of his time chasing relatively petty grudges to the edge of the world and past it. At the same time, he ends up saving his local environs and eventually the world at large over and over, electing to do his duty even though it means he and everyone he cares about will die and be forgotten. He is an incarnation of the Champion Eternal, an archetype central to Moorcock's stories that is always fated to live a miserable life but also to bring balance between the equally destructive forces of Law and Chaos. When Law dominates, it eventually destroys everything and creates an empty void since that is easiest to govern, and Chaos victory results in a broiling mess where change occurs for the sake of change, ultimately resulting in a different kind of stagnation. As a result, Moorcock clearly departs from both Tolkien's good-evil dichotomy and Herbert's view of an uncaring universe. For Moorcock that latter is actually desirable, as humans becoming able to develop free of the influence of both Law and Chaos is one of the few unquestionable positives in his universe.
What I love about Elric is that he was a type of character you would normally see as a villain. Guy who knows the difference between the good and evil, wants to be good, but always succumbs down. The difference from an antihero is his complete lack of the qualities those guys posses. He is not a bully that does something good proving there is a good in him. He is a nerd who then turns into a bully while still hating bullies and wanting the revenge upon them. He starts full of himself, thinking he is a way better person than he really is. Then it slowly transforms into self loathing once he realises who he really is. The best written morally gray character I had a chance to read about.
As a big fan of both Dune and LOTR, what I enjoy about both books is their rich and enthralling universes first and foremost. The lore is not only deep and detailed but magnetic as well. It captures my mind and pulls me into the world so much that I cannot help but want to stay there well after it’s time to go. Likewise the characters have tremendous depth to them that makes them feel truly alive. The departures in tones, themes, and ideals could not be larger between the two, and if outlook had to be placed on a spectrum, Herbert and Tolkien would find themselves on opposite ends. But I think it is perfectly rational for a reader to enjoy two works of opposite theme and tone. We are not one-dimensional people after all. One day we are vibrant romantics and the next we may be jaded cynics. And with nearly the entire world in our pockets now 24/7, it is easier than ever to have something radically change our prospectives in a flash. It’s no surprise then that many people can swing wildly from being boundless optimists lauding the heroic and virtuous good triumphing against daunting evils to gritty pessimists who want to read about their flawed protagonists stumble just as we do. Books and film are escapism at the end of the day, but we want to escape from changes constantly, so it only makes sense our forms of escape would change constantly as well.
I agree on the world building. The books that I revisit, that I remember well, that I cherish years after the fact are great stories told upon a detailed stage. Would I like John Wick if there was no Continental? No place to spend the gold coins? Probably. Would I love it? Would I have been eager for more chapters? Not really. It's the WORLD that pulls you in ... And so it is with Middle Earth that has been fertile ground for Dungeons & Dragons and videogames and more. People love to be immersed in it. Tolkien told us many stories from the place, and we loved them both: The stories AND the place. And Dune fills our imaginations in similar ways. How to travel through space? How to occupy such alien worlds? How to live without smart machines ... on purpose. The set pieces are different from Middle Earth, but it still calls to us to explore outside the pages and between the lines. It awakens our imaginations with a little spice ...
You almost made me want to re-read Dune with your first paragraph. Then, for me, you started to prattle. How can a person swing from being a jaded cynic one day to a vibrant romantic on another? Maybe someone with a very short memory, perhaps. You argue that it is easier now than ever to have something radically change our perspectives in a flash. It seems to me that anyone who is like that must live a very confused life struggling to know who they are and how to make sense of the world if they are so easily changed. Lastly, "at the end of the day" books and film are *only* escapism if one wants them just for that. To dismiss the educational potential of books and films like this just cannot go without correction.
J.R.R. Tolkien's work resonates with my soul. I love the beauty of Middle-earth, the sense of history and grandeur, and the music of its languages. As a Christian, Tolkien's "wholly Catholic" conception of Middle-earth's spirituality has always comforted me, and Sam and Frodo's love for each other and dedication to their quest to save friends and community from Evil inspires and refreshes me. As an artist and an ex-vangelical, the melancholy of the Elves is something I increasingly find I can relate to as I get older and as I watch the institutions I was raised to respect erode and darken with greed, power-lust, and hatred, while the toll industry has taken on nature now threatens everything. Dune appeals to me because it's a science fiction world that is massive in scale and yet focused in its telling upon a political, commercial and religious struggle that doesn't become dull or tedious. It presents a setting that's both strange and familiar, becoming in a sense timeless. The skepticism it holds toward power structures and their rulers' machinations that manipulate and exploit powerless people has proven applicable to what we see play out in our own governments and corporations again and again. And, more recently, with the rush of tech corporations to embrace generative AI despite its origins in massive art theft and ambitions of automating creative jobs (forcing artists to seek paying work in office drudgery or manual labor), I find myself increasingly sympathetic to the Butlerian Jihad. I go to the two stories to draw different things from them. But there are a few points of similarity where both resonate with me. Obviously, both present lush, flavorful worlds that are different from our own and yet remain very believable, and in that I find beauty and boundless cleverness. They both tell epic, sweeping chronicles, which is great fun. But additionally, despite Tolkien's inclusion of powerful characters like Aragorn and Gandalf, those characters appeal because they have humble origins and lofty principles they actually emulate rather than merely pretending to. Aragorn and Gandalf have for me the same appeal as Superman: the fantasy that someone with so much power could still be a genuinely good person. They confront corrupted power structures, from Sauron and Saruman, Wormtongue and Denethor, to Ted Sandyman, and restore justice. And the true heroes of the story, the ones who save everyone, are the little folk who are barely known of even by their neighbors and who have no pretensions to importance. Despite the romance of divine powers and kingly lineages, Tolkien's distrust of hierarchies of power still comes through his "fairy-stories." Where Herbert reminds us what the reality of our world is and how important the ecology of things is to our continued survival, Tolkien reminds us that holding on to hope and demonstrating compassion aren't foolish or in vain. They both acknowledge the existence of corruption and deal with what the temptations of power does to people. While Dune doesn't necessarily offer the hope and emotional uplifting of Tolkien's eucatastrophe, I think I benefit from having the skeptical education that Herbert encourages, too. Both are beneficial to living in the real world.
Good analysis. You're quite right; both bring a unique perspective and teach similar but distinct lessons. Regardless, we cannot escape the similarities in narrative storytelling and messaging. The two compliment each other quite well.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Tolkein plagiarized his entire life’s work from Norse Paganism, not a little bit, but completely and entirely, he didn’t even have the creativity to make up his own names for the characters. Gandalf and a dozen or more of the other characters are complete and utter ripoffs of the writings of greater men
"Fantasy and science fiction are fundamentally different genres." Me: _scrunches my face in confusion as i can't hear you over the sound of my blender turning fantasy and sci-fi into a science fantasy smoothie_
Most science fiction is just fantasy. Obviously, it’s a different kind of fantasy, but replacing magic with science doesn’t change the fact that they are the same genre slotting into a different archetype. Proper science fiction, something like the Martian, is rare
I loved the entire Dune series but when I learned that Herbert in '83 didn't allow Iron Maiden to use the title Dune for a song they dedicated to his novel because he didn't like rock, I was disappointed by such close-mindedness.
I believe I remember reading Tolkien hated Led Zeppelin's Music, even though they were constantly making reference to his works. That's just how it goes. I can't find the exact quote, but I did find this one: > In addition in a house three doors away dwells a member of a group of young men who are evidently aiming to turn themselves into a Beatle Group. On days when it falls to his turn to have a practice session the noise is indescribable..... And this: > I read eagerly all details of your [Christopher's] life, and the things you see and do - and suffer, Jive and Boogie-Woogie among them. You will have no heart-tug at losing that (for it is essentially vulgar, music corrupted by the mechanism, echoing in dreary unnourished heads). So yeah, he didn't like Jazz, Rock, etc. Ah well.
i love how polite he was about not liking it. it's like shorthand for "it's not my cup of tea, but i shan't elaborate further lest my own view on the matter corrodes those of others who may otherwise find great entertainment from within its pages. my writing philosophy is: when you're inspired to write a specific scene, or a specific event, a specific anything, do it. just write. don't worry about plot or pacing, don't worry about spelling or grammar, doon't worry about anything other than what is happening on the scene. a story is made from a book, a book is made from a world, a world is made from events, events are made from scenes. to create your world, you must first create your scene. find that lynchpin that the whole story rests on, and remove it. examine it closely, explore every groove, every chip, every crevice. know your story through this pin. let it be your eye into another world, and use it to carve out the destiny you seek for the characters you write about. to build a world, you must first put things in it. let there be light.
Exactly, I feel that from alot of people that love Dune will villianize Tolkien for not liking Dune, when Tolkien literally had the most polite responce about not liking it ever. He didn't go into depths trashing it or saying it was horrible literature, just that he personally didn't like it, which is WELL within his rights.
I think that’s why Tolkien gave up with his LotR sequel, he would have gone down the Allegorical route of story telling, bring it too much into Frank Herberts style of storytelling. FYI, I read Dune belfore I read LorT, and love both books dearly.
I also read _Dune_ first, when I was about 13. It was in fact the paperback's back cover that presented me with my first reference to LOTR--in a blurb from Arthur C. Clarke where he said he knew of nothing comparable to _Dune_ except for LOTR. Didn't get to Tolkien, though, till nearly 20.
@@Ashgarify I might be mistaken. A lot of people are racist like LOTR is because they haven't been put on the spot properly by their friends, Tolkien seems to be one of those where the pushback from his friends directly to him seems mild -- basically I think his support of Franco may have similarities to centrists' support of the Gaza genocide. It goes back to reliance on regular media which can be as realistic as Tolkien's conception of race taken from in his day ancient race doctrine (just to be clear, scientifically he should and did know better as seen in his earlier-in-life rebuttals of some Nazis). If you need to understand Tolkien look at some of these liberals cheering on the killing of babies and refusing to back down from clear lies about beheaded babies or systematic rape (at least from Hamas - we do have proud testimonial of perpetrating this from IDF retirees from the 60s). I genuinely think you should have a really easy way to understand what Tolkein went through if you look at liberals who basically have become criminal patsies and have clearly gone through the psychological changes involved in being that.
The Chad Tolkien and Chad Frank Herbert having wholesome civil discourse about the nature of humanity and the righteous purpose of fiction to uplift and educate the human race. The Virgin George R R Martin saying Lord of the Rings is not interesting because it doesn't describe Aragorns tax plan for Gondor after the war.
Oh yes…Amen to that !…just a cup of tea and a polite discussion…and if we are not agree..that’s fiiiiine…have some scones Folks !…Thanks a lot !….Subscribed too
I read both " Dune" and " The Lord of the Rings" as a teenager in the '70s...during the " eternal winter" of 1976-'77...as you said, they're both good stories. Since we lived in a semi rural area at the time, the Lord of the Rings was a little more relatable....
You've got immense talent. While an avid reader in my youth, I barely read novels these days. Yet can't stop listening to your beautiful and nuanced analysis of my favourite books. Pelase keep going and God bless.
I can understand why Tolkien hated Dune. Probably for two reasons: (1) The lack of description. While it is a very well told story, Herbert gives you very little help in imagining what people or clothing or architecture look like. Tolkien loved description and was very good at it, so he must have felt that something was missing in Herbert's writing style. (2) The story of Dune is very un-Christian. It is the story of a secret society (the Bene Gesserit) manipulating noble bloodlines for thousands of years to create a false messiah. This false messiah, Paul Atreides, achieves his false messiahship by violence and by a drug-fueled spiritual awakening. This is at best pagan, and at worst Luciferian. It is not surprising that Tolkien, a serious Roman Catholic Christian, would have found these ideas alien and offensive.
@markvictor8776 Well, it isn't about your taste so rather or not you prefer Tolkien's or Herbert's writing style is not really relevant to why Tolkien didn't like Dune. He probably, like myself, liked having detailed descriptions since he put those in his works.
Dune's world building is also kind of bad. It exists to facilitate the themes and plot, not to really make sense of be consistent. If you start poking around and asking "why is this like this" or "what would happen if x" the world really quickly stops functioning.
Protestants would call Tolkien's use of Nordic mythology pagan as well. Some of them criticize Lewis as well. It's one thing to criticize a book on its merits (style, pacing, character development) than just saying "it's evil, therefore bad writing" Lenin's ideas were reprehensible, but his conviction was such that he contributed to the end of the Russian Empire and the rise of Soviet Union. Modern-day progressives could never. Same with the Taliban and Iran. Tolkien was a meticulous worldbuilder, which is one of the reasons he didn't like the Chronicles of Narnia. He probably didn't like Dune for the same reason, as well as the perceived moral grayness. But it can be read as critique of technological society, which is hostile to true spirituality and tradition.
@aesop1451 Modern day progressives have won essentially everything consistently. Marriage is now just a temporary government contract that's easier to get out of than into. Win for them. Women outnumber men in both the workforce and universities. Win for them. Immigration is set to result in the collapse of majority populations in all Western countries. Win for them. Gay marriage is legal. Win for them. Transition is easier and easier to get. Win for them. Donald Trump is adopting the platform of a radical 90s progressive to run against an explicitly progressive American left. Also a win for them. In no way whatsoever are progressives losing in any western country.
I had the opposite take on it. Have you ever read anything on the return of Christ or apocalypse? I think the problem is people don’t understand that there’s what we think or say we are doing -as a plan of bene geseret or as the plans of Frank Herbert and what they actually end up being or doing. It’s related to what Steve Jobs said about only connecting the dots looking backwards. For example beavers build dams visible from space as a result of trying to stop the sound of running water-not by planning. Ants form complex systems and patterns by following pheromones laid down just as automatically. They don’t know what they are doing consciously. Humans are exactly the same way. So it doesn’t matter -reasons and intentions don’t really matter either. The future finds ways to organize itself. Every mutation exists before it is needed or tested. Humans developed large brains long before technology science etc.
Oh my! What in the world happened to them?! How did they become worms? And how tf did they come to be on Arrakis!? Could be interesting. You'd better start writing...
It's worth clarifying that "Liberal" in this case refers to the Classical Liberal, which is more akin to a modern (American) Libertarian. At least, what they claim to be.
@@MasonAC88 You can't really label him with just a word. Apart from some libertarian stances he had conservative and even reactionary positions. Dune in itself if you wanna label it with a political is most definitely right wing reactionary. But as with everything, it's very simplified to just throw a label at it. I don't get why so many leftists are drawn to Dune. Don't they get the message? lol... Dune explicitly has a reactionary message.
@@WhiteWolf126 DUNE is much more complex than to dismiss as reactionary Like, yeah you can find reactionary themes (like the gender essentialism) but also progressive themes: Herbert's whole thing is that stagnation is death; we must continue to move forward, to progress, or else we're dead. It shows progress and it also shows an ugly vision of what progress might really look like (3,500 years of Leto's Peace).
@@charleswofford6296 What he means by stagnation is failure to adapt due to inaction. That is not progressivism in the political sense. House Harkonnen, especially the Baron, is what resembles leftwing philosophy and progressivism in the book, not exactly flattering. As I said, it's very simplified to just throw a label on it, when its themes are more complex than that, but at the end of the day, Dune is most definitely reactionary since it rejects a progressive narrative of history.
The idea of consolation is not very present in middle eastern stories, even modern ME movies have very unhappy or unresolved endings. Maybe this was something Herbert noticed when writing his books with middle eastern influences. (ie Layla & Majnun, Men in the Sun, 1001 Nights short stories, Shahnameh short stories, Syrian Bride, Sandstorm)
Tolkien only needed to look back in his own country's stories to see that consolidation is not a very common factor in these tales. Beowulf... Canterbury Tales... the Arthurian Legends... the Old Testament? My guess is that even though he loved the old times, he didn't like the stories in those times, so he wrote a world without those elements in them... the Hobbits basically read diaries and history books for FUN!
If you read the Brothers Grimm, and the earlier versions of many modern fairy tales... The world is a whole lot darker... Because that is what life was like for our ancestors.
@@mikejohnstonbob935 Yeah, as I mentioned somewhere else, whatever high-minded explanation Tolkien gave for his work, the truth is that his writing is a modern petty bourgeois kitsch that could only be produced by a modern mind to fulfill its own needs. It really isn't a fairy tale in its original form, it is cottage porn brought on by the neurosis of a decaying class.
I disagree, because like many (or every) of the old tales & myths, even the grimmest stories still have lessons & "hikmah" as many of Middle Eastern stories would call it for such consolations. Many of this ME stories give warnings & the exemplary conditions to avoid bad outcomes or to a path with good outcomes. It's a life guidance wrapped in a storytelling that relate to people as whole. It's a matter of different perspectives imo, as JRR Tolkien is a much more religious man while Frank Herbert is simply agnostic or nihilistic (for more recent POVs). It's like a perspectives of holy books being compared by a religious person & non religious person, regardless the deeper knowledge for such holy books. I mean look at GRRM works with ASOIAF or Moorcock's Elric of Melnibone or Kentaro Miura's Berserk that practically flipped everything about "fantasy" & put "dark/grimdark" title in it while unironically these stories are much more in common or similar to our old tales & fables throughout history & many cultures.
If I remember correctly, Tolkien strongly disliked modern technology - he hated cars and machines and even used industrialisation and technology as a way to portray destruction in LOTR. And he was devoutly Catholic. There's hardly any wonder he would practically hate a story, rooted entirely in materialism and focused so much on technological advances.
The Dune universe doesn't like technology either... it even banned the use of things like computers (anything that seems to mimic the human mind, if I remember correctly).
@@heatherbukowski2102 That's really just computers though. There's a lot of other technological advances, like the huge spaceships that fold space around them, ornithopters, etc. It's just computers that are banned and looked down upon, not technology in general.
I literally had tears as I understood how Dune doesn't have an "escape" perspective and it all made sense. And things make sense. Thank you for such a well written text.
its a truly semitic story, written for the gentile, to feed us narcissism and hopelessness, to see our future as bleek and not worth fighting for. standard jewish fare. thats why Tolkien didnt like him, the writer of dune was an antiwhite commie scum bag.
5:16 “I think that sometimes people on the internet can get caught up in this idea that ‘if Tolkien didn’t like X thing then you are wrong for liking X thing.’” The irony is that I think Dune directly discourages this line of thinking, of lauding a popular figure’s stances as correct without question.
Great video. You mention “recovery” as finding magic in the mundane; and the first thing I think about in Dune is the Freman. In a far off planet with unthinkable technology, on a planet stuffed full of psychic-cocaine that fuels the universe, the substance they treat most highly is… water. I think Frank did a great job with that
I still don't understand how the Fremen made anything. They lived in caves without means and materials to manufacture anything. They couldn't trade spice cause thats what the out worlders were already doing on the planet.
I don't think that's what "recovery" means exactly. This isn't really recovery as it is just...well, logical. You covet most that which you don't have. If you don't have water, then water is the thing you'll treasure the most. Water isn't really magical, it doesn't really elevate anything to new heights. It's just a scarce resource.
I like both Frank Herbert’s “Dune” series, and JRR Tolkien’s “Lord of The Rings” but I am MUCH more connected to Tolkien’s work than Herbert’s. For me, Tolkien created a world which I wanted to live in but Herbert created a world that I would rather read about. Loved your take on this, and gave you a like and a sub. Keep up the good work!
@whwhywhywhywhywhywhy I certainly wouldn't want to live in it as a person with some pigmet in his skin. It was super Eurocentric, and that's fine. But his audience was very narrow. It was also very black and white morally speaking, which was why my young teenage mind loved it, but as an adult I found simplistic and "too fantastical" if that makes any sense. I don't like to think of people as good or evil, and living in a world that does would not sit well with me. Mind you I've only read the trilogy and the Hobbit, but that was the impression I got from Tolkien's world.
@lukaszspychaj9210 Again, a very Eurocentric mindset. Also the people that know of him, and being his audience are two very different things. My Latina wife didn't know of him, nor did her family, to my surprise. They all knew who Paulo Coelho was however, and he didn't write in Spanish. They don't know Herbert either. In China, most of those I spoke to knew of Herbert but not Tolkien. Granted my slice were educated, Chinese, English speakers for the most part. And I knew of Liu Cixin and read his books. My time in the Middle East, and Russia made me realize that Dune was more popular than LOTR there. In western Europe it was the other way around. And in Canada everyone I know has read LOTR but few have read Dune. This is anecdotal, but again I believe I'm traveled enough to have broadened my views. Maybe because I dealt with engineers and scientists a lot, Dune naturally appealed more to them, so my slice is biased that way. But I truely believe the concepts and ideas in Dune appeal to a broader slice of the world, while Tolkiens western European fantasy has a much smaller target audience.
Wonderfully insightful, Jess. I especially love your discoussion of "recovery" in Tolkien. Herbert doesn't have nature as we experience on earth, which is the source of much of Tolien's magic.
I like Dune because of how it explores humanity and what it means to be human, celebrating what humans may be capable of. I like its exploration of philosophical themes even when I disagree with them. I enjoy how real the world is, how integrated technology and society are. I enjoy it because it is a well-told science fiction series, even if it does have its problems. Dune and tLotR are very different in many ways, but both are well-told tales with clear stances on the nature of humanity and reality. Also, congrats on exceeding 100k subscribers! 😁
I just want to compliment your articulative capabilities, you have such a relaxed yet deeply thoughtful and informed delivery, feels so much more conversational than most TH-cam deep dives. Thoroughly enjoyed this analysis!
What a brilliant video essay. I learnt a lot and it gives greater depth to my understanding of two authors I love. I wrote my Honours thesis on the Dune cycle (ending with the God Emperor of Dune) a long time ago, but this introduced a lot of new information and analysis to me. Bravo!
Yep, not surprising that Tolkien might've been a bit 'put off' by Herbert's much more _cynical_ POV... just like the similar tensions even now, between the fairy tale 'Utopian", vs the gritty, nihilistic 'dystopian' views of sci-fi's future.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us on this. I have for years now been a huge fan of Lord of the Rings, i have always taken away helpful wisdom and hope from the characters of the story and have been informed by each different character across time. It has helped me frame my mental state and given me articulation for things i didn't really understand. I watched the new Dune films last winter, i was in a pretty rough place mentally at the time and the darkness of the films really stood out to me, i was startled by the tyranny in my own mind and how the Darker figures of the show really acted out what my thoughts were saying to me. Recently the last couple months i've watched the films again, i've been healed of many health problems and have been trying to figure out what i should be focusing on now that i have my health and can actually function again. The Dune films have helped me to understand and integrate becoming the leader of my thought life and how to take back control of my circumstances to pursue my dreams. I've been writing music a lot and i'm trying to learn about story and what makes a great and useful story, Tolkien and Herbert both have written fantastically complex and useful stories that touch very deep into the human condition and i am very grateful that we can share their world and have it inspire us to pursue our own. Blessings friend. Samuel
Isn't it also the case that Foundation was published in magazines first? Some of George RR Martin's stories as well, it seemed to be pretty common, just like you would self publish yourself online nowadays
Same magazine, same editor -- John W Campbell at Astounding / Analog. Campbell had a terrific influence on science fiction, although you don't have to be a liberal to question his views
Many of Asimov's books were published by the same magazines, in serialized form, then republished later. All of his "Robot" material, short stories and/or full-length novels for example. "Caves of Steel" is a fantastic story, totally could be made into a film by itself (and has 2 novels for a trilogy).
Just to add, magazine sf was the staple until the 1950s. Sf books were comparatively rare. In fact many great books were "fix-ups" of magazine serials -- including the first three Foundation books
Publishing segments of stories in magazines /periodical publications has been a thing for a surprisingly long time. Writers like Lovecraft went basically his entire writing career without ever getting his work published in a book or magazine that only included his work. Even notoriously long books like Crime and Punishment were often originally published in periodical segments, and that was in the 1860s and 70s.
I first read both of these books in the mid 1970s; I've since re-read the Lord of the Rings multiple times, but never re-read Dune. Although both were enjoyable, aside from the happy ending, few can match the combination of Tolkien's great story-telling with his mastery of the English language. For example, I cannot recall Herbert writing anything remotely as emotionally stirring as the last paragraph of the chapter "The Siege of Gondor": "And as if in answer there came from far away another note. Horns, horns, horns. In dark Mindolluin's sides they dimly echoed. Great horns of the North wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last.", unless it's the last paragraph of the chapter "The Ride of the Rohirrim." The escapism part is especially resonant with me. Though I liked Dune, it was more like reading a possible future for mankind, rather than something to get lost in, spending an evening and into the night with the LotR. What I enjoyed more than Dune was Raymond Feist's series of novels. I'd like to hear what Jess has to say about those.
So many people confuse "profound" with emotional. Dune is very profound. It is a warning of sorts. Lord of the rings is just pure joy of storytelling. But if you look hard. Tolkien was giving lessons too. Do not let power and greed overwhelm your sense of "good"...... I also find it very satisfying that in the end. Herbert returns to the "manipulative", big ,bad, Bene Gesserit To be the "Saviors" of mankind. Is ironic.
I discovered Feist through the video game "Return to Krondor" and a summer school teacher's recommendation. Not quite the same level of inspiration as Tolkien... but still excellent! I also enjoy, especially Feist's earlier works much better than Dune. Then there is the Shannarah series which eventually combines the pre-apacolyptic, post-apocalyptic, and far future fantasy. Both Feist and Brooks have written so many books that they are kind of recycling stories... but I do like the varied settings of both.
As a big Tolkien and Lewis fan who also enjoys Dune, I think you got it right. It comes down to the themes of Dune, they are more nihilistic, there are no clear good and evil, and the ending is not necessarily a good ending. I enjoy Dune for the political world building and the plans within plans, I found that stuff very interesting, but I do find myself being more sensitive to nihilistic stories. I think what Lewis and Tolkien were doing was giving us a guide on how to live to overcome the evil in our modern world, take Lewis' space trilogy. And I think Herbert's story more or less plays into the transhumanist ideology that Tolkien and Lewis were quite literally fighting against.
‘Some reviewers have called the whole thing simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and the bad just bad. Pardonable, perhaps (though at least Boromir has been overlooked) in people in a hurry and with only a fragment to read and of course without the earlier-written but unpublished Elvish histories [The Silmarillion]. The Elves are not wholly good or in the right. Not so much because they had flirted with Sauron, as because with or without his assistance they were 'embalmers'. In their way the Men of Gondor were similar: a withering people whose only 'hallows' were their tombs. But in any case this is a tale about a war, and if war is allowed (at least as a topic and a setting) it is not much good complaining that all the people on one side are against those on the other. Not that I have made even this issue quite so simple: there are Saruman, and Denethor, and Boromir; and there are treacheries and strife even among the Orcs. Tolkien Letter
Stick till the end. First-time watcher of your video. Very good. Jealous and wish for your success in doing what you really love. Greetings from Indonesia.
You have a truly wonderful way with words and the format and execution of this video is refreshing, intelligent, and charming. You create a warm and comfortable atmosphere for thoughts around the subject, and I really appreciate the time you put in to create that. Keep up the good work.
This is a criminally undersubscribed channel. I love these teardowns and thought experiments, great job. I think the juxtaposition of the _common goals_ between sci-fi and fantasy you mention is a pretty great articulation of often why I often need to occasionally switch from reading a bunch of sci-fi to going on a fantasy pivot and back again.
It was my love for both franchises that made me click on the thumbnail for this video. It was your pronunciation of Lisan Al Gaib that made me subscribe.
Congrats on the 100k. Your videos are some of the best on the subject I've seen, because you actually analyze and provide insight instead of just regurgitating the source material.
Hayao Miyazaki has to be the next person to talk about. I read an article couple weeks ago saying he didn’t like LOTR and had some interesting things to say could be a interesting video.
I looked up the interview regarding his thoughts on LotR, and it seems that he was referring to the Peter Jackson films, calling out their elaborate battle scenes as glorification of violence. It’s a similar criticism that Tolkien’s son had with the films.
@@geoffreyrichards6079 That's really funny in the context of Nausicaa and Mononoke. There's a ton of cool, elaborate fight and battle scenes in those, especially in the Nausicaa manga.
@@mordorderly1473 Not exactly. Sure, both of Miyazaki’s films depict really big battles, but they’re presented in different contexts. In his films, the battle scenes aren’t depicted as anything glorious or heroic - they’re super grisly and horrifying - and they don’t take up very large chunks of the film’s runtime. And likewise, Tolkien doesn’t dwell much on describing the action in the texts either.
@@geoffreyrichards6079 I don't think that's true. Tolkien and Miyazaki may both genuinely belabor the cruelty and senselessness of war, but both have justified violence as a means to an end and, at places, a necessity. Prince Ashitaka fights heroically and so does Nausicaa. It's overwhelmingly true in Nausicaa's manga even with the moments of horrific violence. And how else am I meant to see Boromir's sacrifice or Eowyn and Merry's defeat of the Witch-king as except heroic?
New viewer/subscriber here. This video literally came up as a suggestion, and I'm honestly glad it did. I am very much a fan of both the Fantasy and Sci-Fi genres, and have been since I was a child. My mom taught me to read, and introduced me to all the best books. The Hobbit/The Lord of the Rings, DUNE, The Circle of Light series, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever, The Myth series, not to mention so many beautiful and often Pagan perspective variations of the Arthurian legend. I was also raised with both Star Trek and Star Wars, and love both. To simplify that a bit, I have a deep love of all these worlds and stories mainly because my mom showed me the beauty of them in her own special way. She read The Hobbit to me as a very young child, and I've never forgotten it. She also taught me about the world of DUNE, and there was so much she had to explain to me when I was 9 reading it. She even taught me how to apply the "Fear is the Mind Killer" mantra as a way of helping manage my crippling anxiety. There's so much more I'd love to say about why I love both Tolkien's work and DUNE, but this comment is already too long. haha.
I think there may be some truth to the joke that it was Duncan Idaho's name: The worldbuilding details like names are much less cohesive and thought through in Dune than they are in Lord of the Rings. It is plausible that these details pulled Tolkien out of the story when he read it in the same way that Father Christmas did in Narnia. I quite like both Lord of the Rings and Dune, the central concepts of both are interesting and worth reading, but, metaphorically speaking, Herbert wrapt his gift in old newspapers, while Tolkien picked the finest gift wrapping paper.
Yeah. Like, Jessica and Paul are very normal names. Which would make sense, because the Bene Gesserit was a strict, conformist, traditional organisation, so it's likely that they would've kept using names which were common during the Golden Age of Earth. But then, this falls apart because of the Reverend Mother Gaius Mohiam, who's a Bene Gesserit, and Irulan is also a Bene Gesserit, and these are not common names at all. Although, come to think about it, perhaps Jessica was originally called something else, but then the Bene Gesserit changed her name once they learned of Leto's fascination with the Golden Age of Earth, as part of their attempt to seduce him as part of their breeding program to produce a Kwisatz Haderach. That would make sense. And then Leto chose Paul's name, again, because of his fascination with the Golden Age of Earth. And maybe he wanted Paul to twist religion for his own purposes and gain a large following like Paul the Apostle did. But also, the names don't really seem inconsistent with each other. We don't really see enough characters from each culture to determine whether the names are consistent with that culture, so we should probably assume that they are. I think the main reason why Tolkien didn't like Dune was because it didn't have flowery, descriptive prose, and as a result didn't form an image in his mind's eye. (It had the opposite effect on me: Herbert's prose kept me engaged, and I was completely able to picture what was happening, whereas LoTR was more difficult. But it's probably different for different people.)
@@yippykiay13There's a lot of things that you can't think about too hard. How do Sandworms live? A creature that large needs so many calories that it would not find in the desert. If Spice is so important, why isn't the planet it's found in given more attention and support? The military tactics used are silly half the time as well.
@@yippykiay13 The combat. If you are stuck at low tech, you'd be using spears (the most common weapon in human history); slightly higher, spears with explosive charges at the end and with modern technology flamethrowers.
Tolkien was a glorifier of pasts and thinking we fell from a height, and thus things are lesser and shrinking. Herbert was espousing a view of struggling out of the egg, and learning to go forward that we are beginning, and have to choose how we will grow.
I feel like an aspect that a lot of people overlook about Tolkien and others of his time is that they were all shaped in some part by this somewhat notable event called "the first world war". So it's not hard to imagine the situation of Paul Atreides: HA HA! I'm a hero! I'm gonna save the day and free this world and grant them indep- ah beans, I started a war that's killing billions over dumb ideological reasons. Leto 2: Dad, would you still love me if I were a worm? [proceeds to start even MORE wars over dumb ideological reasons that kill even more people] Frank Herbert: And so humanity went on, fighting endless wars over dumb ideological reasons, where countless men die, as they always have and always will. Tolkien: WOW! I hate this.
@@johnmrke2786 I don't think OP was saying Herbert was a FAN of war, he was just saying herbert saw war as an inevitable consequence of humanity, which was a viewpoint Tolkien did not like (whether he believed it to be true or not). That Tolkien so readily frames his books as explicitly escapist in their portrayal of humans makes me think he was well aware of, and perhaps even fully believed, that Herbert's view was correct, but it was simply an ugly truth he would rather not read about in a story. Which is fair enough.
The Golden Path was necessary to ensure the survival of humanity. A few trillion lives are nothing measured against the complete extinction of the species
I have no idea why we possibly think we could live on without conflict, or why that would even be a desirable future. While it is true that war is truly and utterly awful, it is to a degree, a necessity of the human condition. Imagine a world in which a truly awful ruler comes to power, causing great suffering to his/her people. ...how do you expect to remove such a person from that position except by great force of arms and great sacrifice? But, if you were to decide not to do so, would you not live in a world without conflict? Simultaneously, how could you exist in a universe without an "other" by which to define yourself? Without such a thing, do you even exist? Imagine a world with only one language, or one culture, or both. Without differences to fight over. Such a world would be fucking boring. Not to mention that as soon as resources dropped to a certain level, people would FORCE change and artificially create differences to justify their fighting over why one should get the resources and the other should not. And if mankind is to expand to the stars and colonise many many other liveable planets... why should those conflicts not escalate to billions or trillions of deaths? A limited war today between China and India has the capacity to kill as many as world war 2, and ultimately not change anything, simply by virtue of how fucking big those countries are. Would that be... worse than the world wars? Truly there is a spectrum of awfulness that wars exist in, and that spectrum does NOT correlate with scale, not even close. World war one was pretty awful, but despite the way it's generally perceived, was probably better for the soldiers partaking than WW2 just by virtue of not having any fucking Nazis in it. The things they did to prisoners. Then, let's look at the Liberian civil war by comparison. A much smaller conflict in which far FAR fewer people died. That war involved tribal savages sacrificing children to Satan before cutting out and eating their hearts in exchange for magic powers, all while naked. (Yes, google Joshua Milton Blahe, this is dead real) Rwandan Genocide and Khmer rouge also reach this level of awful. And I suspect that a war between China and India now, would probably kill tens or even hundreds of millions of people and never reach that level of awfulness. And it's for all these reasons, that I, as a naiive and sheltered individual who has never personally seen war myself, see nothing particularly dark or tragic about a sci fi universe in which people kill each other in the billions over ideological differences, minor or less so. Also fucking hell do I wanna live in a world where deliberately creating thinking AI is as unthinkable as praising Satan or hailing Hitler in public would be in the 14th century or present day respectively. That would be great.
Leto II took on the burden that his father dropped because with his prescience, he could only see one way for humanity to avoid extinction. That was the Golden Path that Paul turned away from because of the brutality it required.
There is a concept that both Tolkien's and Herbert's work speak to me of most profoundly. That is the conflict between those, who through any means available will take all they can for themselves and opposing them, those who will give of themselves all that they can in that effort to thwart those selfish forces. Within the greatest arcs are smaller stories that find the characters somehow deviating from their expected path or behaviors by circumstance. I believe that a good story can weave these behaviors and their consequences upon inter-character relationships in meaningful ways. The situations in fiction that express the complexity that we all must face sooner or later when a difficult decision must be made or when we find ourselves perplexed of frustrated by those whose decisions affect our lives gives a new perspective.
please Please PLEASE make a video about Michael Moorcock, specifically his thoughts on Tolkien in his essay “Epic Pooh”. His criticism of Tolkien is very well known and I’d love to hear your thoughts. It’s the video we’ve all been waiting for!!!!
I met him once, great guy… I love the memory I have of reading Silmarillion and a few months later Reading Elric of Melnibone 😊 and think, hey, this guy is like Turin - black sword, Dragon helm lol
Moorcock also criticized Tolkien in another essay titled 'Starship Stormtroopers'. The book 'Tolkien in The Twenty-First Century' by Nick Groom nicely points out that Moorcock worked off of straw man arguments. I highly recommend watching the video 'Elric of Melniboné, the Original Witcher (Elric vs. Geralt)' by Proper Bird along with the rest of her channel because it's criminally underrated and deserves way, way more views!
@@jmatos316 Although I've grown to criticize his takes on Tolkien I will in no way challenge him being a decent man overall. If anything he seems too low key and chill in interviews haha. He's also the kind of author who will more than openly gush about the writers who've influenced him, which shows a considerable amount of humility.
When I clicked on this video, with this title, I immediately thought of Tolkien’s catholic beliefs. To preface, it’s known that Tolkien framed LoTR to be a purely Anglo mythology, as if to say, “This is what came before modern times”. Frank Herbert’s Dune, from what I understand, is what came well after our society reached a myriad of pinnacles. These characters are humans, descended from an Earth long made uninhabitable, who have reached across the galaxy to inhabit other worlds. They participate in the same behaviors to which humans have always been accustomed. My understanding of the Bene Gesserit is that they are an evolution of actual Catholicism. I’m wondering if Tolkien recognized the similarities and disliked Dune so greatly because of his devout beliefs. Love your content and I am currently re-reading both LotR and Dune. They are both amazing stories.
What's really fun, Dune being set way in the future with taboos against machines, and earth long dead, ok, so now Use David Brins Postman as A reference point, specifically the Servants of Cyclops and the Augments. Society gets rebuilt with a strong technological progress, thus leading too the oppression of man by our machines.
First time viewer and loved the compare and contrast you did with Tolkien and Herbert. Im in the middle of God Emperor and was looking for some voices to speak into some of the uncertainty I'm having with this 4th Dune book. I was pleasantly surprised to get what I got from this. You are an excellent presenter of information and you have gained a subscriber as a result. I am a HUGE Tolkien fan with the Silmarillion, in particular, the Ainulindalë being my favorite part of that book.
Firstly, great video. I had always heard that Tolkien dislike Dune, but had never really dug into it, so thank you for doing so. It did remind me of something that happened many years ago When I was in year 8, at the recommendation of my English teacher, I read Lord of the Rings (I was probably a bit young to really get all of the themes but, spoilers, the burning of the shire really punched hard). It took me a while to get through it. Feeling invincible after that in year 9 I picked up Dune. It was, A LOT. (I was definitely too young for that) Now, I thoroughly enjoyed both of these but Dune was my preferred story. My English teacher was a massive Tolkien fan, loved fantasy and hated Sci-Fi, which became a problem because I loved it and would bring it up at every opportunity. Later in Year 12 (VCE for me, Australian, Victorian) we had to write an essay about a genre of fiction, which was supposed to be persuasive. My teacher (the same one from year 8) advised me that there were probably deeper themes in fantasy for me to delve into that Sci-Fi as it was "a bit pulpy" So I spent a lot of time creating an example of fantasy writing, describing the stories and the themes, the use of the heroes journey. Of course what i had actually done is recreated elements of Star Wars and Dune and told it in a fantasy style. Then the the second half it became a comparison between Sci-Fi and fantasy. These two genres have far more in common than they are different, and at the very least i was able to persuade one English teacher that. I hope that you have managed to convince a few people at least that there is value in both genres.
@travismatheson2884 It's a little more than that, I believe. As a writer and hopeful author myself, I often focused my attention on Coming-of-age romances and autobiographical fiction, as I got older I grew fonder of the Science Fiction stories. Although a good amount of my current favorite author Ted Chiang's works are Fantasy, most of the shorter stories are more along the lines of Science Fiction. Or bringing in Scientific reasoning and studies and changing it to fit the fictional landscape he makes. As Ted was a computer programmer and eventually became a Technical Writer freelance, which he then used that money to get himself a deal and get published. With Fantasy, the difference is more or less in the magical and non-real, non-scientific, parts of that fictional space. Ones that told of large scales and great scenery. With extremely deadly and powerful enemies. I liked the dark stuff and still do. Even manga and anime I watch and follow now, are typically very dark materially. I have been experimenting within the world of "Psychological Fantasy" and it isn't Dark Fantasy that I'm doing stories on either. It is specifically bringing in Psychological and darker aspects of humanity to a magical and alternate world. So, yes it is technically High Fantasy, but it is also actually Psychological fantasy as well. It is something I've been experimenting with for a while now.
One nit. From what I remember, LOTR wasn't really a serious academic subject until the 1970s. A professor was cajoled into teaching a course about it by my roommate in 1974 or so. The professor (a specialist in medieval literature) went on to set up academic conferences and published a lot of papers delving into LOTR and the Silmarillion and their connections to Tolkien's academic work.
I think Tolkien hated all contemporary fiction to some degree. At least from what I've seen of his opinions. Not sure what that indicates, but there seemed to be a pattern. 😆
@@chadnine3432 I find that he'd be that guy who'd just argue about something just splitting hairs. I've tended to find that when I've heard anything that Tolkein has said about other writers has always been in the negative and I tend to see it as a bit of elitism but he was also just very picky. He knew what he liked and was very vocal about it and wouldn't mince words
I feel that Tolkien would have had the same opinion on George R. R. Martin's work, which also realistically explores humanity's self-destructive and repetitive tendencies and is probably even more separated from Tolkien's 4 principles of fantasy. Would love to hear your thoughts on that! Also congrats on 100K!
Martin's writing is bleak and sinister, and rejects "good" as a virtue. Even the gods are more like demons who seem to thrive on murder and misery. I really loved the first two books, but had trouble finishing the third. In his quest to make a more realistic story, he lost the point of why people (alright, I) read fantasy.
Martin is a good writer but a bad author, his prose is strong but he lacks any morals, his writing is visceral and addictive but he is what Marx is to John Locke. The grimdark cynical fantasy of Martin does not inspire, it is merely a soap opera about vile people. Tolkien wrote about virtue and how you can find hope and joy from the smallest things, while Martin writes about vice and debauchery.
On the bit about Recovery, I think Shymalan actually had a fantastic line in his movie Old that touched on that. One girl who aged up from basically toddler age described the world as "I see so many more colors now, but none of them are as bright."
As a child of the 60's I loved both books because of the way they drew me into their worlds and want me to know more and more about their histories and geographies and their stories!
Another really great video! One aspect you technically covered, but didn't precisely focus on: In the entirety of Tolkiens works (correct me if i'm wrong), i can't find a single instance of someone doing evil to do good. This is not only an idea Herbert plays with a lot, i would say it's part of his central idea/experiment in the Dune saga. The biggest example of this is arguably the reign of Leto II, who (spoilers) would surpress and terrorize all of humanity for over 3000 years, just so they would scatter and never let anyone do it again. I can imagine Tolkien detesting and refusing this idea.
Me watching this: "I need to spend money on old sci-fi magazines to access old, forgotten stories" I think Tolkien wrote EXACTLY what he liked to such a laser focus that he disliked a lot of things that weren't that.
I was honestly thinking the same thing soon as I saw the title, wondering why I've been noticing a pattern of Tolkien 'seemingly' harboring vitriol toward major works of other genres, and I'm sure I would understand a lot of his sentiment, but it is kind of an odd pattern the more ppl have been diving into his historical accounts ever since that trash faux amazon series came out
I've got some old anthology books that kind of do the same things. They introduced me to _The Weapon Shops of Isher_ and _The Stars My Destination,_ as well as others. In particular _The Chrysalids._ They can often be found in weird little old book shops, where old magazines are tougher.
Since the Moabdib plotline in Dune is very similar to Lawrence of Arabia it is possible that it evoked traumatic memories for Tolkien, a WWI veteran. Either that or it evoked traumatic memories of people claiming that parts of LOTR are analogies to WWI.
Tolkien wrote battle scenes and lived thru a second war before Dune was published. It seems a little thin to suggest he'd have been triggered by a story that resembles a story that took place during one of those wars. Or perhaps it was tongue in cheek...
@@milou4753 Tolkeins wars were those of pre WWI. It's often said that before WWI, war was romantic, for the most part face to face. WWI brought biological warfare via mustard gas and mass slaughter with machine guns and the face of war was forever changed. The wars Tolkein writes are very much the wars of somebody traumatized by WWI.
Dune as a whole us extremely critical of Tolkiens entire world. It has nothing good to say about the church, about colonialism, or about nobility. It basically shits on the cultural pillars of the UK while Tolkien lived.
Thank you for this very clever and interesting analysis. The optimism in Tolkien's work, which allows us to escape into a world full of beauty and wonders, as you explain it so well, is why I will always prefer The Lord of the Rings to Dune, and fantasy in general to science fiction. Also, on a slightly different topic, the way you highlight the importance of ecology in Herbert's work, and the fact that you quote Liet Kynes rather than any other character, reminds us how Denis Villeneuve failed to understand the essence of Dune. I think that's a shame how he erased this fundamental aspect
Such a great exploration of both of these massive stories, and I loved how you used Tolkien’s ideas to compare and contrast them both. Also, this video wasn’t flashy and it felt really good to just vibe with what you’re saying.
Tolkien was a devout Catholic who wrote high fantasy. Herbert wrote anti-religion philosophy books disguised as sci-fi. Of course Tolkien would hate Dune. I love the works of both and have read every (fictional) book both wrote (Tolkien DID write the English Oxford Dictionary after all).
Beatifully argued essay! This would be at home at any traditional publication, yet you have great skill in storytelling through this medium of TH-cam. Not surprised you reached 100k subscribers, I just became another one
This was my first time watching and listening to your show. I subscribed as fast as I could. I love both Dune and Lord of the Rings and you did a fantastic job of looking at them side by side. I am going to find your earlier shows and get caught up. My favorite LOTR character is Eowyn and second is Faramir, so I will look for any references to them specifically. I really look forward to being part of your audience.
I've always been a Tolkien nerd since I was young. Having heard of Dune, I never really got much into it until later. I've always been one to want to explore deep truths of reality and often found that fantasy in general had explored the elements, and often elements of humanity that run deep in our psyche. Much of these fantasy works are just that--manifestations of our deep psyche. As I've gotten older and explored spirituality, I have come to appreciate many different perspectives and can now see the bigger picture of things. I love both Lord of the Rings and Dune because, as was stated here, they're almost antithetical to each other, and both explore deep aspects of human psyche, albiet focusing on different ones. Together they make a whole. All these fantasies are a reflection of our core inner world, and when you put them all together, you see the integration and bigger picture. They all have truths in them, each with their value, each describing different aspects of the same thing. Each fantasy universe is unique but also the same at their deeper cores. This is much like the world religions, each describing different aspects of the same thing. When taking a bunch of blindfolded people to describe an elephant strictly by touch, depending on which part of the elephant they are in contact with, they will describe it differently. Tusks will feel sharp as spears, feet as solid as tree trunks, the tail long like a rope, the side like big wall. All of them are right, and not one is more right or wrong than the other, but each a different aspect of the same thing... the nature of existence and humanity as a whole, and our relationship with the universe. As within, so without, as above, so below. This is why I love both Dune and LOTR. The authors both do a superb job of exploring these different aspects of our psyche, and together make the whole.
I really appreciated this video. I love both Tolkien and Dune, and I totally agree about how different and almost irreconcilable their worldviews are (and loved your mention of eucatastrophe). As a Catholic, I appreciate Dune’s take on the power and the peril of religion. And I think what I appreciate about Dune is how dire it paints the catastrophe - you can’t get to real eucatastrophe without things looking impossibly bleak. Just because he doesn’t get to eucatastrophe himself is fine and makes the eucatastrophic story all the more meaningful?
Your videos are phenomenal!! I used to watch a lot of other channels that would focus on the lore and history of lotr. But, now that I know basically all of it, I find your, more analytical, videos so meaningful. Your style of writing is very entertaining and the actual content is very deep. I really appreciate all your hard work, you are an excellent scholar. Keep in up! Congrats on 100k.
I think there's a slightly hidden reason why he didn't like dune. Tolkien was deeply religious, and if Paul is a warning then that idea is the polar opposite of what Tolkien believed in. As I write this comment I run into religion part of the video.
I suspect that Tolkien as a deeply spiritual and religious person was appalled by Herbert’s profound cynicism with regard to religion in Dune, treating it as nothing more than a way of manipulating and controlling the masses. Although there is no trace of any formal religion in Tolkien’s world it is “charged with the grandeur of God” as Hopkins would have it.
Yeah Middle-Earth is basically catholicism with Elves haha. Tolkien had his biases and they bled into his work for sure!
@@sebastianevangelista4921 There certainly are worse ways it could have gone tho. A religiously zealous route instead of the hopeful optimism trying to redeem even the worst. I think that's a nice message regardless of one's spirituality.
@@sebastianevangelista4921Yes Herbert is very cynical about religion. There are two forms of religion in Dune. There is the Zensunni faith, which is clearly a Muslim sect modified by Buddhist influences. This religion has clearly been deliberately twisted for selfish reasons by the Bene Gesserit propaganda branch, who injected a prophecy about A mythical Mahdi and his Bene Gesserit mother
Then there is the faith followed by the most of the Galaxy, as expressed by the Orange Catholic Bible. This religion is not really explained in any of the Dune books except for the tenet that the human mind is sacred and that any device that attempts to duplicate it or its functions is a blasphemy and strictly forbidden. Apparently modifying the human mind to duplicate the functions of a computer is perfectly all right.
I can see why a devout Catholic like Tolkien would be repelled by both of these "religions" where God and his love appear to be totally absent.
Dune is not fantasy. It is purely science fiction. There is no magic, no wonder, and the battle of good vs evil is entirely lacking. The Atreides use kindness to insure the loyalty of their followers just as the Harkonnens use cruelty to insure the obedience of theirs. Both are only too willing to expend any or all of their followers in the struggle for power. It is a fascinating world, but one which Tolkien would despise as godless and morally barren.
Is Dune really cynical, though? It's certainly very serious and not really optimistic, but it doesn't feel cynical to me, the way something like Warhammer 40k is.
This is it. This is the answer to why.
Also, Anakin Skywalker was not a big Dune fan.
I FUCKING KNEW THIS JOKE WOULD SHOW UP!!!
🤣🤣🤣
it's a really coarse, rough story.
@@Jess_of_the_Shire And it gets everywhere on the internet.
yeah he got burned
Well Tolkien was more of a spider guy than a worm guy.
I mean .... it really is that simple. lol
[Smaug enters the chat]
Funny!
i liked dune, until i found out what the writer of it was and his ending to the tale. basically space jews fly off into the galaxy to start a new civilization after leto reigns as the worm god. its f'ing cringe and the whole story is kinda lame and full of communist, woke nods even for its time. its not a good story.
@@ElectricalExistence your comment tells not a good story about you
Herbert wasn't cynical. He was pragmatic. People tend to wildly oversimplify his ideas based on one little snippet of a quote without context. For example, I've always heard this idea that Paul is not a Hero, yet Herbert has says, "It’s my contention that the difference between a hero and an anti-hero is where you stop the story." It's easier to say "so and so is this or that" but Herbert wrote with conscious nuance designed to generate ideas in the reader's own imagination, which is why Dune Messiah was such a divisive response to the first book. It blatantly called into question the hero-worship of Paul without outright invalidating it, but also presented more challenges to those who saw Paul as a villain to begin with. Herbert's greatest triumph was the intentional ambiguity embedded in his critique, because critique is exploration, not explicit condemnation.
The ironic thing is that JRR Tolkien once considered the idea of a LOTR sequel set in the Age of Man 200 years later, but decided against it because any sequel set in the Age of Man would have to be very dark. So he understood this, but he chose to avoid it.
Well said! I personally loved Dune Messiah.
You say oversimplified and I agree yet also strongly disagree as plenty of readers vastly overanalyze much of dune as well.
While we do know much of FH’s ideology and beliefs, I’m not so sure how much of it was placed in the story directly or just bled out of him indirectly into it. I think his pragmatic and realist mind simply thought these set of cultural and historical circumstances fit his universe best. Sure he explored ideas and beliefs but I think ultimately the lesson was secondary to the journey.
@@michaelwong9411 lmao what
Love the angle!
Yes, J.R.R. Tolkien was very particular, and spiritually minded. However, he was a huge fan of trees! In Dune, there are no trees! How can one write a fantasy without the beauty of trees? I'm sure that was it.
:)
😉
He hates sand
It's coarse, and rough, and irritating, and it gets everywhere. 🤪
This makes sense
Tolkien was correct in saying that he could not be a good critic as a competitor, and that was not his role or place. That was truly the best take, because he knew he would be unfairly biased.
I think that the competitor reason is a polite excuse. They obviously had vastly different philosophies and I think Tolkien didn’t want to go there.
I think competitors are often the ones who appreciate each others skills the most. I think that breaks down in this case because the skill in question is putting each of their personal philosophies into a book.
That’s just my personal take on it.
@@TylerWardhaha
It wouldn't have mattered what he'd argued, people would have said he was just slandering a rival. He was in the wrong position to criticize.
@@Lilliathipresupposing that others wouldn’t bother to hear his reasoning but rather dismiss it outright seems a strong assumption to me.
Obviously there are people who are biased and won’t hear an argument out, but assuming those are the people Tolkien is worried reacting seems a bit of a stretch. Due to his position as an influential writer Tolkien is in possibly the best position a writer could hope to be in when it comes to people being willing to hear him out.
@@TylerWardhaha I didn't say everyone would dismiss him. Yes, him being a successful writer is a good position to criticize from, but not this "rival" book.
Doing so would risk his reputation.
There's also the fact that ANYTHING he said negative about Dune might unfairly damage Herbert's rep and sales. Even if Tolkien didn't like it, he doesn't need to bias his own readers against another author.
My take goes as follows.
Tolkien was a devout Christian. The very idea of breeding a Messiah would have shocked him to his very core, perhaps even disgusted him.
The supernatural doesn't exists in the universe of Dune. No god in the sky, no angelic beings, no multitude of spirits. Every fantastic thing that happens is the result of hard work by humans with no assistance or intervention from beings on high. Dune is materialistic.
The Dune saga is about looking forward towards a perilous future. Tolkien's legendarium is about looking back at a golden age.
The world of Dune is grounded in technology. >Everyone< in the stories has a "Mind of machines and wheels." Were Saruman a wise and powerful human being, he would have fit into the power structures portrayed in the Dune saga. We all know how Tolkien felt about technology, complex machines, even Saruman himself.
I am not at all surprised he hated Dune.
Not just that but the Fremen religion in Dune was propaganda used for control. Tolkien believed legends and myths were "largely made of truth" in that they are the means by which a deeper truth can be unveiled. For a myth, a religion, to be explicitly stated to be a lie used for manipulation, and for the people propagating those lies to be the "heroes" would have been as you say shocking and disgusting to Tolkien.
You obviously read a different version of dune to the one I read. It is full of magic and the spiritual and religion. The spice itself is essentially magical in its properties. I think it is more that many of the ideas in Dune are extremely blasphemous to Christianity.. Like you said creating-breeding your own messiah.
@@Lucien86Spice is in no way magical. One day, it might be possible to extend life as we see fit and the human mind still is full of secrets and mysteries for us to discover.
Regarding religion, i think what religious people might hate the most here is, that Herbert went the logical way and _evolved_ the different Religions, which will happen anyway.
Your typical for example muslim expects that his world view and beliefs will never change and always stay relevant, because thats what he was told from childhood on, backed up by holy scripture, but then, there is this Frank Herbert guy, writing a science fiction book, where Islam is combined with buddistic concepts and philosophy of all things. Shocking! Blasmephous! Same goes for christians. I cant remember how Herbert described it, bu basically, christianity also changes drastically over time. Shocking! Blasphemous!
@Lucien86 the "magic" in Dune wasn't magical. All of it was achieved by mental disciplines, genetic engineering, and chemical stimulation. For example, the Bene Gesserit mental compulsions were vocal techniques that essentially hypnotized people into compliance. All of Paul's abilities were derived from having knowledge of one's past lives, which allowed him to fully see the past and foresee how possible futures could unfold based on knowledge of the past. Everything else was explained by technological or mind altering effects from the spice. It may have seemed like magic, but it was not supernatural.
As for religion, Dune represents a cynical view of it. It was portrayed as a powerful framework that could drive followers to achieve what many would think to be impossible, but it was also ultimately portrayed as illusory, something fake used by the powerful to control the masses. That's exactly what Paul did, which is why he isn't really a hero despite being the protagonist. It was also shown to be dangerous rather than benign, as even charismatic leaders who use religion can lose control over the masses. This is why Paul struggled with guilt in the second book: because he could not stop the Jyhad once he overthrew the Emperor. If he tried, he would have been martyred and the Fremen would have continued their campaign in his name. And all of this came about because of the power of the Fremen's faith in him and in their religion.
The Bene Gesserit and their powers are kinda supernatural/spiritual. Their training is inspired by practises that are meant to attain spiritual powers in several religions. They also mention souls. Souls are part of the spiritual realm....and having visions or prophetic dreams is also something. Engineering a messiah actually reminds me of the antichrist prophecy. Something/someone who will appear like a saviour and fulfills almost all the foretold criteria but is a deception by the powerful to lead people away from God. And didnt the author say that Baron Harkonnen was meant to be the embodiment of the 7 deadly sins?
Btw.....sky and heaven are 2 different things. I dont know a single person whos into theology and spirituality who says the geographical sky is were God is.
I think most people are forgetting a rather crucial part of Tolkien's life that heavily influenced his outlook on life and perhaps offer a reason as to why he disliked Dune. WW1. His time in the trenches and the traumatic events inflicted upon him there more than likely would have led him to become even more grounded in his beliefs as they, along perhaps with his wife and children, may have given hope for the future and helped him cope with whqtever trauma-related issues he may or may not have been struggling with.
So upon reading Dune, perhaps he found it's more somber and morose tone to be too cynical, jaded and defeatist in regards to life and humanity itself as he would've experienced first-hand the worst of what men could do to each other and yet throughout his life, expressed countless times throughout his works, he always had hope. At least, as far we know he did.
So it's the PTSD talking...
@@TheGrifhinx No. That's not at all what PTSD is. It's a matter of philosophy greatly affected by each author's time in war. When Tolkien fought in WW1 people had a much simpler view of things like good and bad and who was or wasn't moral and that along with his religious beliefs likely led to his time in the war confirming that world view. This contrasts with Herbert's (and many others) experience fighting in WW2 where many could not clearly tell who was or wasn't in the wrong. With hindsight it's easy to see the Nazis for what they were and the atrocities they caused, however in that era many people truly did believe in their cause and were groomed into submission by their propaganda. And even on the flip side, many simply did not care. A majority of Americans held the opinion that it did not matter and there was no reason to get involved before Japan attacked. There was just overall greater divides and moral questioning on both sides along with the fact that times were changing and American culture as a whole was slowly progressing into what it is now.
Tolkien's more idealistic beliefs simply fit his era and the experiences he likely had whilst Herbert's are more fitting for a time when the people in power began to all look equally despicable. The second world war was just a significantly more complex experience for many involved and the fact that there even was a second world war kinda shows that what Herbert thought about humanity falling into old habits didn't come from nowhere. It's easy to feel trapped in a cycle of misery when less than 30 years have passed since the largest war in history and it's already been upstaged.
@@TheGrifhinx not really, but he at the very least had a deep knowledge of PTSD, so likely had it or knew fellow soldiers who did. Its not shown in the movies, but in the books Frodo experiences a textbook description of PTSD in the events after destroying the ring.
He shuts himself away, writing of his experiences, perhaps a reference to tolkien himself, while the rest of the hobbits in the fellowship go on to have successful careers and father up to 10 children (iirc) in the case of sam. He seems to get flashbacks every year on certain anniversaries, both being stabbed by the nazgul in the fellowship, and of his failure to destroy the ring at the end of his journey.
Which ultimately is what leads to him sailing off to valinor, the home of the gods in middle earth, for a hope of being healed. Its made clear it isnt a "magical healing" really, more of a healing of spirit and mind by being surrounded by everything good in the world. The shire had sort of lost all luster for him it seemed.
This is why I can't stand the Dune fandom. All of you are so condescending to anybody with any belief. Reductionists. Everything must be explained not by science, but by lack of meaning. "Ww1 must've grounded home in his beliefs by giving him hope for a better future" . No, that is not what religion in general does. That's not what it's for. If anything, Christianity helps solidify that there is little hope for a better future for the world. The only reason anybody likes this series is because it happens to be a (rather poor) commentary on religion. It's much more than that but the internet attracts the worst fans
@DoubleOhSilver If my OP came across as such, please know that I did not intend it to. I have great respect for all Christians... except Catholics.
Jokes aside, I assume that when you say "that there is little hope for a better future for the world," that you are referring to Judgement Day where most of humanity will be dammed to Hell for all eternity because they are sinful.
If it were as hopeless as I take you to mean, then why does the Lord, via the Church, encourage preaching and attempting conversions of all non-believers and sinners if they deserve it. Why would he send down Christ to redeem us all if he did not have hope for us?
I do agree that the series is a poorly constructed critique of religion, but that does not mean that the narrative is completely without merits. And I and certainly many others do not appreciate being told that we merely enjoy something because it attempts to criticise something we do not agree with.
As if we are incapable of judging something for its objective merit. That, to me, is more condescending than anything I mentioned in my OP.
I know in my brain LOTRs was published in ‘54 but my heart has a hard time coming to terms with the fact that Tolkien and Herbert were contemporaries. It’s like how Dali and Picasso lived far into the 1900’s… just doesn’t compute lol
Totally agree! It's astonishing how quickly LotR became a modern myth.
@@Jess_of_the_Shireexactly what Tolkien dreamed of.
Fun fact: Dali was in TV commercials for Alka-seltzer
I'm always confused by people confused about Dali and Picasso living in the 1900s. Their work could only have been from the 20th century. It would be way, way weirder if their work existed in the 19th century or earlier.
(That's not an attack on anyone, I'm just honestly baffled that people see these quintessential 20th century artists as anything else.)
I was kinda flashed that way when GRRM talked about him writing letters to Tolkien.
well to be honest, Dune is realy dry...
🤦♂️
**Buh dum tss** 🥁🥁🥁
I said it once and I'll say it again, Jim, you are one slippery son of a bitch and your gumption is only surpassed by your moxie. Now get the hell out of here.
I felt dirty upvoting that spicy take...
Boooooo hisssssss
😕
Tolkien wanted what all fantasy writers want - to have their readers dream.
Herbert wanted what all science fiction writers want - to warn their readers.
Neither is inherently better or worse, right or wrong, both serve their intended purpose... and the fact that both these men used so many similar elements and techniques throughout their biggest works shows that they are indeed good stories made by great storytellers...
Only one question remains: which effect you are in the mood for :)
I'd strongly disagree that science fiction is about warning your readers. It can just as well be the dream of an interesting and promising future. Just because modern sentiment sometimes has trouble having a positive outlook doesn't have to mean it's a truth of some kind.
@@johnnyhunter3869 science itself has its foundation in dreaming of better ways, which makes dreamy stories easy and expectable. Bland and unimaginative. Good scifi story uses science to be the basis of a dream, but the fiction is a basis of grounding that dream, anchoring the reader. It's easy for humans to dream sometimes, harder to accept risks of reality, sci fi explores those risks and even with best of intentions and best possible outcomes it's not as compelling of a story unless you juxtapose the dangers posed by taking the dream too far. It was an obvious simplification for comparison sake on my part in the original comment, of course there is nuance and science themes can be used in lighthearted way or with a mean to show positive possibilities and improvements, but that's not fiction - that's just how it is IRL all the time. That's not as fun. If you want only the good parts then you can just read ads and marketing documents...
@@Jump3RPictur3s I simply too umbrage with the simplification. Things are always more interesting when they are complex, but to ascribe depression as a centerpoint to a genre that may just as easily focus on the more positively themed struggle against the potential dangers the future holds.
@@johnnyhunter3869 absolutely, good dialogue and storytelling demand complexity, you could not be more right about that my friend... however warnings and cautionery tales and risk assessment doesn't mean depression by default... it is often correlated in most popular works, to some extent, and if not depression then we can observe other states of concern for alertness... all of which are very human aspects everyone struggles or struggled with at least once in their life... taking them to extremes with convenience, comfort and compliance are effective recipies for compelling scifi storytelling and worldbuilding because humans are very easily self-destructive like that. Just look at our vast history. And I did not say anything about negative or positive notions of "warnings" and "dreams", you jumped to that conclusion on your own, which is a bit biased if you ask me. Personally I struggle with dreams being positive things only and warnings or caution being something bad or to be frowned upon, to me they always were the opposite - dreams are the danger, and warnings are what keeps you alive.
i mean sci fi and fantasy can have a lot of overlap
I wasn't expecting to cry during this video, but I got a little misty-eyed during the spiel about love and honor being special because while you were saying that I was thinking about the way Tolkien talks about friendship and the combination of the two hit me in the feels.
Why do I love both LOTR and Dune, even though neither is perfect? They both take their audience seriously. Both authors assume we will care deeply about their ideas as they do, and they each worked as hard as possible to make their ideas interesting.
In a lot of ways, they're really 2 sides of the same coin. Dune has all the shades of grey where Lord of the Rings feels more black and white in their themes, just to start
See also Gene Wolfe
Tolkien was just mad he didn't come up with Dune
"They both take their audience seriously." This is why Disney has failed huge recently.
@@MH-il1lk Oh they take their IMAGINARY 🤡 "modern audiences" quite seriously!
Not enough trees.
It's hard to write 3 pages describing the land scape when all you can see is an ocean of sand
God Emperor of Dune. ;)
-7.8/10
Too much sand
@@Bruhsaurus-Moment yeah, gets everywhere.
Read all 6 books. There are plenty. They even turn a polluted planet back into an inhabitable one.
I think that one of the commonalities that make me love both Dune and LOTR is that both hint at a much wider universe than what is actually written in the pages. You get a sense that there are vast sweeps of time -- both forward and backward -- and they help enrich the story even if there are not any specifics. So many authors try to specify or canonize their entire world that those worlds feel smaller and less inhabitable.
It's a major, major secret ingredient.
Have you ever read Malazan Book of the Fallen? By your description, it sounds like you would love it.
If you like this feeling I highly recommend Foundation by Isaac Asimov. It’s criticised for not having great characterisation, but once you realise the characters are nothing but vessels to tell the greater story as time jumps between short stories/chapters it grows into a larger tale on a galactic scale and long term time frame.
@@KeytarArgonianBut only the original trilogy. The following books lost the original magic.
Yes one that you can put yourself into. I always kind of thought of that too but never understood it until you said it. Like Harry Potter there's a hint that there's more going on there is other characters you could follow and you can self insert yourself into it
Tolkien wanted his readers to dream. Herbert wanted his readers to wake up.
I dislike this sort of take on the stories. Dune is no less a work of fiction than LOTR. It provides no greater insights into the human condition.
You really need both the heroic vision and the awareness of the dangers to live a fulfilling life, regardless of the era. You need to have an ideal you strive for, as well as an awareness of the potential pitfalls (no one is more dangerous than a zealot). Without the ideal to strive for you just spend your time grubbing around like a rat, trying to merely survive--Saruman after Isengard fell, or the Fremen before the Planetologist showed up. If you don't have an awareness of the pitfalls you end up betraying your own ideal--Saruman in Isengard, or Paul. In that way, BOTH authors are telling people to wake up. Tolkien wanted the reader to wake up to the heroic inside them ("from bucolic vice to heroic virtue" is his words); Herbert wanted them to wake up to the dangers around them.
To despair. Waking up from ones bullshit isnt walking up.
You say that like dreaming is a bad thing lol.
BRILLIANT
I imagine the reason he didn’t like Dune is the same reason he wouldn’t like ASOIAF if he had lived to read it: it’s very cynical and almost hopeless. Nothing is really redeemed.
I feel like Tolkien had some Augustinian pessimism, the world's declining but there's hope at the end. Whereas ASOIAF is extremely nihilistic. I would say there's hope in Dune, but there's so much suffering you wonder if it's really worth it in the end.
@@RestingJudge Tolkien may have been conflicted personally, but we know in his work the universe is just an orchestral display for Illuvitar. Of course for some melodies to rise others must fall in volume.
Tolkien likely wanted to write a story of after the elves left, but found it depressing. He also unfortunately is not immortal, so he was not able to finish his works (if he ever would have finished them, or only expanded).
@dylanc9174 I think it can come across as being conflicted, and we humans are, to a certain degree, on many things. Tolkien's ideas of decline and hope are actually extremely consistent with the Catholic tradition, though. If you're familiar with Augustine's City of God, and Tolkien most certainly was, it demonstrates these ideas to their fullest religious context.
I think a story after the elves leaving would evoke too much of where Tolkien saw the world going, more industrialization, exploitation, and the end of simple hobbit life. It's probably too depressing for Tolkien to continuously reflect on. Still hope would be there, but focusing on the eclipse makes it seem like the sun will never shine in a sense.
@K.C-2049 yeah, I don't think Tolkien would've been a big fan of the ends justifying the means in Dune. In regards to ASOIAF he would've been disgusted with it's nihilism, but the work isn't finished so he'd probably hold his tongue until there was an actual end to the story.
@@RestingJudgeAsoiaf isn’t nihilistic. Game of Thrones might be but they missed the point Martin was trying to make. We are currently seeing a bunch of randoms fighting for the North due to their love of Ned Stark, who we know is a fundamentally decent man, and we’re seeing Tywin’s children torch his legacy.
Martin has spoken at length about how he loves the bittersweet ending of LOTR.
I first read On Fairy Stories as a teenager. Almost two decades later, I still cry every single time Tolkien talks about the value of escape. It speaks to me on a level I cannot describe. The feeling of “wanting to get out and go home” lives inside me and has only ever been spoken to or seen through fantasy.
On Fairy Stories truly is a gift.
True, but unfortunately the fugue keeps playing, so the escape can't be forever and people have to keep getting back and climbing the rigging to out-sail the storms
For him tho, it wasn't fantasy. Catholics literally call conversion 'going home' like if you find TH-cam vids of people that convert to Catholicism check the comments people will be saying 'welcome home'. I think the Catholic Church has the best claim to Truth I've seen...something to consider.
The part on eucatastrophe made me tear up. It's that illumination on the edge of understanding that lights Tolkien's work.
It was reading Tolkien's explanation of eucatastrophe that hit home for me more than reading The Hobbit, then Lord of the Rings. I understood immediately what it meant...to me, and it encouraged me to continue reading more of his works, or at least the parts that Christopher Tolkien and others have compiled. I had always wanted to know or maybe had a hint of understanding of why I felt the way I did with certain stories, how they were constructed, how I felt when that 'turn' came, and why they touched me deeply in certain ways, and reading On Fairy Stories was the key to help me accept and understand why I had those feelings.
I like how she holds that cup the whole time but never drinks out of it.
I don't. She's a bad actress with 'conceited phoney' stamped all over her.
Probably did take sips but cut it out in the editing.
It may not be her cup of tea
I consider this spoilers 😠
bro is unaware of video editing
Dune’s sand worms are based upon the predatory nematodes, especially the genus Monochus. The 3 lips is the key. Originally these microscopic creatures had 6 lips, but as they evolved lips fused together. In the case of Monochus pairs fused given 3 lips each bearing a tooth.
I have degrees in plant pathology and nematodes are actually studied under that heading. They can be vectors of plant diseases or cause injuries to plants themselves. Monochus feeds upon other nematodes. I saw one illustration of Monochus that looked just like the cover illustration from Dune.
Did he not got the idea of the worms from Lovecraft?
@@saschafeld5528worms are lovecraftian enough by themselves 😂
@@GuillaumeLeclerc No I think these kind of worms are mentioned in a Lovecraftstory.
@@saschafeld5528 at least two I remember but my point was more the fact worms of themselves are eldrich horrors if you look too closely. I could see there being a direct reference to lovecraft’s worms, but it could just be one of those things were we keep going back to it collectively. Norse mythology’s got a great worm, egyptians, and probably many more. They are horrible little creatures 😂
It reminds me of how Mark Twain disliked Jane Austen's works. It seems inconceivable as both are extraordinarily beloved authors, but people are different and they can like and dislike things for their own reasons.
Except that Twain's reasons were the right ones. 🙂 Read his two essays on James Fenimore Cooper - apart from Twain's confusion about the size of riverboats in Cooper's day, it's probably the best and funniest literary criticism put to paper.
@@waltergold3457 Mark Twain the granddaddy of men forcing their unasked for opinions on literature and art made by and for women
@@vs6584 Twain did say he feared the "crinoline in the camp." 🙂
@@waltergold3457did he have traumatic experiences with crinolines?
@@vs6584 And how fortunate we are that women never treat men that way.
As far as I know, the only contemporary genre writer’s work Tolkien enjoyed was Robert E. Howard’s Conan the Barbarian books. Its a shame that Howard died quite young and the two never had chance to meet, with a smoke and mug of ale in hand.
The architects of High Fantasy and Heroic Fantasy / Sword and Sorcery!
I vaguely remember he said he quite enjoyed Asimov and Clarke?
He liked Asimov's Foundation.
Holly Ordway's Tolkien's Modern Reading discusses a lot of the stuff that he read, and he definitely did enjoy some modern authors. It's been a minute since I read the book, but I remember it being quite educational.
This is overblown. At most Tolkien probably read one Conan story that was sent to him in a collection by either Lin Carter or L Sprague DeCamp and in the letter he sent back he vaguely said he sort of liked one but whether that was the singular Conan story or one of the others. DeCamp or Carter then started making out that Tolkien was a huge fan to boost sales of their own versions of the Conan books which were coming out at that time (as if the Frazetta covers weren't enough).
When i was 14 and strolling around i literally found a book laying beside some rubble written "Dune" on it. I just picked it up to read it later. And so began my life long love for science fiction. :)
That is how I found Interview with the Vampire on the floor of a department store that was going out of business.
Fantastic video! I first read lord of the rings twelve years ago and have loved it ever since, I read it again every couple of years. Have also been a huge tolkien fan ever since and I admire many of his thoughts and writings, even though I feel like he and I are very different people, especially on the religious side. My father has been a dune fan since the 80s when he first read it, and has always tried to get me to read the books, which he still has since he was a teen. I tried reading the first one a couple of times a few years ago and for some reason stopped in the beginning. Now, after the second movie came out, I decided to get back into it and have already read the first book and messiah. Almost halfway through children of dune now. Both dune and lotr are fantastic sagas and before now, I hadn't really tried to compare them. I can see some similarities and many differences, but this video was so well crafted it made me think so much more about this. Just subscribed to the channel and am looking forward to more. Keep it up!
“Tolkien didn’t like cars” why did I immediately think you meant the Pixar film? Timeline issues assign, that was a funny visual.
It's cannon--Tolkien would have despised Lightning McQueen
@@Jess_of_the_Shire"kachow, Elfman" - Lightning Mcqueen
Timestamp ?
He wasn’t a fan of Disney either iirc so that’s probably a safe assumption.
Haha same. I have a 4yo though...
FWIW I _love_ the name Duncan Idaho, because it actually makes perfect sense: in the distant future, who knows which names from history will be remembered, which ones people fill find intriguing and exotic and interesting. It seems like such an absurd name today, or 60 years ago, but I think it's that contrast of "absurd today" versus "maybe they would a thousand years from now" that makes it interesting.
Have you watched The Postman?
There's a character born after the apocalypse by the name Ford Lincoln Mercury. Yet stranger: people are still alive who remember those words from the signs in front of car dealerships.
It's like if you went back to the 1600s and told them one of the 20th Century's most popular action/adventure heroes is named Indiana Jones. I'm sure their response would be nearly the same as our is to 'Duncan Idaho'.
@@zargonofb Yeah, I do, although the first thing I think of was more of a joke, the character named (the alien who chose the name) "Ford Prefect"
Oswald in 2024, is a name for nerds.
Ásvaldr in 900, was the name of kings and warriors.
Duncan Idaho is a great name. I, however, refuse to believe that the jesus of year 10,191 would be named 'Paul' 😂 at least, not unless Christianity had persisted in some capacity, and I can't remember if that's the case. 'Jessica' is another name that I find out of place, at least for a main character. I think that some common names could survive into the far future, but having the two most common names used for the most central characters feels more plainly like Herbert trying to make the protagonists accessible to people of his time. After all, immigrants with the name 'Jose' were changing it to 'Joe' back then, people were a little sheltered lol (and some still are).
Duncan Idaho is a great name. The universe runs on Duncan.
The books can be read in a way to confirm this.🙂
OOOOOH, that's so bad it's AWESOME!
"Duncan" is an ordinary male name, found incidentally among the Kings of Scots. I couldn't figure out the "Idaho" part, though: Why would a guy millennia hence bear the name of a less-peopled Western US state--unless his ancestors held a related title (as in "Prince Elector of Idaho")? It *has* given me a smidgeon of inspiration, though, imagining a character with a Celtic first name coupled with another US state's....
Well originally Denis V. adaptation is named after Duncan 😂
There 45 different cool names and all of them are spent on Paul. So the rest gets names like Duncan Idaho.
Tolkien didn’t hate Dune. He even said that it was a good story. It just wasn't the kind of story that he preferred reading about, which is completely fine. We all have our own tastes.
I think there is a missing link between Tolkien and Herbert that has value being explored; author Michael Moorcock. I would say in many ways Tolkien was an author of an earlier time of classic certainties and reassurances that evil will always be its own undoing. Herbert was an author that in many ways was re-telling the story of 'The New World' (the spice trade, the influence of other nations and religion on a different land) but with many of the more jaded mindset that was relevant in the Americas. Then there was Michael Moorcock, who was a major force in the sci-fi and fantasy world of the 60's and 70's that updated and flipped many of the genre escapist stories and turned them on their head. Moorcock himself met and spent time with Tolkien, and though respected he has voiced his opinion of how he found fault with Tolkien's classic trope of "trust the old man who knows best" way of thinking that was rather traditionally English for the time. I honestly believe if there was an Elric of Melniboné series of movies (which there absolutely could be), he would sit close enough between these two stories to value being spoken about. And the fact that he is not spoken about more is a failing of literature.
Interesting, is he more in the idealist or cynical way of writing, or something in between?
The other writer you can look to from that era is Philip Jose Farmer. But if you want an in-depth sociological analysis on mankind both in a fantasy and a sci-fi setting, that’s Ursula Le Guin. She’s one of the all time greats and her books have absolutely influenced my worldview
@@agatazietek9098Probably somewhere in between. Elric, the protagonist of Moorcock's most famous series, is profoundly selfish, somewhat evil (he has a moral compass but often ends up choosing to do awful things and being haunted by them afterwards) and spends much of his time chasing relatively petty grudges to the edge of the world and past it. At the same time, he ends up saving his local environs and eventually the world at large over and over, electing to do his duty even though it means he and everyone he cares about will die and be forgotten.
He is an incarnation of the Champion Eternal, an archetype central to Moorcock's stories that is always fated to live a miserable life but also to bring balance between the equally destructive forces of Law and Chaos. When Law dominates, it eventually destroys everything and creates an empty void since that is easiest to govern, and Chaos victory results in a broiling mess where change occurs for the sake of change, ultimately resulting in a different kind of stagnation. As a result, Moorcock clearly departs from both Tolkien's good-evil dichotomy and Herbert's view of an uncaring universe. For Moorcock that latter is actually desirable, as humans becoming able to develop free of the influence of both Law and Chaos is one of the few unquestionable positives in his universe.
What I love about Elric is that he was a type of character you would normally see as a villain. Guy who knows the difference between the good and evil, wants to be good, but always succumbs down. The difference from an antihero is his complete lack of the qualities those guys posses. He is not a bully that does something good proving there is a good in him. He is a nerd who then turns into a bully while still hating bullies and wanting the revenge upon them. He starts full of himself, thinking he is a way better person than he really is. Then it slowly transforms into self loathing once he realises who he really is. The best written morally gray character I had a chance to read about.
Heh you said moorcock
As a big fan of both Dune and LOTR, what I enjoy about both books is their rich and enthralling universes first and foremost. The lore is not only deep and detailed but magnetic as well. It captures my mind and pulls me into the world so much that I cannot help but want to stay there well after it’s time to go. Likewise the characters have tremendous depth to them that makes them feel truly alive.
The departures in tones, themes, and ideals could not be larger between the two, and if outlook had to be placed on a spectrum, Herbert and Tolkien would find themselves on opposite ends. But I think it is perfectly rational for a reader to enjoy two works of opposite theme and tone. We are not one-dimensional people after all. One day we are vibrant romantics and the next we may be jaded cynics. And with nearly the entire world in our pockets now 24/7, it is easier than ever to have something radically change our prospectives in a flash. It’s no surprise then that many people can swing wildly from being boundless optimists lauding the heroic and virtuous good triumphing against daunting evils to gritty pessimists who want to read about their flawed protagonists stumble just as we do. Books and film are escapism at the end of the day, but we want to escape from changes constantly, so it only makes sense our forms of escape would change constantly as well.
I agree on the world building. The books that I revisit, that I remember well, that I cherish years after the fact are great stories told upon a detailed stage. Would I like John Wick if there was no Continental? No place to spend the gold coins? Probably. Would I love it? Would I have been eager for more chapters? Not really. It's the WORLD that pulls you in ...
And so it is with Middle Earth that has been fertile ground for Dungeons & Dragons and videogames and more. People love to be immersed in it. Tolkien told us many stories from the place, and we loved them both: The stories AND the place.
And Dune fills our imaginations in similar ways. How to travel through space? How to occupy such alien worlds? How to live without smart machines ... on purpose. The set pieces are different from Middle Earth, but it still calls to us to explore outside the pages and between the lines. It awakens our imaginations with a little spice ...
You almost made me want to re-read Dune with your first paragraph. Then, for me, you started to prattle. How can a person swing from being a jaded cynic one day to a vibrant romantic on another? Maybe someone with a very short memory, perhaps. You argue that it is easier now than ever to have something radically change our perspectives in a flash. It seems to me that anyone who is like that must live a very confused life struggling to know who they are and how to make sense of the world if they are so easily changed.
Lastly, "at the end of the day" books and film are *only* escapism if one wants them just for that. To dismiss the educational potential of books and films like this just cannot go without correction.
J.R.R. Tolkien's work resonates with my soul. I love the beauty of Middle-earth, the sense of history and grandeur, and the music of its languages. As a Christian, Tolkien's "wholly Catholic" conception of Middle-earth's spirituality has always comforted me, and Sam and Frodo's love for each other and dedication to their quest to save friends and community from Evil inspires and refreshes me. As an artist and an ex-vangelical, the melancholy of the Elves is something I increasingly find I can relate to as I get older and as I watch the institutions I was raised to respect erode and darken with greed, power-lust, and hatred, while the toll industry has taken on nature now threatens everything.
Dune appeals to me because it's a science fiction world that is massive in scale and yet focused in its telling upon a political, commercial and religious struggle that doesn't become dull or tedious. It presents a setting that's both strange and familiar, becoming in a sense timeless. The skepticism it holds toward power structures and their rulers' machinations that manipulate and exploit powerless people has proven applicable to what we see play out in our own governments and corporations again and again. And, more recently, with the rush of tech corporations to embrace generative AI despite its origins in massive art theft and ambitions of automating creative jobs (forcing artists to seek paying work in office drudgery or manual labor), I find myself increasingly sympathetic to the Butlerian Jihad.
I go to the two stories to draw different things from them. But there are a few points of similarity where both resonate with me. Obviously, both present lush, flavorful worlds that are different from our own and yet remain very believable, and in that I find beauty and boundless cleverness. They both tell epic, sweeping chronicles, which is great fun. But additionally, despite Tolkien's inclusion of powerful characters like Aragorn and Gandalf, those characters appeal because they have humble origins and lofty principles they actually emulate rather than merely pretending to. Aragorn and Gandalf have for me the same appeal as Superman: the fantasy that someone with so much power could still be a genuinely good person. They confront corrupted power structures, from Sauron and Saruman, Wormtongue and Denethor, to Ted Sandyman, and restore justice. And the true heroes of the story, the ones who save everyone, are the little folk who are barely known of even by their neighbors and who have no pretensions to importance. Despite the romance of divine powers and kingly lineages, Tolkien's distrust of hierarchies of power still comes through his "fairy-stories."
Where Herbert reminds us what the reality of our world is and how important the ecology of things is to our continued survival, Tolkien reminds us that holding on to hope and demonstrating compassion aren't foolish or in vain. They both acknowledge the existence of corruption and deal with what the temptations of power does to people. While Dune doesn't necessarily offer the hope and emotional uplifting of Tolkien's eucatastrophe, I think I benefit from having the skeptical education that Herbert encourages, too. Both are beneficial to living in the real world.
Good analysis. You're quite right; both bring a unique perspective and teach similar but distinct lessons. Regardless, we cannot escape the similarities in narrative storytelling and messaging. The two compliment each other quite well.
TL; DR: both Arwen and Chani are hot in their own ways.
JK: good analysis, interesting opinion
Absolutely banger comment, that was genuinely so nice to read and well-written :)
Good comment 👍👍
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Tolkein plagiarized his entire life’s work from Norse Paganism, not a little bit, but completely and entirely, he didn’t even have the creativity to make up his own names for the characters. Gandalf and a dozen or more of the other characters are complete and utter ripoffs of the writings of greater men
"Fantasy and science fiction are fundamentally different genres."
Me: _scrunches my face in confusion as i can't hear you over the sound of my blender turning fantasy and sci-fi into a science fantasy smoothie_
Most science fiction is just fantasy. Obviously, it’s a different kind of fantasy, but replacing magic with science doesn’t change the fact that they are the same genre slotting into a different archetype. Proper science fiction, something like the Martian, is rare
this comment is cringe as fuck
@@yourdreams2440this comment is cringe as fuck
@@yourdreams2440 one day you will grow up and stop to referring things as "cringe".
@@LilFeralGangrel Doesn’t matter how old I get, some things will be cringe.
I loved the entire Dune series but when I learned that Herbert in '83 didn't allow Iron Maiden to use the title Dune for a song they dedicated to his novel because he didn't like rock, I was disappointed by such close-mindedness.
I mean, he was also a massive homophobe, even against his son. Not surprising rock music was too much for him
Why are authors such haters my god.
I believe I remember reading Tolkien hated Led Zeppelin's Music, even though they were constantly making reference to his works. That's just how it goes. I can't find the exact quote, but I did find this one:
> In addition in a house three doors away dwells a member of a group of young men who are evidently aiming to turn themselves into a Beatle Group. On days when it falls to his turn to have a practice session the noise is indescribable.....
And this:
> I read eagerly all details of your [Christopher's] life, and the things you see and do - and suffer, Jive and Boogie-Woogie among them. You will have no heart-tug at losing that (for it is essentially vulgar, music corrupted by the mechanism, echoing in dreary unnourished heads).
So yeah, he didn't like Jazz, Rock, etc. Ah well.
@@arrow2589 There's no such thing, it's just a smear word of the weak ignorant leftists.
Do you like everything in this world?
i love how polite he was about not liking it. it's like shorthand for "it's not my cup of tea, but i shan't elaborate further lest my own view on the matter corrodes those of others who may otherwise find great entertainment from within its pages.
my writing philosophy is: when you're inspired to write a specific scene, or a specific event, a specific anything, do it. just write. don't worry about plot or pacing, don't worry about spelling or grammar, doon't worry about anything other than what is happening on the scene. a story is made from a book, a book is made from a world, a world is made from events, events are made from scenes. to create your world, you must first create your scene. find that lynchpin that the whole story rests on, and remove it. examine it closely, explore every groove, every chip, every crevice. know your story through this pin. let it be your eye into another world, and use it to carve out the destiny you seek for the characters you write about.
to build a world, you must first put things in it. let there be light.
It was a mature and respectful approach. Sometimes it is the better part of wisdom to remain silent.
Exactly, I feel that from alot of people that love Dune will villianize Tolkien for not liking Dune, when Tolkien literally had the most polite responce about not liking it ever. He didn't go into depths trashing it or saying it was horrible literature, just that he personally didn't like it, which is WELL within his rights.
doon't
He knew how stupid he would sound if he expressed it out loud.
@@bfrfoxtrotAuthors are still people and people are allowed to not like things
I think that’s why Tolkien gave up with his LotR sequel, he would have gone down the Allegorical route of story telling, bring it too much into Frank Herberts style of storytelling.
FYI, I read Dune belfore I read LorT, and love both books dearly.
Good ol' Lort
I also read _Dune_ first, when I was about 13. It was in fact the paperback's back cover that presented me with my first reference to LOTR--in a blurb from Arthur C. Clarke where he said he knew of nothing comparable to _Dune_ except for LOTR. Didn't get to Tolkien, though, till nearly 20.
He got into Franco-ism. Writing an anti-fascist book didn't make sense to him anymore.
To be clear.. are you saying Tolkien got into Francoism?
If so, what on earth is that take based on?
@@Ashgarify I might be mistaken. A lot of people are racist like LOTR is because they haven't been put on the spot properly by their friends, Tolkien seems to be one of those where the pushback from his friends directly to him seems mild -- basically I think his support of Franco may have similarities to centrists' support of the Gaza genocide. It goes back to reliance on regular media which can be as realistic as Tolkien's conception of race taken from in his day ancient race doctrine (just to be clear, scientifically he should and did know better as seen in his earlier-in-life rebuttals of some Nazis). If you need to understand Tolkien look at some of these liberals cheering on the killing of babies and refusing to back down from clear lies about beheaded babies or systematic rape (at least from Hamas - we do have proud testimonial of perpetrating this from IDF retirees from the 60s).
I genuinely think you should have a really easy way to understand what Tolkein went through if you look at liberals who basically have become criminal patsies and have clearly gone through the psychological changes involved in being that.
The Chad Tolkien and Chad Frank Herbert having wholesome civil discourse about the nature of humanity and the righteous purpose of fiction to uplift and educate the human race.
The Virgin George R R Martin saying Lord of the Rings is not interesting because it doesn't describe Aragorns tax plan for Gondor after the war.
I can't thank you enough for an actually well thought-out, detailed and well considered video, instead of rage-bait drama. Subscribed.
Oh yes…Amen to that !…just a cup of tea and a polite discussion…and if we are not agree..that’s fiiiiine…have some scones Folks !…Thanks a lot !….Subscribed too
I read both " Dune" and " The Lord of the Rings" as a teenager in the '70s...during the " eternal winter" of 1976-'77...as you said, they're both good stories. Since we lived in a semi rural area at the time, the Lord of the Rings was a little more relatable....
It's funny you say that, because as an Australian I would imagine Dune would be more relatable to rural people haha.
That's when I started on it!
Wow. Did you see Star Wars that summer then? That would be a hell of a year for escapism and art.
@@benhmn Yes, I saw Star Wars that summer....it came out right before school let out ...late May or early June, if I'm not mistaken...
No, I didn't see it then --but a younger bro did & became an instant total fan...@@benhmn
LOR lovers who are DUNE lovers simply like good stories; rich stories; rich characterization; vivid settings; and wisdom from the characters.
Dune is bad
@@jub7345 because you say so, or because you only saw the movie and didn´t like it?
basically
@@jub7345how many entries in the series have you read?
@@jub7345want to elaborate or are you just going to say it’s weird because you never read the books?
You've got immense talent. While an avid reader in my youth, I barely read novels these days. Yet can't stop listening to your beautiful and nuanced analysis of my favourite books. Pelase keep going and God bless.
*Sauron: **_The Rings must flooooow...."_*
*Baron Harkonnen: **_He who controls the Rings, controls the universe!_*
🤭🤭🤭
{Great video, Jess...👍}
Very Halo-adjacent lmao
I can understand why Tolkien hated Dune. Probably for two reasons:
(1) The lack of description. While it is a very well told story, Herbert gives you very little help in imagining what people or clothing or architecture look like. Tolkien loved description and was very good at it, so he must have felt that something was missing in Herbert's writing style.
(2) The story of Dune is very un-Christian. It is the story of a secret society (the Bene Gesserit) manipulating noble bloodlines for thousands of years to create a false messiah. This false messiah, Paul Atreides, achieves his false messiahship by violence and by a drug-fueled spiritual awakening. This is at best pagan, and at worst Luciferian. It is not surprising that Tolkien, a serious Roman Catholic Christian, would have found these ideas alien and offensive.
@markvictor8776
Well, it isn't about your taste so rather or not you prefer Tolkien's or Herbert's writing style is not really relevant to why Tolkien didn't like Dune.
He probably, like myself, liked having detailed descriptions since he put those in his works.
Dune's world building is also kind of bad. It exists to facilitate the themes and plot, not to really make sense of be consistent. If you start poking around and asking "why is this like this" or "what would happen if x" the world really quickly stops functioning.
Protestants would call Tolkien's use of Nordic mythology pagan as well. Some of them criticize Lewis as well. It's one thing to criticize a book on its merits (style, pacing, character development) than just saying "it's evil, therefore bad writing" Lenin's ideas were reprehensible, but his conviction was such that he contributed to the end of the Russian Empire and the rise of Soviet Union. Modern-day progressives could never. Same with the Taliban and Iran. Tolkien was a meticulous worldbuilder, which is one of the reasons he didn't like the Chronicles of Narnia. He probably didn't like Dune for the same reason, as well as the perceived moral grayness. But it can be read as critique of technological society, which is hostile to true spirituality and tradition.
@aesop1451 Modern day progressives have won essentially everything consistently. Marriage is now just a temporary government contract that's easier to get out of than into. Win for them. Women outnumber men in both the workforce and universities. Win for them. Immigration is set to result in the collapse of majority populations in all Western countries. Win for them. Gay marriage is legal. Win for them. Transition is easier and easier to get. Win for them. Donald Trump is adopting the platform of a radical 90s progressive to run against an explicitly progressive American left. Also a win for them. In no way whatsoever are progressives losing in any western country.
I had the opposite take on it. Have you ever read anything on the return of Christ or apocalypse? I think the problem is people don’t understand that there’s what we think or say we are doing -as a plan of bene geseret or as the plans of Frank Herbert and what they actually end up being or doing. It’s related to what Steve Jobs said about only connecting the dots looking backwards.
For example beavers build dams visible from space as a result of trying to stop the sound of running water-not by planning. Ants form complex systems and patterns by following pheromones laid down just as automatically. They don’t know what they are doing consciously. Humans are exactly the same way. So it doesn’t matter -reasons and intentions don’t really matter either. The future finds ways to organize itself. Every mutation exists before it is needed or tested. Humans developed large brains long before technology science etc.
Universe twist - turns out the worms are the Ent-wives.
Oh my! What in the world happened to them?! How did they become worms? And how tf did they come to be on Arrakis!? Could be interesting. You'd better start writing...
@@mattmcneely8271I assume the same way Leto II became a worm...
😂
@@mattmcneely8271they all asked the ents if they would still love them if they were worms
"She looked better without the filters"
I think a big part is Tolkien being a Tory Catholic and Herbert being a Agnostic Liberal.
It's worth clarifying that "Liberal" in this case refers to the Classical Liberal, which is more akin to a modern (American) Libertarian. At least, what they claim to be.
@@MasonAC88 You can't really label him with just a word. Apart from some libertarian stances he had conservative and even reactionary positions. Dune in itself if you wanna label it with a political is most definitely right wing reactionary. But as with everything, it's very simplified to just throw a label at it. I don't get why so many leftists are drawn to Dune. Don't they get the message? lol... Dune explicitly has a reactionary message.
@@WhiteWolf126 DUNE is much more complex than to dismiss as reactionary Like, yeah you can find reactionary themes (like the gender essentialism) but also progressive themes: Herbert's whole thing is that stagnation is death; we must continue to move forward, to progress, or else we're dead. It shows progress and it also shows an ugly vision of what progress might really look like (3,500 years of Leto's Peace).
@@charleswofford6296 What he means by stagnation is failure to adapt due to inaction. That is not progressivism in the political sense. House Harkonnen, especially the Baron, is what resembles leftwing philosophy and progressivism in the book, not exactly flattering. As I said, it's very simplified to just throw a label on it, when its themes are more complex than that, but at the end of the day, Dune is most definitely reactionary since it rejects a progressive narrative of history.
@@WhiteWolf126 I disagree entirely and I do not know how you see the Baron as representing the Left.
The idea of consolation is not very present in middle eastern stories, even modern ME movies have very unhappy or unresolved endings. Maybe this was something Herbert noticed when writing his books with middle eastern influences. (ie Layla & Majnun, Men in the Sun, 1001 Nights short stories, Shahnameh short stories, Syrian Bride, Sandstorm)
Tolkien only needed to look back in his own country's stories to see that consolidation is not a very common factor in these tales. Beowulf... Canterbury Tales... the Arthurian Legends... the Old Testament? My guess is that even though he loved the old times, he didn't like the stories in those times, so he wrote a world without those elements in them... the Hobbits basically read diaries and history books for FUN!
@@mikejohnstonbob935 While I agree with your main argument, I would point that the old testament is basically very Middle easternly influenced.
If you read the Brothers Grimm, and the earlier versions of many modern fairy tales... The world is a whole lot darker... Because that is what life was like for our ancestors.
@@mikejohnstonbob935 Yeah, as I mentioned somewhere else, whatever high-minded explanation Tolkien gave for his work, the truth is that his writing is a modern petty bourgeois kitsch that could only be produced by a modern mind to fulfill its own needs. It really isn't a fairy tale in its original form, it is cottage porn brought on by the neurosis of a decaying class.
I disagree, because like many (or every) of the old tales & myths, even the grimmest stories still have lessons & "hikmah" as many of Middle Eastern stories would call it for such consolations. Many of this ME stories give warnings & the exemplary conditions to avoid bad outcomes or to a path with good outcomes. It's a life guidance wrapped in a storytelling that relate to people as whole.
It's a matter of different perspectives imo, as JRR Tolkien is a much more religious man while Frank Herbert is simply agnostic or nihilistic (for more recent POVs). It's like a perspectives of holy books being compared by a religious person & non religious person, regardless the deeper knowledge for such holy books. I mean look at GRRM works with ASOIAF or Moorcock's Elric of Melnibone or Kentaro Miura's Berserk that practically flipped everything about "fantasy" & put "dark/grimdark" title in it while unironically these stories are much more in common or similar to our old tales & fables throughout history & many cultures.
If I remember correctly, Tolkien strongly disliked modern technology - he hated cars and machines and even used industrialisation and technology as a way to portray destruction in LOTR.
And he was devoutly Catholic.
There's hardly any wonder he would practically hate a story, rooted entirely in materialism and focused so much on technological advances.
The Dune universe doesn't like technology either... it even banned the use of things like computers (anything that seems to mimic the human mind, if I remember correctly).
@@heatherbukowski2102 That's really just computers though. There's a lot of other technological advances, like the huge spaceships that fold space around them, ornithopters, etc. It's just computers that are banned and looked down upon, not technology in general.
@@EpicCorn0 More succinctly, AI was banned. Everything else, including advanced genetic manipulation, was fair game.
I get what you’re saying but Dune has a lot of warnings about technology too
Tolkien was not against sci fi as he was friends with Arthur C Clarke
I literally had tears as I understood how Dune doesn't have an "escape" perspective and it all made sense. And things make sense. Thank you for such a well written text.
I'm so glad you enjoyed!
maybe that’s why i enjoyed dune but it doesn’t sit with me in the way LOTR does. my toxic trait is i need a ton of escapism to enjoy something 🙃
its a truly semitic story, written for the gentile, to feed us narcissism and hopelessness, to see our future as bleek and not worth fighting for. standard jewish fare. thats why Tolkien didnt like him, the writer of dune was an antiwhite commie scum bag.
@@hanpear Toxic? Because of the kind of entertainment you enjoy? I think not.
@@ElectricalExistence Balam Industries sponsored field trip.
5:16 “I think that sometimes people on the internet can get caught up in this idea that ‘if Tolkien didn’t like X thing then you are wrong for liking X thing.’” The irony is that I think Dune directly discourages this line of thinking, of lauding a popular figure’s stances as correct without question.
Thank you for not actually spoiling anything! It is so hard to find Dune analysis videos that don't go all the way to the end.
How can you analyze something without reading the whole book?
@@LockOn7016 I read the first two. So, anything that doesn't go all the way to the other books.
Great video. You mention “recovery” as finding magic in the mundane; and the first thing I think about in Dune is the Freman. In a far off planet with unthinkable technology, on a planet stuffed full of psychic-cocaine that fuels the universe, the substance they treat most highly is… water.
I think Frank did a great job with that
I still don't understand how the Fremen made anything. They lived in caves without means and materials to manufacture anything. They couldn't trade spice cause thats what the out worlders were already doing on the planet.
I don't think that's what "recovery" means exactly. This isn't really recovery as it is just...well, logical. You covet most that which you don't have. If you don't have water, then water is the thing you'll treasure the most. Water isn't really magical, it doesn't really elevate anything to new heights. It's just a scarce resource.
I like both Frank Herbert’s “Dune” series, and JRR Tolkien’s “Lord of The Rings” but I am MUCH more connected to Tolkien’s work than Herbert’s. For me, Tolkien created a world which I wanted to live in but Herbert created a world that I would rather read about. Loved your take on this, and gave you a like and a sub. Keep up the good work!
Tolkien made a world with ideals we can strive for in this world.
Herbert made the world we already live in fantastical.
@whwhywhywhywhywhywhy I certainly wouldn't want to live in it as a person with some pigmet in his skin. It was super Eurocentric, and that's fine. But his audience was very narrow.
It was also very black and white morally speaking, which was why my young teenage mind loved it, but as an adult I found simplistic and "too fantastical" if that makes any sense. I don't like to think of people as good or evil, and living in a world that does would not sit well with me. Mind you I've only read the trilogy and the Hobbit, but that was the impression I got from Tolkien's world.
@@Khyberization "But his audience was very narrow.", he says about probably the most well-known book non-religious book in history. Hmmmm
@lukaszspychaj9210 Again, a very Eurocentric mindset. Also the people that know of him, and being his audience are two very different things.
My Latina wife didn't know of him, nor did her family, to my surprise. They all knew who Paulo Coelho was however, and he didn't write in Spanish. They don't know Herbert either.
In China, most of those I spoke to knew of Herbert but not Tolkien. Granted my slice were educated, Chinese, English speakers for the most part. And I knew of Liu Cixin and read his books.
My time in the Middle East, and Russia made me realize that Dune was more popular than LOTR there. In western Europe it was the other way around. And in Canada everyone I know has read LOTR but few have read Dune.
This is anecdotal, but again I believe I'm traveled enough to have broadened my views. Maybe because I dealt with engineers and scientists a lot, Dune naturally appealed more to them, so my slice is biased that way. But I truely believe the concepts and ideas in Dune appeal to a broader slice of the world, while Tolkiens western European fantasy has a much smaller target audience.
@@lukaszspychaj9210It is FAAAR from being the most well known, non religious book in the world.
Wonderfully insightful, Jess. I especially love your discoussion of "recovery" in Tolkien. Herbert doesn't have nature as we experience on earth, which is the source of much of Tolien's magic.
I like Dune because of how it explores humanity and what it means to be human, celebrating what humans may be capable of. I like its exploration of philosophical themes even when I disagree with them. I enjoy how real the world is, how integrated technology and society are. I enjoy it because it is a well-told science fiction series, even if it does have its problems. Dune and tLotR are very different in many ways, but both are well-told tales with clear stances on the nature of humanity and reality.
Also, congrats on exceeding 100k subscribers! 😁
I just want to compliment your articulative capabilities, you have such a relaxed yet deeply thoughtful and informed delivery, feels so much more conversational than most TH-cam deep dives. Thoroughly enjoyed this analysis!
What a brilliant video essay. I learnt a lot and it gives greater depth to my understanding of two authors I love. I wrote my Honours thesis on the Dune cycle (ending with the God Emperor of Dune) a long time ago, but this introduced a lot of new information and analysis to me. Bravo!
Yep, not surprising that Tolkien might've been a bit 'put off' by Herbert's much more _cynical_ POV... just like the similar tensions even now, between the fairy tale 'Utopian", vs the gritty, nihilistic 'dystopian' views of sci-fi's future.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us on this. I have for years now been a huge fan of Lord of the Rings, i have always taken away helpful wisdom and hope from the characters of the story and have been informed by each different character across time. It has helped me frame my mental state and given me articulation for things i didn't really understand.
I watched the new Dune films last winter, i was in a pretty rough place mentally at the time and the darkness of the films really stood out to me, i was startled by the tyranny in my own mind and how the Darker figures of the show really acted out what my thoughts were saying to me. Recently the last couple months i've watched the films again, i've been healed of many health problems and have been trying to figure out what i should be focusing on now that i have my health and can actually function again. The Dune films have helped me to understand and integrate becoming the leader of my thought life and how to take back control of my circumstances to pursue my dreams. I've been writing music a lot and i'm trying to learn about story and what makes a great and useful story, Tolkien and Herbert both have written fantastically complex and useful stories that touch very deep into the human condition and i am very grateful that we can share their world
and have it inspire us to pursue our own.
Blessings friend.
Samuel
Isn't it also the case that Foundation was published in magazines first? Some of George RR Martin's stories as well, it seemed to be pretty common, just like you would self publish yourself online nowadays
Same magazine, same editor -- John W Campbell at Astounding / Analog. Campbell had a terrific influence on science fiction, although you don't have to be a liberal to question his views
Many of Asimov's books were published by the same magazines, in serialized form, then republished later. All of his "Robot" material, short stories and/or full-length novels for example. "Caves of Steel" is a fantastic story, totally could be made into a film by itself (and has 2 novels for a trilogy).
Just to add, magazine sf was the staple until the 1950s. Sf books were comparatively rare. In fact many great books were "fix-ups" of magazine serials -- including the first three Foundation books
That's an interesting comparison!
Publishing segments of stories in magazines /periodical publications has been a thing for a surprisingly long time. Writers like Lovecraft went basically his entire writing career without ever getting his work published in a book or magazine that only included his work. Even notoriously long books like Crime and Punishment were often originally published in periodical segments, and that was in the 1860s and 70s.
I first read both of these books in the mid 1970s; I've since re-read the Lord of the Rings multiple times, but never re-read Dune. Although both were enjoyable, aside from the happy ending, few can match the combination of Tolkien's great story-telling with his mastery of the English language. For example, I cannot recall Herbert writing anything remotely as emotionally stirring as the last paragraph of the chapter "The Siege of Gondor": "And as if in answer there came from far away another note. Horns, horns, horns. In dark Mindolluin's sides they dimly echoed. Great horns of the North wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last.", unless it's the last paragraph of the chapter "The Ride of the Rohirrim."
The escapism part is especially resonant with me. Though I liked Dune, it was more like reading a possible future for mankind, rather than something to get lost in, spending an evening and into the night with the LotR.
What I enjoyed more than Dune was Raymond Feist's series of novels. I'd like to hear what Jess has to say about those.
So many people confuse "profound" with emotional. Dune is very profound. It is a warning of sorts. Lord of the rings is just pure joy of storytelling. But if you look hard. Tolkien was giving lessons too. Do not let power and greed overwhelm your sense of "good"...... I also find it very satisfying that in the end. Herbert returns to the "manipulative", big ,bad, Bene Gesserit To be the "Saviors" of mankind. Is ironic.
I discovered Feist through the video game "Return to Krondor" and a summer school teacher's recommendation.
Not quite the same level of inspiration as Tolkien... but still excellent!
I also enjoy, especially Feist's earlier works much better than Dune.
Then there is the Shannarah series which eventually combines the pre-apacolyptic, post-apocalyptic, and far future fantasy.
Both Feist and Brooks have written so many books that they are kind of recycling stories... but I do like the varied settings of both.
As a big Tolkien and Lewis fan who also enjoys Dune, I think you got it right. It comes down to the themes of Dune, they are more nihilistic, there are no clear good and evil, and the ending is not necessarily a good ending. I enjoy Dune for the political world building and the plans within plans, I found that stuff very interesting, but I do find myself being more sensitive to nihilistic stories. I think what Lewis and Tolkien were doing was giving us a guide on how to live to overcome the evil in our modern world, take Lewis' space trilogy. And I think Herbert's story more or less plays into the transhumanist ideology that Tolkien and Lewis were quite literally fighting against.
Harkonen is like, pretty bad, though. And atriedes... Really good. Dune is not morally ambiguous. There's no Gollum in Dune.
‘Some reviewers have called the whole thing simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and the bad just bad. Pardonable, perhaps (though at least Boromir has been overlooked) in people in a hurry and with only a fragment to read and of course without the earlier-written but unpublished Elvish histories [The Silmarillion]. The Elves are not wholly good or in the right. Not so much because they had flirted with Sauron, as because with or without his assistance they were 'embalmers'. In their way the Men of Gondor were similar: a withering people whose only 'hallows' were their tombs. But in any case this is a tale about a war, and if war is allowed (at least as a topic and a setting) it is not much good complaining that all the people on one side are against those on the other. Not that I have made even this issue quite so simple: there are Saruman, and Denethor, and Boromir; and there are treacheries and strife even among the Orcs.
Tolkien Letter
Stick till the end. First-time watcher of your video. Very good. Jealous and wish for your success in doing what you really love. Greetings from Indonesia.
You have a truly wonderful way with words and the format and execution of this video is refreshing, intelligent, and charming. You create a warm and comfortable atmosphere for thoughts around the subject, and I really appreciate the time you put in to create that. Keep up the good work.
This is a criminally undersubscribed channel. I love these teardowns and thought experiments, great job. I think the juxtaposition of the _common goals_ between sci-fi and fantasy you mention is a pretty great articulation of often why I often need to occasionally switch from reading a bunch of sci-fi to going on a fantasy pivot and back again.
Thanks so much!
It was my love for both franchises that made me click on the thumbnail for this video. It was your pronunciation of Lisan Al Gaib that made me subscribe.
What a beautifully put together video. Could watch this for a ridiculous amount of time were the video longer. Great job, miss. God bless.
Congrats on the 100k. Your videos are some of the best on the subject I've seen, because you actually analyze and provide insight instead of just regurgitating the source material.
Hayao Miyazaki has to be the next person to talk about. I read an article couple weeks ago saying he didn’t like LOTR and had some interesting things to say could be a interesting video.
I looked up the interview regarding his thoughts on LotR, and it seems that he was referring to the Peter Jackson films, calling out their elaborate battle scenes as glorification of violence. It’s a similar criticism that Tolkien’s son had with the films.
Another example of an artist who can't get over himself.
@@geoffreyrichards6079 That's really funny in the context of Nausicaa and Mononoke. There's a ton of cool, elaborate fight and battle scenes in those, especially in the Nausicaa manga.
@@mordorderly1473 Not exactly. Sure, both of Miyazaki’s films depict really big battles, but they’re presented in different contexts. In his films, the battle scenes aren’t depicted as anything glorious or heroic - they’re super grisly and horrifying - and they don’t take up very large chunks of the film’s runtime. And likewise, Tolkien doesn’t dwell much on describing the action in the texts either.
@@geoffreyrichards6079 I don't think that's true. Tolkien and Miyazaki may both genuinely belabor the cruelty and senselessness of war, but both have justified violence as a means to an end and, at places, a necessity. Prince Ashitaka fights heroically and so does Nausicaa. It's overwhelmingly true in Nausicaa's manga even with the moments of horrific violence. And how else am I meant to see Boromir's sacrifice or Eowyn and Merry's defeat of the Witch-king as except heroic?
New viewer/subscriber here. This video literally came up as a suggestion, and I'm honestly glad it did. I am very much a fan of both the Fantasy and Sci-Fi genres, and have been since I was a child. My mom taught me to read, and introduced me to all the best books. The Hobbit/The Lord of the Rings, DUNE, The Circle of Light series, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever, The Myth series, not to mention so many beautiful and often Pagan perspective variations of the Arthurian legend. I was also raised with both Star Trek and Star Wars, and love both.
To simplify that a bit, I have a deep love of all these worlds and stories mainly because my mom showed me the beauty of them in her own special way. She read The Hobbit to me as a very young child, and I've never forgotten it. She also taught me about the world of DUNE, and there was so much she had to explain to me when I was 9 reading it. She even taught me how to apply the "Fear is the Mind Killer" mantra as a way of helping manage my crippling anxiety.
There's so much more I'd love to say about why I love both Tolkien's work and DUNE, but this comment is already too long. haha.
I love the way you dig into these books and their authors, expertly comparing and contrasting their methods and motives. Keep up the fantastic work!
I think there may be some truth to the joke that it was Duncan Idaho's name: The worldbuilding details like names are much less cohesive and thought through in Dune than they are in Lord of the Rings. It is plausible that these details pulled Tolkien out of the story when he read it in the same way that Father Christmas did in Narnia.
I quite like both Lord of the Rings and Dune, the central concepts of both are interesting and worth reading, but, metaphorically speaking, Herbert wrapt his gift in old newspapers, while Tolkien picked the finest gift wrapping paper.
Dune's world falls apart very quickly if you think about it. Doesn't surprise me that Tolkien wouldn't be a fan.
@@lokenontherangejust to preface because this is the internet, I’m not criticizing your take I’m just genuinely curious…how?
Yeah. Like, Jessica and Paul are very normal names. Which would make sense, because the Bene Gesserit was a strict, conformist, traditional organisation, so it's likely that they would've kept using names which were common during the Golden Age of Earth. But then, this falls apart because of the Reverend Mother Gaius Mohiam, who's a Bene Gesserit, and Irulan is also a Bene Gesserit, and these are not common names at all.
Although, come to think about it, perhaps Jessica was originally called something else, but then the Bene Gesserit changed her name once they learned of Leto's fascination with the Golden Age of Earth, as part of their attempt to seduce him as part of their breeding program to produce a Kwisatz Haderach. That would make sense. And then Leto chose Paul's name, again, because of his fascination with the Golden Age of Earth. And maybe he wanted Paul to twist religion for his own purposes and gain a large following like Paul the Apostle did.
But also, the names don't really seem inconsistent with each other. We don't really see enough characters from each culture to determine whether the names are consistent with that culture, so we should probably assume that they are.
I think the main reason why Tolkien didn't like Dune was because it didn't have flowery, descriptive prose, and as a result didn't form an image in his mind's eye. (It had the opposite effect on me: Herbert's prose kept me engaged, and I was completely able to picture what was happening, whereas LoTR was more difficult. But it's probably different for different people.)
@@yippykiay13There's a lot of things that you can't think about too hard. How do Sandworms live? A creature that large needs so many calories that it would not find in the desert. If Spice is so important, why isn't the planet it's found in given more attention and support? The military tactics used are silly half the time as well.
@@yippykiay13
The combat. If you are stuck at low tech, you'd be using spears (the most common weapon in human history); slightly higher, spears with explosive charges at the end and with modern technology flamethrowers.
Tolkien was a glorifier of pasts and thinking we fell from a height, and thus things are lesser and shrinking. Herbert was espousing a view of struggling out of the egg, and learning to go forward that we are beginning, and have to choose how we will grow.
I feel like an aspect that a lot of people overlook about Tolkien and others of his time is that they were all shaped in some part by this somewhat notable event called "the first world war". So it's not hard to imagine the situation of
Paul Atreides: HA HA! I'm a hero! I'm gonna save the day and free this world and grant them indep- ah beans, I started a war that's killing billions over dumb ideological reasons.
Leto 2: Dad, would you still love me if I were a worm? [proceeds to start even MORE wars over dumb ideological reasons that kill even more people]
Frank Herbert: And so humanity went on, fighting endless wars over dumb ideological reasons, where countless men die, as they always have and always will.
Tolkien: WOW! I hate this.
1) Herbert was in WWII. 2) Herbert was not at all a fan of war.
@@johnmrke2786 I don't think OP was saying Herbert was a FAN of war, he was just saying herbert saw war as an inevitable consequence of humanity, which was a viewpoint Tolkien did not like (whether he believed it to be true or not). That Tolkien so readily frames his books as explicitly escapist in their portrayal of humans makes me think he was well aware of, and perhaps even fully believed, that Herbert's view was correct, but it was simply an ugly truth he would rather not read about in a story. Which is fair enough.
The Golden Path was necessary to ensure the survival of humanity. A few trillion lives are nothing measured against the complete extinction of the species
I have no idea why we possibly think we could live on without conflict, or why that would even be a desirable future.
While it is true that war is truly and utterly awful, it is to a degree, a necessity of the human condition.
Imagine a world in which a truly awful ruler comes to power, causing great suffering to his/her people.
...how do you expect to remove such a person from that position except by great force of arms and great sacrifice?
But, if you were to decide not to do so, would you not live in a world without conflict?
Simultaneously, how could you exist in a universe without an "other" by which to define yourself?
Without such a thing, do you even exist? Imagine a world with only one language, or one culture, or both. Without differences to fight over.
Such a world would be fucking boring. Not to mention that as soon as resources dropped to a certain level, people would FORCE change and artificially create differences to justify their fighting over why one should get the resources and the other should not.
And if mankind is to expand to the stars and colonise many many other liveable planets... why should those conflicts not escalate to billions or trillions of deaths?
A limited war today between China and India has the capacity to kill as many as world war 2, and ultimately not change anything, simply by virtue of how fucking big those countries are.
Would that be... worse than the world wars?
Truly there is a spectrum of awfulness that wars exist in, and that spectrum does NOT correlate with scale, not even close.
World war one was pretty awful, but despite the way it's generally perceived, was probably better for the soldiers partaking than WW2 just by virtue of not having any fucking Nazis in it. The things they did to prisoners.
Then, let's look at the Liberian civil war by comparison. A much smaller conflict in which far FAR fewer people died.
That war involved tribal savages sacrificing children to Satan before cutting out and eating their hearts in exchange for magic powers, all while naked.
(Yes, google Joshua Milton Blahe, this is dead real)
Rwandan Genocide and Khmer rouge also reach this level of awful.
And I suspect that a war between China and India now, would probably kill tens or even hundreds of millions of people and never reach that level of awfulness.
And it's for all these reasons, that I, as a naiive and sheltered individual who has never personally seen war myself, see nothing particularly dark or tragic about a sci fi universe in which people kill each other in the billions over ideological differences, minor or less so.
Also fucking hell do I wanna live in a world where deliberately creating thinking AI is as unthinkable as praising Satan or hailing Hitler in public would be in the 14th century or present day respectively. That would be great.
Leto II took on the burden that his father dropped because with his prescience, he could only see one way for humanity to avoid extinction. That was the Golden Path that Paul turned away from because of the brutality it required.
I love your content ma’am! You’re very well spoken and informative❤ will be back to watch ur next videos
There is a concept that both Tolkien's and Herbert's work speak to me of most profoundly. That is the conflict between those, who through any means available will take all they can for themselves and opposing them, those who will give of themselves all that they can in that effort to thwart those selfish forces. Within the greatest arcs are smaller stories that find the characters somehow deviating from their expected path or behaviors by circumstance. I believe that a good story can weave these behaviors and their consequences upon inter-character relationships in meaningful ways. The situations in fiction that express the complexity that we all must face sooner or later when a difficult decision must be made or when we find ourselves perplexed of frustrated by those whose decisions affect our lives gives a new perspective.
Well said.
please Please PLEASE make a video about Michael Moorcock, specifically his thoughts on Tolkien in his essay “Epic Pooh”. His criticism of Tolkien is very well known and I’d love to hear your thoughts.
It’s the video we’ve all been waiting for!!!!
This. Moorcock is enormously influential and seems to have fallen off the map these days.
I met him once, great guy… I love the memory I have of reading Silmarillion and a few months later Reading Elric of Melnibone 😊 and think, hey, this guy is like Turin - black sword, Dragon helm lol
Moorcock also criticized Tolkien in another essay titled 'Starship Stormtroopers'. The book 'Tolkien in The Twenty-First Century' by Nick Groom nicely points out that Moorcock worked off of straw man arguments. I highly recommend watching the video 'Elric of Melniboné, the Original Witcher (Elric vs. Geralt)' by Proper Bird along with the rest of her channel because it's criminally underrated and deserves way, way more views!
Moorcock's work is a tad less literary than either Tolkien's or Herbert's
@@jmatos316 Although I've grown to criticize his takes on Tolkien I will in no way challenge him being a decent man overall. If anything he seems too low key and chill in interviews haha. He's also the kind of author who will more than openly gush about the writers who've influenced him, which shows a considerable amount of humility.
When I clicked on this video, with this title, I immediately thought of Tolkien’s catholic beliefs. To preface, it’s known that Tolkien framed LoTR to be a purely Anglo mythology, as if to say, “This is what came before modern times”. Frank Herbert’s Dune, from what I understand, is what came well after our society reached a myriad of pinnacles. These characters are humans, descended from an Earth long made uninhabitable, who have reached across the galaxy to inhabit other worlds. They participate in the same behaviors to which humans have always been accustomed. My understanding of the Bene Gesserit is that they are an evolution of actual Catholicism. I’m wondering if Tolkien recognized the similarities and disliked Dune so greatly because of his devout beliefs. Love your content and I am currently re-reading both LotR and Dune. They are both amazing stories.
Dune was sort of what happens after parody. It was a profound sincerity of purpose, but a profound mockery of the originating belief.
What's really fun, Dune being set way in the future with taboos against machines, and earth long dead, ok, so now Use David Brins Postman as A reference point, specifically the Servants of Cyclops and the Augments. Society gets rebuilt with a strong technological progress, thus leading too the oppression of man by our machines.
@@Spheronic Extremely well put.
First time viewer and loved the compare and contrast you did with Tolkien and Herbert. Im in the middle of God Emperor and was looking for some voices to speak into some of the uncertainty I'm having with this 4th Dune book. I was pleasantly surprised to get what I got from this. You are an excellent presenter of information and you have gained a subscriber as a result. I am a HUGE Tolkien fan with the Silmarillion, in particular, the Ainulindalë being my favorite part of that book.
Firstly, great video. I had always heard that Tolkien dislike Dune, but had never really dug into it, so thank you for doing so. It did remind me of something that happened many years ago
When I was in year 8, at the recommendation of my English teacher, I read Lord of the Rings (I was probably a bit young to really get all of the themes but, spoilers, the burning of the shire really punched hard). It took me a while to get through it.
Feeling invincible after that in year 9 I picked up Dune. It was, A LOT. (I was definitely too young for that) Now, I thoroughly enjoyed both of these but Dune was my preferred story. My English teacher was a massive Tolkien fan, loved fantasy and hated Sci-Fi, which became a problem because I loved it and would bring it up at every opportunity.
Later in Year 12 (VCE for me, Australian, Victorian) we had to write an essay about a genre of fiction, which was supposed to be persuasive. My teacher (the same one from year 8) advised me that there were probably deeper themes in fantasy for me to delve into that Sci-Fi as it was "a bit pulpy"
So I spent a lot of time creating an example of fantasy writing, describing the stories and the themes, the use of the heroes journey. Of course what i had actually done is recreated elements of Star Wars and Dune and told it in a fantasy style. Then the the second half it became a comparison between Sci-Fi and fantasy.
These two genres have far more in common than they are different, and at the very least i was able to persuade one English teacher that. I hope that you have managed to convince a few people at least that there is value in both genres.
@travismatheson2884 It's a little more than that, I believe.
As a writer and hopeful author myself, I often focused my attention on Coming-of-age romances and autobiographical fiction, as I got older I grew fonder of the Science Fiction stories. Although a good amount of my current favorite author Ted Chiang's works are Fantasy, most of the shorter stories are more along the lines of Science Fiction. Or bringing in Scientific reasoning and studies and changing it to fit the fictional landscape he makes. As Ted was a computer programmer and eventually became a Technical Writer freelance, which he then used that money to get himself a deal and get published.
With Fantasy, the difference is more or less in the magical and non-real, non-scientific, parts of that fictional space.
Ones that told of large scales and great scenery. With extremely deadly and powerful enemies. I liked the dark stuff and still do. Even manga and anime I watch and follow now, are typically very dark materially.
I have been experimenting within the world of "Psychological Fantasy" and it isn't Dark Fantasy that I'm doing stories on either. It is specifically bringing in Psychological and darker aspects of humanity to a magical and alternate world. So, yes it is technically High Fantasy, but it is also actually Psychological fantasy as well. It is something I've been experimenting with for a while now.
One nit. From what I remember, LOTR wasn't really a serious academic subject until the 1970s. A professor was cajoled into teaching a course about it by my roommate in 1974 or so. The professor (a specialist in medieval literature) went on to set up academic conferences and published a lot of papers delving into LOTR and the Silmarillion and their connections to Tolkien's academic work.
I think Tolkien hated all contemporary fiction to some degree.
At least from what I've seen of his opinions.
Not sure what that indicates, but there seemed to be a pattern. 😆
Love his books, but he could be a cranky b*****d about other writers.
I said it before, he seems like he was an exhausting person lol
@@chadnine3432I think thats a bit unfair to say, he doesnt hate them at all, just very picky with the things he loves.
@@chadnine3432 I find that he'd be that guy who'd just argue about something just splitting hairs. I've tended to find that when I've heard anything that Tolkein has said about other writers has always been in the negative and I tend to see it as a bit of elitism but he was also just very picky. He knew what he liked and was very vocal about it and wouldn't mince words
He liked Isaac Asimov, Agatha Christie, and Mary Renault.
Lord of the Rings is a feeling good story. Dune is Dune.
I feel that Tolkien would have had the same opinion on George R. R. Martin's work, which also realistically explores humanity's self-destructive and repetitive tendencies and is probably even more separated from Tolkien's 4 principles of fantasy. Would love to hear your thoughts on that! Also congrats on 100K!
Martin's writing is bleak and sinister, and rejects "good" as a virtue. Even the gods are more like demons who seem to thrive on murder and misery. I really loved the first two books, but had trouble finishing the third. In his quest to make a more realistic story, he lost the point of why people (alright, I) read fantasy.
Martin is a good writer but a bad author, his prose is strong but he lacks any morals, his writing is visceral and addictive but he is what Marx is to John Locke.
The grimdark cynical fantasy of Martin does not inspire, it is merely a soap opera about vile people.
Tolkien wrote about virtue and how you can find hope and joy from the smallest things, while Martin writes about vice and debauchery.
On the bit about Recovery, I think Shymalan actually had a fantastic line in his movie Old that touched on that. One girl who aged up from basically toddler age described the world as "I see so many more colors now, but none of them are as bright."
As a child of the 60's I loved both books because of the way they drew me into their worlds and want me to know more and more about their histories and geographies and their stories!
Another really great video! One aspect you technically covered, but didn't precisely focus on: In the entirety of Tolkiens works (correct me if i'm wrong), i can't find a single instance of someone doing evil to do good. This is not only an idea Herbert plays with a lot, i would say it's part of his central idea/experiment in the Dune saga. The biggest example of this is arguably the reign of Leto II, who (spoilers) would surpress and terrorize all of humanity for over 3000 years, just so they would scatter and never let anyone do it again. I can imagine Tolkien detesting and refusing this idea.
Me watching this: "I need to spend money on old sci-fi magazines to access old, forgotten stories"
I think Tolkien wrote EXACTLY what he liked to such a laser focus that he disliked a lot of things that weren't that.
I was honestly thinking the same thing soon as I saw the title, wondering why I've been noticing a pattern of Tolkien 'seemingly' harboring vitriol toward major works of other genres, and I'm sure I would understand a lot of his sentiment, but it is kind of an odd pattern the more ppl have been diving into his historical accounts ever since that trash faux amazon series came out
I've got some old anthology books that kind of do the same things. They introduced me to _The Weapon Shops of Isher_ and _The Stars My Destination,_ as well as others. In particular _The Chrysalids._ They can often be found in weird little old book shops, where old magazines are tougher.
Since the Moabdib plotline in Dune is very similar to Lawrence of Arabia it is possible that it evoked traumatic memories for Tolkien, a WWI veteran. Either that or it evoked traumatic memories of people claiming that parts of LOTR are analogies to WWI.
Tolkien wrote battle scenes and lived thru a second war before Dune was published. It seems a little thin to suggest he'd have been triggered by a story that resembles a story that took place during one of those wars. Or perhaps it was tongue in cheek...
Never saw that similarity before. Very cool. Don't think that's the reason. Look at the immense death in Tolkiens battles, very much like WW1.
@@milou4753 Tolkeins wars were those of pre WWI. It's often said that before WWI, war was romantic, for the most part face to face. WWI brought biological warfare via mustard gas and mass slaughter with machine guns and the face of war was forever changed. The wars Tolkein writes are very much the wars of somebody traumatized by WWI.
Dune as a whole us extremely critical of Tolkiens entire world. It has nothing good to say about the church, about colonialism, or about nobility. It basically shits on the cultural pillars of the UK while Tolkien lived.
you cant be this ignorant....
Funny I was just think about this...I think the algorithm sniffed out my love for Dune and LOTR and put it together.
Nice Archer pfp
@DanielLopez-ob9jz Thank you, lol. I approve of the Lisa one you are rocking as well.
Thank you for this very clever and interesting analysis. The optimism in Tolkien's work, which allows us to escape into a world full of beauty and wonders, as you explain it so well, is why I will always prefer The Lord of the Rings to Dune, and fantasy in general to science fiction.
Also, on a slightly different topic, the way you highlight the importance of ecology in Herbert's work, and the fact that you quote Liet Kynes rather than any other character, reminds us how Denis Villeneuve failed to understand the essence of Dune. I think that's a shame how he erased this fundamental aspect
Great stuff. I don't know how much prep you do for these but your presentation is almost like an enjoyable relaxed English class. Thanks Mucho.
Such a great exploration of both of these massive stories, and I loved how you used Tolkien’s ideas to compare and contrast them both. Also, this video wasn’t flashy and it felt really good to just vibe with what you’re saying.
Tolkien was a devout Catholic who wrote high fantasy. Herbert wrote anti-religion philosophy books disguised as sci-fi. Of course Tolkien would hate Dune.
I love the works of both and have read every (fictional) book both wrote (Tolkien DID write the English Oxford Dictionary after all).
Beatifully argued essay! This would be at home at any traditional publication, yet you have great skill in storytelling through this medium of TH-cam. Not surprised you reached 100k subscribers, I just became another one
7:24 I’d gladly accept a ghostly Tolkien if it meant he kept creating stories
I've had similar thoughts, but given some of the themes of his work, I believe Tolkien himself would be horrified by the thought.
Perhaps he is still writing stories. All who die in Christ are more alive than they were on this Earth. Pray for his soul.
Then he'd be a literal ghost writer lol
He'd make GRRM way too depressed with his work ethic
Very well thought out and executed video. Loved that it was all content without memes or effects. Thanks for this.
This was my first time watching and listening to your show. I subscribed as fast as I could. I love both Dune and Lord of the Rings and you did a fantastic job of looking at them side by side. I am going to find your earlier shows and get caught up. My favorite LOTR character is Eowyn and second is Faramir, so I will look for any references to them specifically. I really look forward to being part of your audience.
This is perhaps my favourite of all your videos. A really smart analysis, laid out with panache. Go you!
I've always been a Tolkien nerd since I was young. Having heard of Dune, I never really got much into it until later. I've always been one to want to explore deep truths of reality and often found that fantasy in general had explored the elements, and often elements of humanity that run deep in our psyche. Much of these fantasy works are just that--manifestations of our deep psyche.
As I've gotten older and explored spirituality, I have come to appreciate many different perspectives and can now see the bigger picture of things.
I love both Lord of the Rings and Dune because, as was stated here, they're almost antithetical to each other, and both explore deep aspects of human psyche, albiet focusing on different ones. Together they make a whole.
All these fantasies are a reflection of our core inner world, and when you put them all together, you see the integration and bigger picture. They all have truths in them, each with their value, each describing different aspects of the same thing.
Each fantasy universe is unique but also the same at their deeper cores. This is much like the world religions, each describing different aspects of the same thing.
When taking a bunch of blindfolded people to describe an elephant strictly by touch, depending on which part of the elephant they are in contact with, they will describe it differently. Tusks will feel sharp as spears, feet as solid as tree trunks, the tail long like a rope, the side like big wall. All of them are right, and not one is more right or wrong than the other, but each a different aspect of the same thing... the nature of existence and humanity as a whole, and our relationship with the universe.
As within, so without, as above, so below.
This is why I love both Dune and LOTR. The authors both do a superb job of exploring these different aspects of our psyche, and together make the whole.
I really appreciated this video. I love both Tolkien and Dune, and I totally agree about how different and almost irreconcilable their worldviews are (and loved your mention of eucatastrophe).
As a Catholic, I appreciate Dune’s take on the power and the peril of religion. And I think what I appreciate about Dune is how dire it paints the catastrophe - you can’t get to real eucatastrophe without things looking impossibly bleak. Just because he doesn’t get to eucatastrophe himself is fine and makes the eucatastrophic story all the more meaningful?
Your videos are phenomenal!! I used to watch a lot of other channels that would focus on the lore and history of lotr. But, now that I know basically all of it, I find your, more analytical, videos so meaningful. Your style of writing is very entertaining and the actual content is very deep. I really appreciate all your hard work, you are an excellent scholar. Keep in up! Congrats on 100k.
I think there's a slightly hidden reason why he didn't like dune. Tolkien was deeply religious, and if Paul is a warning then that idea is the polar opposite of what Tolkien believed in. As I write this comment I run into religion part of the video.