DUNE: Were the Atreides GOOD rulers?

[bropous]

I love the Dune books, having first read the trilogy (Dune, Dune Messiah, Children of Dune) over twenty-five years ago, and I found Herbert's universe to be well-crafted, well-detailed, and filled with characters one actually gives a flip about.

However.

I look at what Paul did with the Emperor's crown on his head, and I see no indication that he improved the lives of the common folk in any way over their existence under the Corrinos. Leto II can arguably be described as FAR worse to the existence of humanity than was the entire Corrino line. I know that this was part of his "Golden Path" concept, but in reality, the "Golden Path" was a monstrosity and a setback to the development of the species and NOT a pattern of "controlled growth."

Honestly, I never really got what "the Golden Path" was beyond Leto II holding his transmorphed self above all humankind and defecating on myriad planets from a great height. The Scattering was also quite confusing, but admittedly, I did not read "God Emperor", "Heretics" or "Chapterhouse" as carefully as I might have done. Frankly (pardon the pun), the entire series ended up rather tedious reading, and from the zenith of "Dune", the whole thing went downhill. but I digress.

To me, a "Good King" is one who actually cares for the common folk, works to improve the lives of his subjects, and ensures that justice and reactive government are used to SUPPORT the welfare of the people ("welfare" in the classic sense) and not to suppress and intimidate free thought.

In this, I think the Atreides failed miserably.

The zenith of rule was probably Leto I, who actually seemed to give a rat's hinder about the people whom he ruled. Paul seemed to have very limited interest in ANY people beyond the Fremen, and Leto just had no interest in anyone but himself.

Paul running away from the "Jihad" simply allowed it to grow independently, and his own reluctance to assume the mantle of Messiah ended up killing FAR more people in the long run than any Messianic jihad would have done.

For the common man, life was no better under the Atreides than it was under the Corrinos or under the Butlerian Jihadists. For me, THAT is the true tragedy of the Dune series, the tragedy of missed opportunities borne out of cowardice and hubris.

[mirrille]

I think Paul cared about the Fremen. Not surprising as he was more or less one of them. Not much about anyone else. I don't think the common people really mattered. Which when you think about it, is a much more realistic portrayal of political motivations among "great houses". It's all about money and power. That was kind of the point.

[bropous]

I did not get from the Dune series that the point was supposed ot be all about money and power. I do agree that was a very important factor, but I see a bit more behind the real "point" to the story. The "point" is also that of loyalty in the face of betrayal, that hubris and detachment from the world leads to destruction, that reliance upon a substance/commodity leaves one completely vulnerable to manipulation by those who control that substance/commodity, that love is a more powerful emotion than hate, that all consequences of all actions cannot be completely predicted even by those who can see future possibilities, and so on.

The premise is rather that the Atreides line did not live up to a model of a good ruler, and I thought it was sad to see so little of Leto I end up in Paul, and, eventually, in Leto II. To me, Leto I was much more concerned with the average person than was the "Messiah," and even more than was the "God Emperor".

Money and power had nothing to do with Leto's Golden Path, did it? Nor were they involved in Paul's reluctance to accept the role of "Messiah" or in his revulsion of the "Jihad"?

[BeardofPants]

Paul's golden path was not about money and power, it was about leading the species to a new level in their development. Paul, and then Leto, basically took on the role of the bene gesserit - and that was what the golden path was about: a breeding program. You see more of this in heretics and chapterhouse.

So Paul and Leto were not concerned so much with the Now, but more where they were going to... as they were both precognitive in the most powerful way. Suffer today, to get to tomorrow.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that he had to be hard, and ruthless so that his vision would come to fruition. So, in a sense, he WAS a good ruler, but only because he was trying to better the species against (without giving anything away) future attack.

[mirrille]

Maybe that's not what the series was about, but groups like the Bene Gesserit, the Bene Tleilax, the Spacing Guild, and every great house etc were all about control. You need a great deal of power to run a breeding program as massive as what the Bene Gesserit wanted, besides which they were really doing it so that they could get their precious Kwisach Haderach. And they wouldn't be able to use him to extend thier power unless they had control over him somehow. The whole reason anyone wanted Arrakis was because whoever controlled spice controlled trade. That's the kind of universe Dune is set in. Nobody went around striving for anything so that they could make life better for the common man. It wasn't that kind of world. The Atreides aren't really all that different. You could argue that they were alot nicer to their own people than the Harkonnens were to their own people, but that's about as far as it goes. We don't know enough about the Corrinos to make a similar comparison.

[Draken]

From memory, don't some family retainer comment in the original (and only one I'm ever likely to read again) book that Paul isn't as compassionate as his father, who was himself less compassionate than HIS father?

[bropous]

"So, in a sense, he WAS a good ruler, but only because he was trying to better the species against (without giving anything away) future attack."

Well, you're not giving anything away. Herbert's intimation of this unknown threat out on the rim of human civilization was one of the more intriguing twists in his final book, and it is truly sad that he was not able to explore this further, and perhaps, many other questions would have been resolved as well had he been able to write another book before he passed on.

Yes, power and control WERE factors of the story line, but I would hold to my premise that the above-referenced morals are even more important in the structure of Herbert's Dune series (loyalty in the face of betrayal, hubris and detachment from the world leads to destruction, reliance upon a substance/commodity leaves one completely vulnerable to manipulation by those who control that substance/commodity, love is a more powerful emotion than hate, that all consequences of all actions cannot be completely predicted even by those who can see future possibilities).

Again, the Atreides line seems to have devolved from the concept of the "good ruler," and though Paul was much less concerned with the common folk than was Leto I, is it true that Leto's father cared more for his people than Leto did? It's been a while since I've read "House Atreides" so I'm a tad on the foggy side there [except for the Salusian Bull, LOL!].

[NOTE: "Good Ruler" was a side reference to Tolkien's concept of the "Good King" refelcted in Letters.]

STILL, Dune was probably the best series I have read next to Tolkien.