X Close

Lord of the Rings is better than Dune Tolkien understood the corrupting effect of power

A haunted Victorian doll and Zendaya (Dune)


October 29, 2021   5 mins

Dune: a pitiless, arid expanse that stretches out endlessly in every direction. But enough about Frank Herbert’s writing style. Let’s consider the world he built. Whatever you think of the author’s prose — and it can be a slog — you have to admire the sheer depth and detail of the fictional setting.

As Arthur C. Clarke put it:“I know nothing comparable to it except The Lord of the Rings.” It’s a justified parallel. Dune is as central to science-fiction as JRR Tolkien’s masterpiece is to fantasy.

With Denis Villeneuve’s Dune (2021) on general release we finally have a decent film adaptation. Villeneuve has done for Herbert what Peter Jackson did for Tolkien in the Rings trilogy (2001-2003). But dig a bit deeper into the comparisons, and I fear that team Tolkien comes off worse.

Let’s start with the central character in each story: Frodo Baggins in Tolkien’s epic and Paul Atreides in Herbert’s. Both embody the archetype of the reluctant hero. On screen, they’re portrayed by similar actors — Elijah Wood as Frodo and Timothée Chalamet as Paul. These are very much of a type: one part leading man, two parts haunted Victorian doll. Chalamet, though, oozes charisma, while Wood merely gains our sympathy. Score one to Dune. 

Then there’s the rest of the cast — which in the case of Dune meets the multi-ethnic criteria of contemporary film making. The Rings trilogy, almost 20 years older, does not. This is hardly Jackson’s fault — nor Tolkien’s for that matter. There’s an obvious difference in context between a fantasy world inspired by Nordic legend and the galactic melting pot of the far future. 

As for gender balance, it must be admitted that Tolkien’s tale is a bit of a Boy’s Own adventure. Nevertheless, Jackson did his best to push female characters to the forefront. It hasn’t been so difficult for Villeneuve. For a start, the source material provides more to work with — for instance the “Bene Gesserit”, an order of terrifying space-nuns. Also Villeneuve was able to change the sex of one of the originally male characters, the scientist Liet Kynes, without it making much difference to the plot. I’m not sure Jackson could have done the same to, say, Gandalf. 

Still, such excuses won’t cut much ice with today’s progressives. We can expect their tutting disapproval to be layered on top of previous attacks on Tolkien and everything he supposedly represents. 

Dune is a progressive view of the future — it features a revolution against the established order. Tolkien’s fiction, on the other hand, is portrayed as nostalgic and reactionary — a yearning for a golden age that never existed. After all, what are the Hobbits except idealised Little Englanders who’d have definitely voted for Brexit?

The irony is that Lord of the Rings was once at the cutting edge. Though first published in the mid-1950s, it didn’t become a publishing sensation until a decade later — around the same time as Dune in fact. Both novels achieved cult status with the counterculture of the late 1960s. This was a more comfortable fit for Herbert, the free-thinking Californian, than for Tolkien, the tweedy, Catholic Englishman. Yet the latter did once observe that his political opinions “lean more and more towards Anarchy”.

The narcotic obsessions of the Sixties are lavishly catered for in Dune — whose entire plot (spoilers ahead!) revolves around a perception-altering substance called “Spice”. There is rather less druggery in Tolkien’s fiction, but some have interpreted the “pipeweed” of the Hobbits as consisting of more than tobacco. Certainly, one can see why the hippies were so entranced by the bucolic, laid-back lifestyle of the Shire. 

A strong current of environmentalism runs through both books. However, while Herbert was a self-taught ecologist, Tolkien’s obvious distaste for industrialisation strikes his critics as sentimental and unsophisticated. Herbert’s ideas appear to be more astute because they’re informed by scientific and technological speculation. Though the events of his novel take place 20,000 years into the future, they clearly relate to the concerns of our own time. 

Let’s start with the desert world of Dune itself, also known as Arrakis. The planet is the only source of the aforementioned Spice — a drug that enables humanity to navigate between the stars. Without it, space travel would be impossible. Wars are therefore fought to control access to this indispensable resource. 

One only has to substitute crude oil for Spice to see what Herbert was getting at. For a book written in the early 1960s — years before oil shocks of the 1970s — he was well ahead of the curve. To drive the point home, his description of Dune and the culture of its native inhabitants is saturated with words and concepts adapted from Arabic and from Islam. 

Herbert tackles some other contemporary concerns — for instance the risks posed by artificial intelligence. In the future he imagines, AI has been forbidden: the most solemn of religious commands is “thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind”.

A technology that hasn’t been banned is the “Axlotl Tank” — an organic machine used by a branch of humanity called the “Bene Tleilax” to give birth to clones. The horrible suggestion is that because the Bene Tleilax are exclusively male, the Axlotl Tanks are all that remain of their females. This is the bio-politics of surrogacy taken to its ultimate, ghastly conclusion. 

You won’t find biting social commentary like that in the Lord of the Rings. Tolkien’s story was more expansive; it was about something that will never change, which is the corrupting effect of power. Yet this is where Tolkien is superior to Herbert. His heroes — and heroines — pass the test because they refuse to accept the world-changing power that the Ring would confer upon them.

My favourite passage in all of Tolkien is where Frodo freely offers the Ring to Galadriel. For a heart-stopping moment, the elven queen is tempted. It would, after all, be better for her to wear the Ring than the evil Sauron. Yet she understands that she too would be made monstrous by it: “All shall love me and despair!” And so she refuses Frodo’s gift. 

Frank Herbert’s hero, however, does not refuse. There is no actual Ring in Dune, but there is ultimate power. Paul Atreides takes it. Later he has second thoughts, but not before his galactic Jihad has killed sixty billion people and sterilised ninety planets. Bit late to turn pacifist after that. 

Perhaps I’m being unfair. Herbert did say that the “power attracts pathological personalities” and that his stories were meant as a warning that “superheroes are disastrous for mankind”.

And yet in the sequels to Dune, Paul’s son, Leto, takes up where his dad left off. In fact, he turns himself into a giant worm (don’t ask) and imposes an absolute dictatorship on the known universe for next three thousand years. Crucially, Herbert provides him with an excuse — the “Golden Path” — meaning a super-human vision of the best possible future for all mankind. Any unpleasantness along the way is justified by the greater good. 

I think we’ve heard that one before. 

In 1965 Tolkien was sent a copy of Dune. The next year, he was sent another one. Writing back he confessed that he was familiar with the book — and disliked it “with some intensity”. As usual, the old man was right. 


Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.

peterfranklin_

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

42 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Murray
John Murray
2 years ago

A good comparison of the two works, but I have to disagree on the point about the film casting of Frodo v. Paul. It is entirely appropriate that Paul, who is intended to be a future messianic figure, has some charisma.
By contrast, the whole point of Frodo being the Ring-Bearer is that hobbits are generally overlooked and not terribly impressive sorts. Thus, Sauron isn’t expecting a hobbit to have the Ring, so Elijah Wood not setting the screen ablaze (beyond the bare minimum necessary) is doing the character right. Aragorn is the one who is meant to be the one with the natural charisma, as provided by Viggo Mortensen in the movies.

Kat L
Kat L
2 years ago
Reply to  John Murray

Great points

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
2 years ago
Reply to  John Murray

Completely agree. When I first saw the films I thought Elijah Wood was slightly irritating. Since then I have come to realise he played the role perfectly, as did almost all the other actors.

Last edited 2 years ago by A Spetzari
Zac Chave-Cox
Zac Chave-Cox
2 years ago

Spoilers ahead:

“And yet in the sequels to Dune, Paul’s son, Leto, takes up where his dad left off. In fact, he turns himself into a giant worm (don’t ask) and imposes an absolute dictatorship on the known universe for next three thousand years. Crucially, Herbert provides him with an excuse — the “Golden Path” — meaning a super-human vision of the best possible future for all mankind. Any unpleasantness along the way is justified by the greater good.” 

It’s been a little while since I read God Emperor of Dune, but I remember enough to say that Leto II is certainly not portrayed as being in the right… his Golden path is obviously immoral and that is realised by every other character around him. Herbert shows the corruption of power really well in that book. This is a very unfair portrayal of Dune.
I agree with the central point that Tolkien’s world is better, because, well, no-one’s made a better world than Tolkien. Herbert comes damn close though.

Jorge Espinha
Jorge Espinha
2 years ago
Reply to  Zac Chave-Cox

The difference between you and the author is that you read the books

John Riordan
John Riordan
2 years ago
Reply to  Zac Chave-Cox

I do recall one part of God Emperor when Leto is challenged on this by Duncan Idaho. Leto’s response is that due to the foreknowledge provided by the spice, he knew in advance that everything he did was necessary to save humanity from complete destruction.

It might do our present day eco-warriors some good to read this, because in order to really be able to tell the future, you have to have a rare genetic gift and eat melange in almost lethal quantities. Oh, and turn into an immortal sandworm.

Three years doing a substandard humanities degree and smoking weed while doing an impression of a giant bedbug doesn’t quite come up to scratch where this is concerned.

Last edited 2 years ago by John Riordan
Jorge Espinha
Jorge Espinha
2 years ago

Advice: please read the books before you make a comparison. Things go south for Paul Atreides very fast. By book 4 the Galaxy is run by a fascist worm. It’s a saga of how good intentions degenerate in hubris and thirst for power. Dune is a tale of how absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Sarah H
Sarah H
2 years ago
Reply to  Jorge Espinha

Not fast enough for me. Four was at least one book too many. Probably the first time in my youthful SF voracity, I’d had to trudge through two books. Funny how that let-down has stayed with me.

Jorge Espinha
Jorge Espinha
2 years ago
Reply to  Sarah H

I must confess I didn’t finish the 4th book. The god damned worm looked a lot like the former dictator of my country.

Matt B
Matt B
2 years ago
Reply to  Jorge Espinha

Hilarious! They should quote you in marketing material and posters.

Last edited 2 years ago by Matt B
Jorge Espinha
Jorge Espinha
2 years ago
Reply to  Matt B

“if you liked the 48 dictatorship of the western most country of Europe you will love the 3000 year rule of a boring worm captured by hallucinations”

Matt B
Matt B
2 years ago
Reply to  Jorge Espinha

Sand is good for beach tourism but not when starting an underground movement.

Last edited 2 years ago by Matt B
michael stanwick
michael stanwick
2 years ago

Not a bad interpretation of Dune. But one should read all the original author’s Dune novels to shed some light on where he was going with the over arching narrative.
But was not Tolkein influenced by his experiences in WW1, his experiences of his boyhood Warwickshire village life and his school club friends? Of his military service he admitted the general experience of the War plus of the soldiers and his batman (from the Minchin letter) went into his Rings novel and into Samwise Gamgee, respectively.
I am of two minds regarding the use of great fiction in film for the purposes of enacting out contemporary themes. I don’t think Dune will suffer too much with the sex swap since it is set thousands of years into the future etc and Tolkein’s world presumably set in a distant fictional past.
But what does irk me is the notion that these works are inferior or morally suspect if they do not reflect today’s ethical norms. Such a notion is, I think, a form of literary moral presentism.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
2 years ago

As a matter of fact Tolkien was always irritated by and denied the comparisons with real life events such as the Second World War. But of course authors might be, probably inevitably are, subliminally influenced by their surrounding society.

robert stowells
robert stowells
2 years ago

Interesting this idea of necessarily reflecting ethical norms of today. I have described LotR as a “Gainsborough” (incidentally I see GoT as more of a Rothko) so I see it as a work of art in itself complete and have never seen it as being “intended” as an allegory. The only big (and it is a very big) LotR analogy that has occurred to me is in relation to the “evil eye of Sauron” but I regard this as incidental. With regard to the “evil eye” the analogy I see is that of the “radar” but more than that the idea of “subjective versus objective”.  Let me try to explain. We have Frodo, Sam, and Gollum on that plain of Mordor. Carrying the Ring yet managing to stay under the radar of the “eye of Sauron”. This may seem weird but bear with me. Firstly, as one example, I see an analogy, say, with the present day situation of a new investor trading on the Stock Market. Initially the innocent “retail investor” might invest in stocks and get some great profits. However, when that same investor starts buying or selling stocks (i.e. actually starts thinking about it) and ploughs more money into the Stock Market on the basis of their initial success they enter onto “the eye of the Stock Market” and their investments or visibility to the Stock Market somehow then becomes “subjective” (rather than innocent “objective” as on their initial Stock Market entry) and they lose a load of money effectively because on this second occasion the market is aware and sees them coming. Thus the advice “never sell”. Perhaps there is also an aspect of greed here playing out on both sides (but who has the greater?). 
Similarly, as a second example, Freddie Sayers has said that Unherd actually has a mission to push back and promote independent thinking wherever Unherd can find it. Perhaps, therefore, there is a phenomenon where anyone “finding” their way to Unherd gets the Unherd which will most lead them to independent thinking and the articles and comments which they read somehow present themselves to provoke and encourage in that person what they need to achieve independent thinking. As such, in both cases, what is apparently OBJECTIVE and experienced by all becomes actually SUBJECTIVE. Weird “but I must admit I’ve had some thoughts on those lines from time to time”.

Last edited 2 years ago by robert stowells
Raymond Inauen
Raymond Inauen
2 years ago

The two films are like two sides of a coin. LOTR films work better as a whole, the characters the story and the set all work together to tell the story. Considering it’s over twenty years past, LOTR still has the ability to grip you because the film is about characters and not the decorum. Dune is a visual spectacle but the characters fall short. At no moment do you feel the tension and pure hatred between the two Nobel houses. The whole thing is like a beautiful visual spectacle but don’t dig any deeper otherwise you find nothing but a thin Hollywood set with nothing behind it. The pacing is also somehow off. I found this very strange consider the these are some of the best film makers in the trade. I read the books from both authors and even if both films did a great job of following the story, Dune just isn’t close regardless of its visual impact.

Last edited 2 years ago by Raymond Inauen
Mark Griffin
Mark Griffin
2 years ago

Have read both books and seen the adaptations. I think you are coming down too hard on Dune. Its protagonist was bred to fulfil a prophecy that become a classic determinism vs freewill dilemma. The protagonist has limited scope for his decisions and the story is a cautionary tale of putting power in the hands of the minority, just like Rings. Plus, Herbert was a conservative, not a progressive. He had more in common with Tolkien than not! Paul is not too dissimilar to Je Xinping who fled for his life from Mao as a young man only to become the Chinese Premier! He could become the God Emperor yet!

John Riordan
John Riordan
2 years ago

Dune is a progressive view of the future — it features a revolution against the established order. Tolkien’s fiction, on the other hand, is portrayed as nostalgic and reactionary — a yearning for a golden age that never existed. After all, what are the Hobbits except idealised Little Englanders who’d have definitely voted for Brexit?”

Perhaps, but this is one analogy I would not push too hard if I were a Europhile or a Remainer: you only have to look at the inevitable parallel that this draws between Brussels and Mordor.

Last edited 2 years ago by John Riordan
robert stowells
robert stowells
2 years ago
Reply to  John Riordan

Agreed. Also Hobbits would probably support EU farming subsidies.

Last edited 2 years ago by robert stowells
Matt B
Matt B
2 years ago

And fisheries? Would a hobbit liberate a scallop trawler captured by Mordor?

Last edited 2 years ago by Matt B
robert stowells
robert stowells
2 years ago
Reply to  Matt B

No. I do not think they would. They would be for not meddling and sadly just let it go – whatever the implications of that are for their EU or anti-EU credentials – very fickle folk actually being all for an easy life in the short term.

Last edited 2 years ago by robert stowells
Perry de Havilland
Perry de Havilland
2 years ago

Bilbo’s lack of heroic charisma is a feature not a bug.

Last edited 2 years ago by Perry de Havilland
Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
2 years ago

Alan Garner’s The Weirdstone of Brisingamen could be the best movie of this type –

But the wokes will destroy it. Garner is the last of the great British classics, Mythology writers with CS Louis and Tolkien –

There are no writers today who could touch them. Instead of an education of Greek and Latin classics, the current crop of writers were formed by ‘Women and Gender Studies’ kind of university programs…,

GA Woolley
GA Woolley
2 years ago

I think you misunderstand Tolkien. The rings represent ideology, any ideology. The One Ring is the dominant supremacist ideology; in Tolkien’s day Nazism and Communism were the most appalling examples. Now it’s Islam. So when the One Ring was destroyed, it destroyed the concept of ideology, so all the ring bearers had to relinquish their powers. The Hobbits were indeed little Englanders, but in the sense that the English of his day didn’t, apart from a few notorious examples, fall for the ideologues dominating Europe.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
2 years ago
Reply to  GA Woolley

Sounds like an ideology that only the English are not party to ideologies! The main difference is one of contingency and differing history. We are, or used to be, very partial to ‘Whiggish’ history of inevitable progress towards a liberal Parliamentary democracy. How the far reaching tyrannical government of Henry VIII, or indeed the very bloody Civil War, fits into this conceit, isn’t very clear.

Last edited 2 years ago by Andrew Fisher
G A
G A
2 years ago

I’m afraid to watch this. The first book is so meaningful to me.

Jorge Espinha
Jorge Espinha
2 years ago
Reply to  G A

I understand. You can watch it. It isn’t a work of fine art but it’s faithful to the book without any “heresies”.

G A
G A
2 years ago
Reply to  Jorge Espinha

In that case I’ll watch it!

Gareth Rees
Gareth Rees
2 years ago
Reply to  G A

Just got back from seeing it in IMAX a couple of hours ago. Having grown up well-thumbed copies of both LOTR and Dune, I would say that the film adaptation of \lotr left a lot to be desired from my perspective, largely due to the overuse of CGI. Dune part 1 is visually pleasing if underlit in the desert scenes (which is a lot of it), but overly and unnecessarily long I could have taken 15 minutes off the run time and it would have made for a better viewing experience. My 12-year-old fell asleep after the first hour which is not a good sign as the film signposts the plot too clearly for my liking and she had never read the book which makes a huge difference to your emotional buy-in to the experience. On balance I was somewhat disappointed, but this is also true of the LOTR adaptation. This won’t be popular, but I preferred the ‘re-cut’ David Lynch version. Overall, as far as the books and getting lost in them is concerned, Dune is a really great novel but not one that can surpass the mastery of LOTR.

G A
G A
2 years ago
Reply to  Gareth Rees

I love the LOTR book, and I think it’s a far deeper story that popular culture understands. Especially concerning Tom Bombardil, the Ents, and what kind of creature Gandalf actually is. But there is something about Dune that makes seem almost holy. It is lightning in a bottle.

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
2 years ago

Great read thanks!

is portrayed as nostalgic and reactionary — a yearning for a golden age that never existed.

I’m not 100% sure on that. It might seem Tolkien is being nostalgic, but I think he is spot on. It’s clear his sympathies lie wholeheartedly with the simple, wholesome understated lives of the hobbits.
Whilst the whole point of the book is about not being able to bury your head in the sand and pretend that things will stay as they are, it’s clear that for most the best we can hope for is a life like a hobbit in many ways.
The grand kingdoms of men and even to some degree the elves are seen as passing grand ideals. But the simplicity of a hobbit’s life is more eternal. It’s why eternal beings Gandalf, Tom Bombadil and Treebeard have such an affinity with them.
And why for the hobbit adventurers there’s a bitter sweet ending for them when they realise that they have seen and experienced to much to ever fully go back to life as it was before – for them at least.

AC Harper
AC Harper
2 years ago

I have enjoyed both books and films… and yet I prefer the Hobbit to LOTR and Dune as a stand alone book rather than part of a series.
I often relish starting a series but rarely complete the longer ones (I’m looking at you Wheel Of Time) because after the first few there is nothing new. TV series are similar… Season 1 is often great. Season 2 a satisfying exploration of the missing bits. Season 3 becomes more about the characters than their setting, and could therefore be set anywhere. Examples include the original Miami Vice and Casualty.

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
2 years ago
Reply to  AC Harper

Ah Holby City. Head into A&E with a broken pinky finger, leave in a bodybag 48 minutes later. While everybody (staff included) has a cry.
I swear Casualty was dreamt up by the beer industry to get people down the pub.

Sheryl Rhodes
Sheryl Rhodes
2 years ago
Reply to  AC Harper

Glad you mentioned the Wheel of Time series. I really enjoyed it for the first several books, but when it became obvious that the series would not conclude after 5 or so books, I gave up. The story became nothing but characters going around and around.

robert stowells
robert stowells
2 years ago

Thank you Peter Franklin for a wonderful subject matter piece well conjectured.
I was well into Tolkien in my youth but my later memories of Dune relate mainly to huge subterranean creatures that could swim in sand! Perhaps it was only the film and I did not actually read the book?
My own conjecture on these classic fantasies led me to what I regard as beyond Tolkien. Tolkien is a wonderful genius like Gainsburgh in the art world. The books of GRR Martin where later televised in a way which was not matched by the films of Lord of the Rings.  Those GRRM books were incomplete and the unique aspect was that the televising actually took the portrayal beyond what was described in the books.  I actually believe that people “felt” the reality of Westeros.  As far as I am aware GRR Martin has yet to finish his epic account of that world centring on Westeros and it is yet to be seen whether that account will follow the line portrayed in the televising. Even our present “Woke” thing might just be fans of GoT desperately wanting to “bend the knee” to something else if not to Daenerys Targaryen and who can blame them in their desperate search!! However, beyond this mundane “bending of the knee” phenomenon I see something magical. The wonderful world of entertainment is only one sphere. However, I have long conjectured in relation to the televising of GoT that via this media GRRM has demonstrated the magic that is to come and has opened up just a sliver (or created a tiny rent in the veil) to give us a glimpse of our power of magic and creation in which we can imitate GOD (greater things than this).  In actual fact the playing out of GoT as televised beyond the books could only take a few steps and soon burned out as a creation with life of its own. The way Daenerys torched Kings Landing with her dragon Drogon appeared totally out of character and “just wrong”. However GoT is just a wonderful example and a tiny initial baby step or demonstration of creation I have not seen in relation to other films or adaptations.

Last edited 2 years ago by robert stowells
Sarah H
Sarah H
2 years ago

GRRM will not finish GoT. Betcha.

Tony Taylor
Tony Taylor
2 years ago

Your headline is arse about.
PS: And by that I mean, the headline says one thing, but the bulk of the article seems to say the opposite.

Last edited 2 years ago by Tony Taylor
Matt B
Matt B
2 years ago
Reply to  Tony Taylor

True

David Batlle
David Batlle
2 years ago

An excellent essay. I love both books, but I guess for different reasons. One is aspirational, the other a warning. Both authors had immense creativity and imagination, as well as wisdom and foresight in their own manner.

Last edited 2 years ago by David Batlle
Kat Kazak
Kat Kazak
2 years ago

Ah, yet another person that read the wiki “plot” section instead of actually bothering to read the dune huh.

Kristof K
Kristof K
2 years ago

Well, I loved LOTR and you’ve got me interested in Dune! Didn’t Douglas Adams observe that those who most wanted power are the least suited to wield it?

Michael Layman
Michael Layman
1 year ago

It is a sad day when any literary work is judged by ethnic diversity and gender balance.