Hello again.
So I thought that our discussion of Dune was one of our more interesting ones thus far. Generally anytime we can get PTJ to talk about something that gets him angry, ie the sequels, is a good day.
I thought that our focus on the question of who the main character really was, Paul Atreides or Muad'Dib, was particularly interesting. If you think about it you can see that this can easily be two books. If you read it with the interpretation that he is acting as Paul Atreides, you would see his actions as that of a royal heir working to ensure that he would be able to claim his planet and rule in a way that would make his father proud. On the other hand, if you read it as the main character accepting himself as Muad'Dib, his actions are truly meant for the betterment of the Fremen and wishes to rule Arrakis so that he can protect them from the evil forces of the universe.
I'll leave you with this, if Irulan is really nothing more than a symbol of Paul's royal claim, then why does she write such an idealized history of Him?
...And yes I did mean to capitalize that.
No comments:
Post a Comment