For the record, I did like the first Dune more, so why am I rating this one the same? Simple. The first dune is our introduction to the world of the Dune-iverse and its characters. It’s our introduction to the Imperium, to the House Atreides, to the Fremen; and there’s something, despite the obvious problems and political plotting, quite magical about this. Throughout Dune: Messiah, I found myself nostalgic for those early days of the story before Paul Atreides (SPOILERS AHEAD) assumes the messianic role in Fremen society.
Frank Herbert was famously disappointed with the reception of his original Dune novel in that people seemed to miss the point that he was subverting the typical Hero’s Journey trope. The story is meant to caution against charismatic leaders, which is made far more explicit in this second novel. It’s written almost as a kind of course correction after the first book, but that doesn’t take away from either story as far as I’m concerned.
Paul Atreides
My thoughts on this book are inextricably linked with Paul’s journey. Despite being the Emperor of the Imperium in this one, having unleashed his jihad on the universe, we see someone who is profoundly unhappy with the path he’s on. This jihad he started has killed some 60 billion people, sterilized 90 planets, and subjugated another 500 (or something). Suffice it to say, he’s not too pleased with this, and describes his own Jihad as leading the universe into “darkness”. He even compares himself to Hitler in a parallel that judges Hitler’s own Nazi death machine as paling in comparison (which is true).
However, I think this is the comparison of a tortured conscience and (possibly) an unfair comparison. You don’t read the Dune books and come out hating Paul—and I don’t think you should. Despite the destruction he causes, Paul’s motivations are ultimately understood (in later books) as being for the greater good. This is a horror that humanity has to go through for it to survive—or at least that’s how I’ve understood it.
This is the logic of many tyrants, of course, but Paul differs in that he’s trapped by prescience. He has visions of the future, can see what will happen and why, and can see possible futures, evaluating the goodness in terms of centuries and millennia rather a lifetime. It sounds horrible, to be honest. No wonder he’s so unhappy about it. Utilitarian thinking might seem ethical in a mathematical sense, but does it not strip us of our humanity in the process?
I think this is what makes Herbert’s first two books especially, unintentionally brilliant. To say that it warns us about charismatic leaders is too simplistic for what I read. I mean, there is that, yes, but the more important questions, as far as I’m concerned, pertain to foreknowledge/fate, systems, and power.
Foreknowledge
Paul is trapped by his abilities. Knowing the future, he finds himself unable to avoid it. I’ve read some interpretations that claim that, in the first book, he chooses revenge against the Harkonnens and that’s why it’s unavoidable, but I didn’t get that impression. By the time Paul had a full picture of the future, the path was already made.
Systems
We see systems crop up a lot in the book: cultural systems, political systems, economic systems, religious systems, ecological systems, etc. Each of them alienate the characters to a certain degree, for good or ill, and in Messiah we clearly see the consequences of that.
The Fremen in particular have a tragic evolution in Messiah, which is where my nostalgia for the first book comes from. Under the Atreides Imperium, they are suburbanized as Arrakis is ecologically transformed into a paradise. Their environment shaped the religion and politics that set them apart from the other more Machiavellian factions in the story.
Economic systems are dependant on environmental systems (e.g., spice melange) that define and are defined by religious and political systems.
Power
Power and the lust for it sets families against each other. It largely defines human behaviour and ethics in the Imperium.