Having finished rereading the book, I noticed many things this time that I had not noticed before. First and foremost, I was struck by the ending. The whole book is an exploration of this messianic figure, and yet the last 7 pages bring peace and new balance to the galaxy, and are ended by the words of Jessica to Chiani: "...we who carry the name of concubine - history will call us wives."
This is a very interesting choice to end the book with (even though one must read the appendices to truly get the full picture of the events as portrayed), given the various possible meanings throughout. I wanted to discuss my take on a few of these strands of meaning, and see if this might shed some light on this ending.
A theme that becomes more clear as the book progresses is the sheer discipline of the Fremen, in many regards. They always hold true to their rules regarding water, with many underlying motives. First off is the sheer value of preserving water on a desert planet. But, while they will almost always lend water to a member of their tribe in order to survive a journey, they require that the water be paid back 10-1 upon returning home. This strikes me as an odd rule, but one of extreme fairness whats worth some now is worth infinitely more in the future. This sense of justice is generalized with their hoarding of water for the terraforming of their planet - they always put the goals of the future ahead of their present needs, once again exploring this theme of placing the value of the future ahead of the lesser needs of now. This is part of the genius of Herbert's work - how seamlessly he blends fiction with history and religion. And, going back to my first question, this seems to fit what Jessica says: the current state of being a concubine will be seen so much differently in the future.
The other theme that I was interested by was interesting issue of who is really the force of good in this book. Duke Leto seemed like a fairly moral character, but he had his clear flaws (my memory is drawn to the awkward toast he performs at dinner on Arrakis). Jessica is never the most moral of characters, always being drawn between her B.G. loyalties, her love for the Duke, and her own, inexplicable motivations. Many of the Duke's men seem to be fairly good, but they each have their flaws as well. The Harkonnens don't quite have any possibility of being seen as good. That leaves Count Fenring, and Paul. The Count is the errand boy of the Emperor, and as such performs less than moral deeds. On the other hand, his hand is stayed at the end of the book upon realizing he has found a kindred spirit in Paul - this bears further discussion. And then Paul, which could be the subject of many posts. He seems to be one of the good forces throughout the book, but how good is he, in reality? His actions as Muad'dib are not the usual actions of a good character (taking the skins of one's enemies for his drums comes to mind). This also might shed some light on the end: with morality being a bunch of progressively darker shades of gray, Jessica can make such a statement and have it conclude the story as presented? I am not sure - I am curious what others think.
-Mike
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Don't forget the Harkonnen commitment to wringing every last ounce of use out of things. Despising waste can be considered very moral, depending on how you look at it. I found I was able to admire that aspect of the Baron, if nothing else.
I agree that despising waste is can be a very moral thing in certain circumstances, but I feel like the Baron was extremely wasteful with human lives (other than his own, of course). I agree, he certainly managed to wring every bit of use out of his material possessions, but his people and soldiers were as nothing in his eyes.
-Mike
The Native Americans had a practice of using every part of the buffalo but that's different from the Baron's practices. Their's was a respect for the life of the animal and a sacred, circle of life type thing. The Baron is simply greedy, strip mining the planet to get what he can from it. He'd probably wring a stone to get water from it if he could or would be useful. I'm not sure I can admire him as his motivation to reject waste wasn't from moral ground but merely own self-interest and power.
Post a Comment