DUNE Vs Lord of the Rings | Why Did Tolkien Dislike Dune? | Frank Herbert and J.R.R. Tolkien

Two of the most influential authors of the twentieth century were J.R.R. Tolkien and Frank Herbert. These two men came to define two different but popular literary genres. Tolkien's magnum opus trilogy, The Lord of the Rings, released between 1954-1955, became the foundation of nearly all modern fantasy, while Frank Herbert's magnum opus, DUNE, released in 1965, became an extremely influential foundational work within science fiction, is credited as the best selling sci-fi novel of all time, and also spawned five sequels. Tolkien's Legendarium is based in a mythical past of Earth while Herbert's Dune Universe is based 20,000 years in humanity's future.
J.R.R. Tolkien actually read Frank Herbert's Dune shortly after its release and in a private letter said he "disliked Dune with some intensity." This video attempts to answer the question of why did Tolkien dislike Dune with such intensity by highlighting important differences between both influential works and the world-views and goals of each author.
Introduction: 0:00 - 5:25
Languages and Writing Style: 5:26 - 7:45
Allegory: 7:46 - 9:43
The Characters: 9:44 - 12:55
Religion, Morality and Mythology: 12:56 - 23:02
Conclusion: 23:04 - 25:51
If you enjoyed this video, then like this video, leave a comment and subscribe to the channel. Thanks!
#Tolkien #LordOfTheRings #DUNE

[@CosmicFaust]

*Video Chapters:* 1: Introduction: 0:00 - 5:25 2: Languages and Writing Style: 5:26 - 7:45 3: Allegory: 7:46 - 9:43 4: The Characters: 9:44 - 12:55 5: Religion, Morality and Mythology: 12:56 - 23:02 6: Conclusion: 23:04 - 25:51 Check out these other videos: - *Introduction to the DUNE Universe:* kzbin.info/www/bejne/mWSwdZ94qLBmg68 - *The SANDWORMS of ARRAKIS: The Life Cycle of Shai-Hulud:* kzbin.info/www/bejne/n6HMeJ6YpdJlfaM - *Why You Should Read The Original DUNE Saga by Frank Herbert:* kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYXdeKJvea2eopo - *DUNE Author Frank Herbert Interview on Environmentalism:* kzbin.info/www/bejne/oXaZf4iVe75mjKM

[@savitarr1162]

great video dude !

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

Herbert was a genius.

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

Ya know, why don't modern english classes cover real stuff like Dune and LotR. (Public education)

[@abstractnonsense3253]

The 2 main male archetypes are the heroic warrior and the messiah. Most fiction tries to blend these 2 and make them compatible. Herbert portrays the 2 archetypes as incompatible. This tension is an endless source of brilliant analysis of spirituality and philosophy. But it is also dissonant and, to some, unlikable.

[@abstractnonsense3253]

In short, LOTR is a harmonious classical music piece, while Dune is a brilliant improvised jazz piece.

[@eltravos99]

Tolkien wanted to keep his opinion under wraps so he didn't hurt Herbert's career. MUCH MUCH MUCH respect for that. What a gentleman.

[@NoticerOfficial]

One of the greatest generations of all time were born back-to-back in the late 1800s and early 1900’s. Self-less, creative, hard working class acts

[@ricomock2]

Indeed. Imagine the impact of Tolkien himself saying he didn't like something. He could have relegated an otherwise masterpiece, to the bargain bin section, just by stating he didn't like it

[@Merc_0158E7]

Kids just don't understand. He didn't express his "personal feelings" because they were "PERSONAL" and also contained in an unofficial a letter to a colleague regarding a matter of their profession which is literature. How you boil this entire synopsis down to dollars and cents points to your shallowness and lack of understanding of how individuals can enhance and expand humanity by provoking thought while tolerating others rights to do the same as well... Tolkien wasn't showing mercy. He was writing a letter which the author of this video used as a reference for a hypothetical scenario which you and currently 266 people misunderstood whilst displaying your egoism.

[@eltravos99]

@@Merc_0158E7 Yawn, did you say something?

[@Merc_0158E7]

@@eltravos99 Yeah, clearly you missed it while you were yawning...

[@thedukeofchutney468]

Respect to Tolkien for keeping things quiet so as not to diss Herbert. Tolkien was quite picky when it came to what he read. One good example of this is how he very much disliked his good friend C.S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia. Even there however Tolkien's granddaughter once recalled him directing her to read them. So I don't think JRRT disliking Dune is surprising, he was just very picky about his fiction.

[@Gunplabro]

I remember reading somewhere that he loved Narnia, but he thought making Santa a real thing was stupid lmao

[@thedukeofchutney468]

@@Gunplabro Tolkien and Lewis differed in many ways, not the least of which was seriousness and influence. Tolkien liked linguistics and pure mythology and disliked the ideas of outside influences. JRRT often was critical of Lewis for being too easily influenced by others' writing styles and not being serious enough. Lewis on the other hand was more cheeky and liked referencing other things. Furthermore, Lewis loved fantasy and from everything I've read of both of them seemed to be a good deal less picky and less concerned with taking things as seriously as Tolkien did. While both men cared for each other deeply they were the sorts who also differed in the minutia. Tolkien was detail-oriented in his world-building whereas Lewis was more of a big picture guy. Tolkien took ages to write and edited constantly whereas Lewis pumped out books like nobody's business. They were that classic pair or friends who were interested in the same things, but had such vastly different temperances that they (despite their love for one another) would drive each other nuts.

[@Gunplabro]

@@thedukeofchutney468 Yea, but the idea of these two titans of intellect and world building arguing about Santa is amusing to me. Tolkien being a Santa denier is so funny.

[@thedukeofchutney468]

@@Gunplabro True, personally I'm a Santa Agnostic myself.

[@williamgarner6779]

I was surpised to learn Tolkien was a fan of Frank Howard's writing (Conan). In my view both Tolkien and Herbert were not very good at describing action scenes. The old 'pulp' writers such as F. Howard, E.R. Burroughs, and Zane Grey were better. Of course Dune and LOTR were more grandios.

[@easternlights3155]

I'm a fan of both. The main difference to me seems to be that Herbert reminds me that there is great potential for evil within us, no matter how noble our intentions might be. Tolkien reminds me that there is good in us no matter what, and that good can win if we but let it.

[@caffeineandsleepingpills]

About 10 years ago I thought it would be fun to reread the Lord of the rings saga and I couldn't even finish the first chapter. This says more about me I'm sure than anything else but I found the book so slowly paced and incredibly tedious that I just couldn't stick with it.

[@paulievespucci6867]

@@caffeineandsleepingpills same for me.

[@sandygrungerson1177]

oh boy...lol

[@boota2474]

I also find that to be the biggest difference between the two, besides them being opposing genres within fantasy; LotR is a song praising the human spirit and what man is capable of, whereas Dune is a scathing critique of our ambition and what we're capable of.

[@sandygrungerson1177]

@@boota2474 GOOD WOULD BE SOOOOO ARGUABLY OVERRATED IF ONLY WE WOULD BUT LET IT BE THAT WHICH IT MAY

[@caffeineandsleepingpills]

In my opinion I think another important distinction to make between the two sagas is that Tolkien's saga frequently brings up the importance of choices and individual decision making, but in Herbert's saga (somewhat more subtle in the beginning but more overt as it continues) people frequently don't have choices and it's a struggle to regain the ability to make individual decisions without compulsion or predestination.

[@MotoGreciaMarios]

Very good point. Herebert's saga is like an ancient Greek tragedy. It's no wonder Paul is an "Atreides", son of Atreus, the main character on the first tragic trilogy saved in full by Aeschylus, one of the great ancient Greek tragedy writers.

[@derekwhite2929]

They were both great books however Tolkien was much more of mythology whereas Herbert was trying to bring the same themes into the 20th century.

[@nct948]

good point, yes

[@MrTrollo2]

I find that interpretation interesting, as in my understanding of Tolkien in the end very much comes down to the mythological skeleton he built, making turns of events basically determined on a deistic level. There is a particularly low degree of real choices in Tolkiens work to a point where basically nobody makes choices but they just do what they're meant to do. Frodo is the ring bearer because Elrond interpreted deistics signs in a way that he thought Frodo will fulfill his purpose. Every member of the fellowship, every decision and even most individual actions are based on Iluvatar taking influence in the world and working against Sauron. Also, most characters are very idealistic, following their purpose.

[@derekwhite2929]

Good points, I think Herbert's saga is better at pointing out that 'choices' are rarely as free or unbounded but more compelled than people like to believe. Reminding me of Einstein's famous "I believe I have free will, because I have to".

[@darthbiscuit]

"Dune is like Aragorn using the ring to defeat Sauron and becomes the dark lord himself" incredible I never thought about that

[@hypatia137]

Yes. Or we can also say that "Dune is like Aragorn using the ring to defeat Sauron and promising his people to become better then him and then screws everything up."

[@AeneasGemini]

It makes sense though, power often corrupts

[@hypatia137]

@@AeneasGeminiF. Herbert argued in Dune that power only corrupts corruptable in an absolute way.

[@eclat4641]

Wow!

[@kayvee256]

If Dune is the story of Aragorn (Paul) becoming Sauron, then Children of Dune is a story about Aragorn's kid becoming Melkor.

[@bradwolf07]

Even when Tolkien disliked something, he was a gentleman about it. I didn't realize my high opinion of someone could get higher.

[@twistedtachyon5877]

Have you read his response to the Nazi asking if he was Aryan? Never have I read a classier rejection of the Third Reich.

[@the_kimchi_kommandant2603]

@@twistedtachyon5877 In an alternate universe where Tolkien was German: One race to rule them all

[@chrisbanbury]

In the early days, Tolkien and CS Lewis regularly met to critique each other's work. CS Lewis loved allegory as much as Tolkien hated it, but their criticism of each other seems to have always been constructive.

[@Kjt853]

The reason is as much cultural as it is ethical. Until relatively recently, people could disagree and still remain polite about it. (See the attitudes of George Bernard Shaw and GK Chesterton toward one another. Even in the mid-20th century, William F. Buckley and John Kenneth Galbraith could disagree about everything and still enjoy each other’s company.) One doesn’t have to go further than the online comments on KZbin to see that nowadays disagreement is an invitation for invective and insult.

[@L0rd0fLight1]

@@nekiyia get over yourself

[@user-ks5cg5cd7m]

Herbert seems to draw inspiration from a secular, sociological, scientific, and current-event point of view. Tolkien draws inspiration from epic romance, heroic journeys, languages, and myths of the past.

[@dutchmilk]

You mean eurocentric one sided view point of events and belief?

[@Turbo-bs7ok]

​@@dutchmilk barf

[@basedkaiser5352]

Christianity

[@basedkaiser5352]

​@@dutchmilkyeah, so what ?

[@BimpytheWimpyShrimpy]

​@@basedkaiser5352some of us like gaining some perspective on the world, rather than huffing self-aggrandizing propaganda. EDIT: Don't be lazy; 9/10 responses I get are lazy and angry opiners, who can't be bothered to read what I've answered thrice already.

[@raynaldorusi]

Tolkien also disliked Shakespeare, safe to say the old guy wasn’t easily impressed 😅

[@user-gl5dq2dg1j]

To be honest if Willy were writing today, it would probably be East Enders or something for Hollywood.

[@alexandresobreiramartins9461]

Tolkien was an idiot in all that wasn't his own work.

[@user-gl5dq2dg1j]

@@alexandresobreiramartins9461 I don't know, I think he pegged his mate C.S. Lewis correctly with his heavy handed allegory.

[@lewisnunn6879]

Tolkien didn’t like Shakespeare?? How fascinating! Have you a link that illustrates his opinions on the great Bard of Stratford?

[@wp7187]

@@lewisnunn6879 bardfilm.blogspot.com/2014/02/j-r-r-tolkien-on-folly-of-reading.html

[@nickwilliams8302]

it's hardly surprising that Tolkien disliked _Dune._ Tolkien was a very religious man. While LotR was not explicitly conceived of as a Christian story (unlike Lewis' Narnia), it was definitely informed by the author's religious beliefs. Herbert, by contrast, very clearly viewed religion as a social rather than divine phenomenon. Implicit in the depiction of religion in _Dune_ is the assumption that religions are a human creation. One could certainly not imagine the Missionaria Protectiva existing in a universe where divine revelation was a real thing.

[@genmaicha.lapsang]

It goes even further. Any revelations that the characters do have is a result of a drug. It's "mundane" in origin.

[@GabrielSchlaefer]

In this respect, _Dune_ is a more realistic novel than _The Lord of the Rings_ is. Tolkien created a world in which mythology is real, while Herbert painted a much more believable picture of the evolution of religion and the rise/fall of religious figures.

[@jasonstormsong4940]

@Slawa Boga Same world, different viewpoints on how it came to be.

[@steelrad6363]

Tolkien and Lewis did not want religious books, they wanted more books by people who were religious.

[@vanthdreadstar8788]

I was going to post the same answer and you beat me to it.

[@ballisticus1]

An additional factor in the language differences between the two authors is that Herbert started writing as a journalist, so I think his journalistic efficiency contrasts with Tolkien's literary flourish.

[@TheJoshtheboss]

I think so too. Reading Herbert takes a lot more effort. And I had previously thought Tolkien's prose was overly long at times and a hard read 😁. But Herbert is even more demanding to me because it feels less relatable, which attributable to the language and writing style. The language he uses is more abstract and less colourful with focus on precision. Similar to-but less intense-to philosophical and political commentator writers. Although, I think Herbert tried to switch styles with Messiah using more descriptive writing, which I didn't like him do because to me it seemed at a high cost of substance. Overall, I would say reading Herbert feels like reading non-fiction.

[@TheJoshtheboss]

@garyallen8824 Not in direction, but writing style.

[@asmithgames5926]

IMO the journalistic writing style sucks - no offense to any journalists or Herbert. But it can be so dry and boring.

[@Surprise_Inspection]

​@@asmithgames5926"Journalism can be so dry and boring". Yep, and that's why we are all bombarded by false narratives and constructed "facts" in modern "journalism". People always prefer sweet lies rather than boring or bitter truths.

[@asmithgames5926]

@@Surprise_Inspection True, though modern "journalism" goes even father and just tells us what to think.

[@BaseDeltaZero1972]

Tolkien was an absolute gentleman. I will never forget him describing himself as a Hobbit who basically enjoyed nothing more than eating and lazing around. Wonderful creator of grand tales and a wonderful human being. He is considered the father of high fantasy for good reason. Herbert's contribution to the field of SF/Futurism cannot be ignored either. Dune can stand on its own merits as a legendary series/Universe. I love SF and fantasy so don't have to choose a favourite novel or even a favourite genre. I can appreciate the pure escapism of both.

[@rickpaul8012]

Herbert was a gay guy trying to inflict his venom onto you

[@ArinEvergale]

@@rickpaul8012 wtf are you on about, what does that have anything to do with his work.

[@rickpaul8012]

@@ArinEvergale Just what I said, he was a nihilist mocking his audience and trying to inflict them with nihilism because he believed he was in a position of power over others. We have the last laugh though as he was a pathetic man and gay.

[@dutchmilk]

seriously no...

[@rickpaul8012]

@@dutchmilk yeah dune guy was such a bastard

[@bellatrixg]

Good analyses with one exception. Tolkien was not offering a "respite from the brutal nature of the world" 9:23, he was providing a respite from the brutal and nihilistic nature of modernism by showing the world with an optimistic metaphysics that Tolkien perceived it really possessed, but which had been veiled from the public's mind by modernism. The most important aspect of Lord of the Rings to Tolkien, as he expressed in On Fairy Stories, was its "inner consistently of reality" which included this positive metaphysics. Dune, by contrast, was a thoroughly modernist/postmodernist work and antithetical to Tolkien's objectives.

As someone who has enjoyed both Tolkien and Herbert's works, this is an amazing analysis. Tolkien's work is more inspiring and consoling. For me, Herbert invokes more dread than wonder, but I'm in awe of the world-building and characters.

[@squamish4244]

The two authors are unparalleled for their startlingly original creations in the science fiction and fantasy genres, and both have also had an unparalleled influence on their genres. They also massively influenced each other's genres. Dune came out only 11 years after LOTR, 60 years ago. It was a crazy time of cross-pollination.

[@MistbornPrincess]

Idk I dislike all the Dune characters except maybe duke Leto and Keynes.

[@sulphurous2656]

It's kind of crazy how so many works created in the years since can all have their schools of thought and inspirations traced back to these two authors specifically.

[@arcanum3882]

Says a lot about Christianity compared to Islam and Buddhism

[@arcanum3882]

@@MistbornPrincesssame

[@onlyrevolutions2010]

I think it came down to Tolkien's devout Catholicism. Both men grew up steeped in the Catholic church, and though he didn't push religion in his works, he sincerely believed organized religion was ultimately a force for good. Herbert saw it as something far more complex and nuanced, and distrusted any sort of bureaucracy, particularly those that claimed to have all the answers and tried to put the vast, complicated universe in some sort of box. Tolkien believed that heroic figures with good intentions could and should use their power to lead others and better society. Herbert distrusted heroes and hero worship, and anyone who was drawn to positions of power over others, whether it was in a book club or a government.

[@tayzk5929]

Well I remember Tolkiens son talked about the ring as an allegory for power over others and imposing your will on others, which he said his father was against as much as possible and saw as an evil. Which seems not too dissimilar to your description of Herbert.

[@1TakoyakiStore]

I remember hearing about Frank Herbert's opinions on religion and I understood his reasoning for all of it except one. That of organized religion's policy of celibacy somehow allowing the religion to have control over its followers. Never figured out why he thought that was true.

[@dizzydoom4230]

@@1TakoyakiStore I believe it would be something to do with the mindset of "if they can't focus on something we deem frivolous for the most part, then they give more of their time and energy to us", us being the religious establishment one would follow. That's just hazarding a guess, though.

[@mistersharpe4375]

@@1TakoyakiStore I think the policy of celibacy is a particularly catholic one. In fact, (I might be wrong on this) being married is a requirement for becoming a Rabbi in Judaism. In the culture of Catholicism, the Virgin Mary was as venerated as Christ himself in many respects. So it's thought that the virtues of chastity were derived from there.

[@mateuszbaszczyk9582]

With all due respect, unfortunately I have to disagree with the Original Poster’s opinion above. Of course it is true that Christian faith and Roman Catholic Church's teachings had tremendous influence on Tolkien's ideas and worldview - that's right. But one cannot agree with the following statement: "Tolkien believed that heroic figures with good intentions could and should use their power to lead others and better society" and the whole notion that (unlike Herbert) Tolkien was somehow “idealistic” and “not sceptical” about political power - at least not without adding a significant disclaimer to it. Tolkien distrusted ANY political power that put any man or any group of people in ruling position over anyone else. According to Tolkien every single person that strives for power over the others (no matter how good, noble and benevolent are his or her initial motivations) not only exposes himself/herself to the temptation to abuse power and succumbs to political corruption - but also makes an inherently wrong choice to use the "Machine" (as Tolkien used to call the force connected to political system in his letters) to forcefully bend people to his/her own will. And it does not matter whether the final goals are pure and beautiful or not - the first grave mistake already has been made. This is a constantly recurring theme in all of Tolkien's writings, especially in "Lord of the Rings". Tolkien openly denied that his books were allegories and rejected interpretations that the One Ring meant to be a mask for nuclear bomb or any other real-life weapon of mass destruction. Nevertheless he did agree that (while allegories are out of the window) some elements of his literary world can be interpreted as broader symbols (symbols - not allegories; the difference may seem small, but it is actually fundamental) of general ideas - and that one can think about the One Ring as (among other symbolic meanings) a symbol of power. Especially political power - and in particular the threat of force that political power can initiate against "free people" to get them to act according to the arbitrary decisions of the top-down planner - who is in this case, in fact, a tyrant. Tolkien wrote quite a lot about it, both in his fiction and (more explicitly) in his letters. This is the main reason why the One Ring is inherently evil and its power should not be used, even in good faith and for noble purposes - especially by people who are already strong and powerful. The Ring - which means here: the political power - cannot be used for good; it can only destroy and corrupt. The Ring can and should be destroyed, EVEN IF it means that some good things that depend on its power will fade away with it (just like the Three Rings of Elves - and most of elven wonders in Middle-Earth that were possible thanks to them). And that should not be surprising - Tolkien was, after all, a self-described anarchist: and he meant it! Quote: “My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) - or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inaminate real of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could go back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so to refer to people … The most improper job of any many, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity …" Of course one may ask: and what about all the kings and queens etc. in Tolkien's Middle-Earth, does their very existence not contradict this "anti-political-power" message? Actually - no; because in Tolkien's eyes kings, queens etc. should be servants of the people - and they should LEAD, by example or authority, not RULE by force and power. This is why, for example, Shire almost did not have any formal government at all before the dark times of Saruman's reign (chapter "The Scouring of the Shire"). Leadership not only is not synonymous with ruling but, to some extent, it is almost its diametrical opposition. Greetings! :)

[@NevermissaPoint]

Video Chapters: 00:00 - Introduction 05:25 - Languages and Writing Style 07:45 - Allegory 09:43 - The Character 12:55 - Religion, Morality, and Mythology 23:02 - Conclusion

[@liftedmarco4976]

I always interpreted the use of myth in dune as a sort of irony. The myths that were supposed to be fake ended up being real, proving the Bene Geserit wrong, like causality correcting itself.

[@KTChamberlain]

Funnily enough, Brian Herbert, Frank Herbert's son is like the anthesis of Christopher Tolkien, J.R.R. Tolkien's youngest son. Christopher Tolkien merely edited his father's unpublished works and saw that they would see the light of day, whereas Brian Herbert has been viewed in a very controversial light in regards to Dune from Dune fans.

[@elsecaller-jacob8346]

This is so accurate!

[@AlexGoldhill]

Brian wrote those books based on a careful study of the notes that his father left to him. Those notes being a post-it on the fridge that said "write more Dune books".

[@SD78]

Brian Herbert hired a Z-grade comicbook hack to crap out a series of trash dimestore novels loosely based on the original series...and made canon by Brian Herbert.

[@philmitchellboxing8661]

Christopher Tolkien is also controversial for his omissions and his changes.

[@murdockfiles9406]

@@AlexGoldhill Brian Herbert clearly lied about that. He literally changed the mysterious characters of Daniel and Marty to fit his own narrative. They were Tleilaxu Face Dancers, unusually powerful ones, who were basically mutated humans with the ability to alter their appearances. This was established by Frank Herbert himself, which Brian Herbert completely contradicts by making them robots. In the Dune books, robots were a tyrannical relic of humanity's past and play NO PART in Frank Herbert's Dune novels.

[@ricardocastillo5485]

This is brilliantly reasoned. I love them both. To me Dune is the mind, but LotR is the heart.

[@CosmicFaust]

That last sentence sums up a lot of my feelings on both works! 😊

[@bernardokrolo2275]

Is that mean that Dune is hartless and Lotr is maindless

[@bernardokrolo2275]

@@CosmicFaust by the way ..good work man..thanks for information i thanks for analasis..and because i m catholic i understend Tolkien perfectly aldo im fan of Dune..Dune is in core sincretizam

[@ollieholden333]

That’s a beautiful way of putting it, that’s why I do tear up for lotr and dune is so interesting and exciting.

[@RoyCyberPunk]

@@bernardokrolo2275 Not quite, one is very spiritual and theist and the other is materialistic and transhumanist.

[@Wastelandman7000]

You have to give Tolkien props for not turning his dislike into an attack. Something a lot of people today could learn from. My guess is it was the allegory that turned him off. That is enough by itself to turn him off.

[@coys24]

I love both books. Tolkien makes me escape reality, Herbert makes me reflect about it.

[@Quekksilber]

I don't think Tolkien really wrote his works to help people to escape from reality, but rather re-enchant it.

[@rhuttner12]

@@QuekksilberI don’t know, in an interview he said it was escapism: “Like a prisoner trying to escape the prison.”

[@trorisk]

@@Quekksilber When you say "re-enchant" reality are you referring to the romanticism movement? This is also the impression that Tolkien gives me. Besides, it's interesting that in LotR there is no technological evolution. And without the evolution of humankind, even if there is a chronology of 4000y, there is no real History. While for Herbert everything is in the evolution of the world and humanity, even cultures evolve and perish.

[@Daniel_Rodrigues_89]

Pretty much. Just look at the morality depicted in both books, black n' white good and evil versus people being actual people, somewhere in between. One is certainly more "real" than the other.

[@Quekksilber]

@@trorisk In a dis-enchanted world, eyes of wonder are delusional. Tolkien and some of his contemporaries (C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton) saw this and rejected it as false. This might have some similarities with romanticism, but it's not entirely that. The view that our history is measured by technological "evolution" (which is rather something that mankind actively develops) is a comparatively novel one. It was irrelevant before the Industrial revolution (which dis-enchanted the world in Tolkien's view). Before that, people viewed history as a fight between Good and evil, a fight their own souls are in and fought over. Things like virtue and wisdom where more valued than the lastest tech-development. And I argue that many of our modern problems are so bad, because people try to replace with systems and technology what should have been the place of virtue.

[@chrisdude2675]

I love the part “Herbert only made 5 sequels” damn right

[@ecliptairedux3281]

And 3 prequels so 9 books

[@liber-primus]

@@ecliptairedux3281 he didn't write them

[@AllFascistsCanSuckIt]

You Brian Herbert haters are so weird. I hate to break it to you, those prequels are canon so sayeth the Herbert estate.

[@chrisdude2675]

@@AllFascistsCanSuckIt i wonder how much you Brian lovers are paid to say that? No one cares about some spoiled kid ruining his daddy propriety says about the matter.

[@penguinwolf3330]

@@AllFascistsCanSuckIt yeah these people are so weird for rightfully having a negative opinion to some divisive books.

[@restitvtororbis5330]

Massive respect for the Tolkien not wanting to bomb on something he has such a dislike for.

[@paavohirn3728]

This was really fascinating! Thanks for delving into a comparative reading of the great works and the minds behind them.

[@therealrobinc]

Seems like Tolkien is a hater. He hated the Roman Empire. He hated Walt Disney. Now I learnt he also hated DUNE. Tolkien in my kinda guy. 👍🏻👍🏻

[@gallienus172]

This was an interesting intellectual exercise. It just goes to show you how classy a guy Tolkien was. Even in a private letter he didn't disparage another author even though he didn't like the guy's book. I've read both stories multiple times and I like each story (obviously) and I'm sure I'll read them both again in the future. While I'm not looking forward to and have no intention of watching Amazon's Rings of Power series I did watch Dune 2021 and I'm eagerly looking forward to watching Dune part 2.

[@yopyopboumboum9505]

Good comment, also glad you have no interest in Rings of Power.

[@tylerbrooks2492]

Same here, no interest in woke culture,.

[@johnturner3455]

Rings of power is a bastardisation of Tolkein's gift to the world

[@gingerbaker_toad696]

The new dune movie was so damn underwhelming, hopefully it gets better.

[@benjaminschreibman4745]

Same here. I actually credit Dune Part 1 to getting me to read the book. I went in not knowing anything the first time viewing the film and got blown away by the visuals and the story. I decided to get the book because I wanted to see what happened after and even see what had to be cut due to time constraints. I still enjoy both, but Tolkien is my favorite for whenever I feel cynical about the world

[@LCTesla]

In a sense, the fact that Paul Atreides first cynically used the mythology of the Fremen for his own purposes and then made it a reality through his actions, means that Herbert was teaching the same lesson as the one Tolkien believed in: that mythology does often contain a grain of objective truth about the universe. Perhaps these men didn't believe all that differently on this topic, but had very different ways of carrying out that belief.

[@ravissary79]

Interestingly he only made some aspects real. They wanted the planet made into a paradise and he never did it.

[@zero-pl3tt]

@@ravissary79 Well he did begin to do it. Leto was the one who decided that wasn't a good idea and put a stop to it.

[@MindForgedManacle]

Isn't that more or less what Tolkien said in his letter? They were treading similar ground, at least.

[@DrMilad814]

Seems like Herbert was interested in the difference between revelation/epiphany/authentic experiences of the “supernatural” vs religions/dogma and everything else people build on top of those experiences to create orthodoxy and control

[@anonymity6504]

Although Paul and Jessica definitely cynically seek to exploit Fremen characteristics, there are also examples that suggest that Paul unknowingly fulfils the characteristics of the Messiah prophesied by the Missionaria Protectiva (sp?). E.g. when Liet Kynes inspects Paul's still suit the first time he wears one, and finds that it has been put on in the Fremen way. He then relates to one of the prophecies, even though he is sceptical of them. This gave me the impression that there is something about Paul and his role that goes beyond the purely cynical. In some way what the BG have prophesied has come true, even though their prophecy was a purely cynical device.

[@justiniswesleyandnotdavid3831]

Fantastic analysis. Its comforting that others saw the potential in a comparison discussion about these two masterworks. Another series that could be great to add to the discourse would be R. Scott Bakker's epic, The Second Apocalypse series (prince of nothing trilogy and aspect-emperor quartet). This series would be an appropriate addition to a kind of science fiction/fantasy required reading list. I think Bakker captures massive influence from both works and synthesized both into a completely new literary beast. I highly recommend the reading experience, and would argue its growing legacy reaching similar heights as Dune and Lord of the Rings did. Happy reading.

[@garbuz3324]

The content was pretty much what I expected it to be, but it was very eloquently put. I enjoyed it very much, thank you!

[@useofthirds481]

The fact that Tolkien disliked allegory and preferred history is interesting, because historical recurrences are what directly inspired Herbert’s allegory.

[@ToomanyFrancis]

Also because LotR is absolutely steaming with allegory even if Tolkien never admitted it publicly.

[@laurie1183]

@@ToomanyFrancis Tolkien does not hate allegory. The quote used to claim he does is never used in context.

[@mikearchibald744]

I was thinking similar, just because you don't like allegory doesn't mean its not there. Its HOW it is imbued. But really it doesn't matter how he felt about it, as he said about his critics, its unlikely he likes what they read. I wonder what he thought of Narnia and Lewis other book, which I forget what its called.

[@penguinwolf3330]

tolkien didnt dislike allegory, read his full quote about it, its always taken out of context.

[@Murdo2112]

@@laurie1183 I'm curious. What context do you feel is always overlooked, that changes the meaning of the famous quote?

[@Jerome616]

I find it interesting that Tolkien arguably saw the worst of humanity in WW1 and yet never lost his hope and positivity, and yet Herbert did. Yes he served for six months in the navy as a photographer but I don’t think their two experiences are on equal footing.

[@jalarasstudios414]

Always found that rather interesting myself. Of course, the comparison I've seen is Game of Thrones vs LOTR in regards to their general levels of hope and how their authors lives have been. Perhaps it's an unfair comparison, but the point probably still stands that Tolkien was remarkable for managing to write hopeful things with everything he'd likely seen in his life.

[@archerfan66]

You don't need to be in the military to see humanity's flaws

[@squamish4244]

It is a point I've often considered. Tolkien served during almost the entire battle of the Somme, one of the bloodiest battles of the 20th Century. He got trench foot near the end, which saved his life, because his entire platoon was annihilated later on. And Robert Jordan was a gunner on a helicopter in Vietnam. Herbert and Martin never saw combat. Maybe Tolkien - and Jordan - could never write about war the way the others did after seeing what they saw. But Tolkien also made a conscious choice to create a world overflowing with grace and love.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@@archerfan66 its not about being in the military in general, its about seeing slaughter and callousness firsthand to an extreme in the killing fields of ww1. very little of what humanity has done is comparable, and seeing something first hand is always more impactful than reading it.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@@squamish4244 what is interesting is the most cynical about war are people who didn't see it, while someone who by his own admission saw evil acts in war portrays actual heroes as existing in war. i think its because anti-war civilian people get too fixated on the bad, while those that experienced it also saw real-life heroism and so ironically know its more nuanced.

[@Velereonics]

LotR is also about the idea that every small action counts, so it's best to do good things because they might have effects you're not aware of. I just wanted to note that one specifically since you focused on other themes.

[@gkcamden9050]

Thank you for this video. I read both book series decades ago. I didn’t realize any of this had transpired. You’ve offered excellent insight into how these two authors and their works differ. You made your analysis in a measured and respectful way.

[@def1ghi]

Tolkien uses always a standard third person narrator. Herbert uses almost always a narrator who appears to be third person but is strongly tied to specific characters' points of view. Herbert is a lot more like George RR Martin's use of perspective characters in this sense. Every scene in Herbert is processed through someone's eyes. This may have bothered Tolkien. Plus, Tolkien was a dedicated royalist. The whole LOTRs is about getting the right guys back on the throne because of a good blood line. Dune is all about how creating good blood lines are bogus and the royalty are corrupt and dangerous.

[@olstar18]

Third person limited.

[@def1ghi]

@@olstar18 Bakhtin, character zone

[@Galgus2000]

Tolkien was also drawn to anarchism, and it's very easy to see applicability in the lesson of the Ring to the power of the State from that point of view: an evil power that will corrupt anyone who wields it, that will only ever cause more suffering in the long run, and that must be destroyed for the good of mankind. That mindset is diametrically opposed to the cynical power struggle to be the emperor of everything in Dune. Tolkien loving the countryside and disliking industrialization may be a less ideological reason.

[@olstar18]

@@def1ghi What are you even talking about.

[@olstar18]

@@Galgus2000 No not anarchism. Didn't see anything like that whatsoever in the books. Anti-totalitarian certainly but that doesn't mean anarchy.

[@dansmart3182]

I think Tolkein and Herbert's writings are surprisingly similar, Dune turns inward for its descriptions LOTR turns mostly outward. In the first 100 pages of Dune I have a better idea of the inner world of Paul than I ever did of Aragorn.

[@mycaleb8]

That's because Frodo is the main character, not. Aragorn.

[@acuerdox]

It makes sense then Tolkien wouldn't like it, he didn't try to make a book about characters. It's on purpose you don't really know Aragon

[@mycaleb8]

@@acuerdox That's not really accurate.

[@joaopedromarquesini1792]

@@acuerdox ... I mean ... It kinda is?

[@vngelicath1580]

It's also not a modern novel, LotR. Modern novels are shaped by our modern obsession with psychologizing everything (the internal monologue, etc)... LotR is intentionally pre-modern in its prose, like Beowulf or Greek Myth.

[@mileskeller9825]

Tolkien warmed my heart as a boy Hebert challenged me to understand the world around me as a man

[@DrBreezeAir]

Very well said.

[@mohammedashian8094]

That is an great description of the difference

[@robertblackmore703]

I really enjoyed your thoughtful exposition and found your ideas both plausible and compelling. Your knowledge and insight of both the authors and their works is a cut above most of what can be found on this platform. I look forward to exploring more of your content and wish you the best on future endeavors and your channel.

[@elliottbronstein1214]

This brings up for me a larger question. What did Tolkien think of science fiction?

[@CosmicFaust]

That is a very good question. I will be creating a future video that is aimed at answering this very question in full detail. For now though, to quench a bit of your curiosity with a simple answer, Tolkien did enjoy reading science fiction from time to time (even though he disliked DUNE by Frank Herbert with some intensity). An interesting fact: Isaac Asimov revealed that he admired J.R.R. Tolkien and that he had read The Lord of the Rings five times. Surprisingly, the feeling was mutual and Tolkien himself revealed in a letter (I believe Letter 294 in the book The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien) that he had enjoyed reading Asimov's science fiction stories.

[@lordvongg]

Def not a fan. He didn't like technology. Literally one of his messages in his books.

[@ecliptairedux3281]

I wonder if he lived to see the original star wars what would he think

[@mshollydolly2013]

@@lordvongg Tolkien fucking loved history. Makes sense.

[@generaljeanmoreau6853]

@@lordvongg scouring of the shire

[@countravid3768]

Considering in Christian theology the great evils of humanity are all sprouting from rebellion against god, this fundamental understanding is seen in Tolkien’s works in great extents. And I believe that someone like Paul would be a dark lord in Tolkien’s eyes, or in the biblical view gog of Magog.

[@BanjoSick]

A satanic figure like Morgoth, that is a great thought.

[@ahmadfrhan5265]

Paul is the Mehdi ( the rightly guided ) and he is based on Islamic prophecy. Dune is based on Islam not christianity

[@nicolocorbellani9807]

​@@ahmadfrhan5265even more reasons for tolkien to hate it

[@ahmadfrhan5265]

@@nicolocorbellani9807 yes and it prophecised that Muslims will lead war against Banu asfar the race of decadence ( Anglo Europeans/ western Europeans) and eradicate them in war and cleanse this earth from their decadence and inherit it over their skulls. It is happening as we speak and May Allah never guide whites to Islam

[@madscribbles7280]

I think it's awesome you're taking a subject for which we can only speculate, and quite expertly identifying things that are truly plausible and may very well be all the actual reasons.

[@kittymachine3798]

I didn't expect a video consisting primarily of speculation to be so thoughtful. This is a quality comparison of the two authors and their work!

[@dialaskisel5929]

It's a shame that we didn't get Tolkien's actual opinions, but this was a fascinating and thoughtful analysis nonetheless.

[@nicholasmaryniak3815]

Is there any indication of what Herbert thought of Tolkien? That would be an interesting counterpoint to this. Thank you for a nuanced and respectful analysis on this subject.

[@concept5631]

4:57 I gotta say, having Sauron's eye around Frodo's head where an Angel's halo usually is was very clever of the artist.

[@50srefugee]

I'd love to know what Tolkien would have thought of Zelazny's "Lord of Light", a novel describing a world trying to escape the yoke of a ruling class pretending to godhood in the mold of of a technologically enforced Hinduism. Despite Zelazny's rejection of Christianity, his grasp of language and of myth was far superior, in my opinion, to Herbert's.

[@victorperezurbano9504]

Lord of Light is one of the best sci-fi books ever written. I didn't know anything about it when it fell in my hands and oh boy, what a journey it was

[@jameshannagan4256]

One of my favorite books ever.

[@waspoptic]

It's the excellent example of a High Fantasy writer and a Grim Dark writer. The White Pill vs the Black Pill. One showcases how at the end of great struggles, good will overcome. While the other showcases how even the most heroic beings still bring darkness where they tread.

[@DutchDread]

Based in this I should vastly prefer Dune to LotR since my own views align with Herberts far more and clash with Tolkiens. However, I actually love LotR with all my heart, more than anything. I think it might be because while I think reality and me are more inline with Herbert, Tolkien describes the world in a way that I wish it could be, and is therefore the more eye-catching escape from reality.

[@garytwinem5275]

He probably didn't like it because the protagonist is basically Sauron, the ultimate evil of his own trilogy. As an aside, I love Dune and The Lord of the Rings equally, they both are stunning creations in their own right.

[@niyanlan8928]

Just come across this video. Beautifully written and so well argued- thank you

[@ghfudrs93uuu]

"Would you like me to return the book as I already have one or to hand it on?" is 100% the kind of thing only someone who loves books would ask

[@craigs71]

I read all the Dune series but overlooked LoTR but made up further in life, they are quite different but equally deserve reverence in their own right.

[@Tarikkb]

I have always felt that it was all due to one’s view towards life , dune , narnia , lotr are amazing as they are , just like any art they are somewhat an extension of their artists , it’s personal , so when you have 2 bodies of work that are complete opposites in it’s foundation it must be reflecting the differences within the authors as well as how they see the world and their crafts

[@timothyreal]

I haven't watched this video yet, but it doesn't sound so crazy at first blush. The only thing these two had in common is they both wrote highly complex multi-volume works of speculative fiction. Beyond that, I can't think of two writers who could be more different. Looking forward to watching this!

[@williamhamilton1154]

When I saw the title of this video I thought to myself “Tolkien doesn’t like nihilism. End of story.” But then I got an awesome, nuanced video about two prolific story tellers with vastly different world views. That contained details which even I, a fan of both (but mostly Tolkien) didn’t know yet. Thanks for the great work. I’m looking forward to more.

[@nutyyyy]

Which is especially telling considering the shit Tolkien went through in his life. It's pretty admirable actually.

[@williamhamilton1154]

@@nutyyyy I agree completely. Probably one of the reasons his works are so profound.

[@onlinedayton9882]

I don’t see much Nihilism in Dune. It’s more Pragmatism in terms of philosophy. I’ve only read it three times though and the sequel twice so maybe the ”trilogy” ends with a heavy dose of it.

[@williamhamilton1154]

@@onlinedayton9882 ok. Interesting. I Thanks for the comment. 👍 what do you mean by “philosophical pragmatism”?

[@onlinedayton9882]

@@williamhamilton1154 well both Pragmatism and Nihilism are philosophical ideologies or viewpoints to describe a particular belief for reality. I just find that Herbert was a showing a lot more Pragmatism with the story of Paul. You see a simple definition of the term is basically to deal with facts and how knowledge and interpretation can’t change it. All throughout Paul’s journey he gain’s prescience and often meditates on these visions and contemplates changes and or acceptance constantly. These visions and future snippets are very pragmatic because no matter Paul’s choices he can’t seem to escape them. In my opinion I believe Tolkien didn’t like Dune because it’s a very anti hero narrative. It’s a complete deconstruction of the hero’s journey and is showing you that you can’t escape your fate. Your fate and the future is bound to you and is inescapable. Tolkien told a story of the complete Hero’s journey that escapes fate and triumphs over it. Two completely opposite sides of the spectrum.

[@MadCityBells]

Brilliant video. Wish you made more.

[@nct948]

I remember my repulsion when I started to read Dune. I usually look forward to Sci-Fi novels, but I have never been able to read more than a few chapters of that one. I was surprised by my reaction and tried to analyse the reason why that work upsets me so, and this video has helped me understand a bit better. Many thanks for an interesting analysis.

[@nickmanzo8459]

Tolkien is my favorite author, and hearing him be so affable and respectful in spite of fundamentally disliking a piece of fiction that I also enjoy just reaffirms that.

[@eccehomonohomo]

9:15 the danger Herbert is attempting to teach us about is not that the hero's journey is not desirable, but that the hero is cyclically corrupted by secret elite groups who utilize the hero's "peculiarities" to perpetuate war and create institutional power that lives on long after the mortal hero dies. Remember, all heroes are only half-divine, they do succumb to old age. Paul and Leto transcend this endless cycle by following the golden path; Leto ultimately transcends human life by becoming an abomination, before sacrificing himself to create an entirely new species of human who are not doomed to follow the threads of elites. This story is historical, it explains most of the human past and potentially some or all of the human future. Herbert argues for an alternative path, the golden path.

[@nicholascage3400]

Not even just by secret influences; as Scytale points out in Dune Messiah, if Paul could stop the Jihad he would. But the thing has roots in chaos, a fundamental human desire to be free, spread, and grow. As Leto II would go on to say, humans crave chaos, and war is the most readily available form of chaos. Paul wanted to guide humanity, but was unwilling to make the choices Leto would. Leto understood humanity on a level Paul didn't, and was willing to take on the mantle of history's greatest tyrant, to be remembered as shaitan himself. All to teach mankind a set of lessons. To show them the dangers of trying to live in the past, or to hide away from the world, seeking stagnant comfort over a hard and fulfilling life. Ultimately, "make no heroes" is about people realizing their own agency, taking their own hard road rather than trusting to another. Because even a well intentioned hero can lead others astray, and the meaning of life is a reality to experience.

[@eccehomonohomo]

@@nicholascage3400 I agree with what you said up until your conclusion, your interpretation of the point of scytale and eddric's dialogue is opposite my own. You take a bottom-up approach, mine is top-down. Remember the ultimate point of the golden path was that humans would be bred who couldn't be tracked by prescient technology or people? Herbert considered *surveillance* the biggest threat to humanity's existence, not a lack of agency amongst the average person. From what I can tell from the dialogue you mentioned, Scytale presents human psychology to Eddric as it is to Nietzsche, chaotically controlled by the unconscious and without fundamental objectivity. The unconscious urge that results in calamity is called in the first book "a desire to mingle genetics and create diversity so as to preserve the species"....recall also that we learn from the gom jabbar scene that a desire to prolong the species, even in the face of pain, is what ultimately makes someone human. We are then told humans are very rare, leading us to believe the average person to be an animal and incapable of agency. Herbert does not support the sweet-summer-child conclusion notion that, as you put it, "people need to realize their agency, and, the path of life is to be experienced as the meaning of life". Free Will does not exist in Dune, we are even led to question whether Paul and Leto ever had any free will, so how can one ever dream of agency as a goal in a world with no free will........? Agency for the average person is 100% not the goal of the golden path nor a theme of the story. Strong humans will always dominate weak humans, and the weaker you are the more you desire to be dominated, that's why Dune is a book about ecology and that's why it only concerns itself with aristocrats (in the end only elites matter). The golden path is a means of diversification and isolation, of ensuring the species survives. Heroes are desirable as a necessary part of this cyclic process.

[@Silvertip_M]

I think that you're missing some of the point in Paul's actions in Dune...comparing his actions to Aragorn using the One Ring is really a disservice to Paul as a character. Yes, the Jihad he launches is terrible, and he does what he can to stop it. In the end though, he's walking the Golden Path, which is stated to be the way of survival for humanity who is sliding into corruption and decline. The Harkonen are far from the only Great House to be corrupt and abusive...they just happen to be the ones who have historically been in opposition to the Atreides. But all of the factions...other than the Atreides and their allies were fairly corrupt and terrible for their people. Even the Atreides who weren't as noble as they appeared as they tolerated living in a society which other houses and factions acted in abusive and destructive ways. Paul's Jihad (as destructive and bloody as it was) actually cleaned house and got humanity moving forward once again. This only accelerated with Leto II which first created the peace through control and then later allowed humanity to expand and evolve beyond their former constraints. It wasn't the "good" using the tools of "evil" and in turn becoming evil as Aragorn would have. It was the clearing of corruption which was killing humanity and taking the steps necessary to ensure its survival over time. Without Paul and Leto's action...humanity would have likely perished...their actions while brutal and harmful to many were no more evil than the actions of a gardner cutting off the branches of a bush to allow it to be healthy and to grow. Unlike the people and beings in Tolkien's world there is no such thing as evil in the Dune books; only morality and practicality. The horrors of the greater good being preferable to the horrors of corruption and decadence.

[@steviegilliam5685]

"The horrors of the greater good being preferable to the horrors of corruption and decadence" Not to be a contrarian but as history has shown that's a slippery mindset and would that imply that there is a objective evil in dune?

[@Silvertip_M]

@@steviegilliam5685 It depends on the reading. But I think that survival of the human race was the relative good, and its excitinction seen as the evil. Neither were shown in particularly positive lights. But one was definitely shown as preferable to the other. Whether you read that as good and evil is up to interpretation. That's the problem with binary solution sets, both are generally horrible as we saw in the books.

[@steviegilliam5685]

@@Silvertip_M sometimes the binary morality is needed don't get me wrong the world is mostly grey and not as black and white as it seems but that's the problem with the Grey you don't know where to stop, like a fog

[@Silvertip_M]

@@steviegilliam5685 that is also the problem with black and white. You don't know when the ends stop justifying the means. Morality is always complicated and the best of intentions long term often lead to terrible consequences. As we go through the novels we understand that none of those who are precognitive actually know how things will play out. They know likely outcomes, but not the actual future. The golden path may have been necessary, but it could have also been a complete fabrication based on Paul's and later Leto's fears and disappointment in humanity's ability to live in harmony. It's hard to blame them living in continuously bleak, oppressive and dehumanizing times. Ironically, none of them could see a way for humanity to live in peace and instead only find ways for humanity to continue to exist. One could argue that Duncan found a new way forward, but will this new way be any less dystopian? Who knows, unfortunately, Frank Herbert did not survive to finish his work. We can only speculate as to whether or not he saw any form of a better existence from humanity beyond survival or senescense leading to its eventual demise.

[@tomweather8887]

It's strange because I actually adore Herbert's writing style. It's what really got me hooked on Dune. . . . bodily integrity follows nerve-blood flow according to the deepest awareness of cell needs . . . all things/cells/beings are impermanent . . . strive for flow-permanence within . . . Over and over and over within Paul's floating awareness the lesson rolled.

[@dylanmiller9162]

Love Tolkien’s classiness with understanding the impact his comments even just of his personal opinion could have on a newer author in that space and so not saying anything

[@user-gb7ji6xy5d]

Since both are great authors, a clash of ideals is hardly unexpected.

[@Randsurfer]

I would have expected the exact opposite.

[@jamesmcv]

Excellent video. As an aspiring author, these two authors probably have the most influence in my thinking in terms of story telling and the contrasts between Tolkien and Herbert make this somewhat ironic to me. All of your points are good, but I feel the 3rd point is the most likely reason for Tolkien's dislike of Dune. Herbert's treatment of religion and faith must have been off putting for Tolkien, to put it mildly. I find myself writing and wanting to write stories that aren't deconstructions of the heroes journey, with clear moral themes. I love Dune, but I find it somewhat nihilistic as I've gotten older.

[@natzbarney4504]

Thanks for this video. For my part, as I love both sagas with intensity, I'm very curious about this question. Interresting speculation for sure.

[@stanleysmith278]

This appears to be a story of opposites. Both men were phenomenal storytellers, but they had completely different world views. Which is very fascinating because in context both men are foundational pillars in their respective genres.

[@sandygrungerson1177]

how are their views "opposite"?

[@jonharrison9222]

One was religious. And one wasn’t. Next.

[@NPC999]

​@sandygrungerson1177 traditionalism v modernism.

[@sandygrungerson1177]

@@NPC999 i would argue they refer to the same ideas, exc that tolkien used a rosicrucian framework and herbert a jesuit one

[@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts]

Fascinating video, though I will point out that while technically Paul does use nuclear weapons against his foes, he does not do so directly as might be implied by the video. The conclusion is still right though, despite him being trying to be personally morally virtuous, he does far more harm than most of his enemies would have.

[@genmaicha.lapsang]

I go a little further in that Paul is a power hungry villain in the first 2 books (especially in Messiah) and then finally a coward in Children of Dune. Which is a total rejection of the idea that we should look up to heroes. I love Dune for that.

[@CosmicFaust]

Fair point. Paul used atomic weapons to destroy part of the Shield Wall prior to the Battle of Arrakeen and this allowed his Fremen forces to gain victory against House Harkonnen and The Emperor's Sardaukar legions. Paul later threatened to use them again to destroy all spice production and this paved the way for the Ascension of House Atreides to the Imperial Throne. Even though Paul didn't in the end directly use the atomic weapons on his enemies, the fact that he still used them to gain military victory and even threatened to essentially destroy the Imperium and all human civilisation if he was not granted absolute power shows just how much darker he has become from the young teenage boy we saw at the start of the book.

[@driftlessskater5475]

@@genmaicha.lapsang I don’t think you’re wrong at all. I think one of the points of the original series and with using the Atreides lineage through the generations is to show that they are just as, if not more evil/corrupt than the Harkonnen lineage (or any other house, including the Fremen). Paul may be the most ruthless and possibly vile character in the end. It’s important to remember that one of the messages (at least that I pulled from the series) is the fallibility of man and how we all are capable of horrendous acts.

[@michaelguth4007]

Paul actually reflects that his actions made him the greatest murderer of all time, comparing himself with Dshingis Khan and Hitler in the second novel. Think he talked to Stilgar.

[@LuDux]

@@genmaicha.lapsang No more power hungry than Aragorn

[@Khanovy]

Clicked on the video to learn about Tolkiens opinion on Frank Herbert’s work, left the video with heavy Dune spoilers with no warning whatsoever. Thanks, great

[@tfsheahan2265]

What a breathtaking review of both author's universes. As different and contrasting as each series is, it's fascinating to think that Tolkien stopped his sequel series because it seemed to be leading into a dystopic future, not unlike what Herbert was conjecturing. Is it possible the two visions are two sides of the same underlying reality?

[@mohammedashian8094]

It’s possible I like to think that Tolkien and Herbert would’ve left it to the reader

[@squamish4244]

Tolkien's vision leads to a true apotheosis, a final end to evil, or as final as it can get. The Dagor Dagorath and the Second Music of the Ainur is definitely the final end to evil. Herbert has a cyclical vision. This is not to say the two authors' visions are not complimentary, because they very much are. They are both right about different things, and the same things, and are interested in different things. I'll just say that when I read LOTR at age 12, it had a stupendous impact on me, for the better. That's also the exact right age to read LOTR, which is another point. Both books work better for different ages. When I read Dune at 16, it also had a major impact, but not the same. Twelve is not only a more impressionable age for the kind of story LOTR is, but LOTR's big giant heart is something I found lacking in Dune. Dune impressed me more on the intellectual level, which isn't the same. It didn't make me into a better person. Others may feel differently, and that's fine. That's the whole point of stories anyway.

[@genmaicha.lapsang]

For me. I think Dune is more like if Frodo gave up, embraced the evil of the ring, took over as the Dark Lord AND Sam and the rest of the fellowship went along with it out of love for their friend.

[@TorianTammas]

Frodo is one-dimensional and had the destiny of the ring carrier and Aragon had to become king. They never had any agency as they were cardboard characters in Tolkien's try to write English mythology.

[@TwoForFlinchin1]

Frodo wasn't a monarch

[@TorianTammas]

@@TwoForFlinchin1 Frodo's job description was look pitiful and carry the ring. Aragon's job description was become king. They are one dimensional.

[@iapetusmccool]

@@TorianTammas that's Movie!Frodo. Book!Frodo had a lot more agency, and took a much more active role. In fact, there were a whole bunch of scenes in the book where other characters failed and Frodo sorted things out, which were rewritten in the movie to make Frodo fail and need rescuing.

[@rabokarabekian409]

My way oversimplified comparison: The LOTR series of books is mostly escapism. The DUNE series of books is mostly challenge.

[@Techfuse13]

I really enjoyed this video. I learned more about both authors than I previously knew. Cheers

[@damace3838]

John Wayne disliked Clint Eastwoods's movies (not the man himself) and refused to be in one. It had much to do with the hero vs anti-hero roles of the main character and how they were portrayed to the general public. Maybe it was a generational problem.

[@WhiteManOnCampus]

It could be generational, based on what each generation experienced. Wayne's movies focused on the nobility of the Wild West, how a land with essentially no government or real policing force could still be good and righteous and helpful. Eastwood's tended to be on the rugged freedom in all its beauty and ugliness. Both are entirely accurate of the Wild West. Narratively and morally, I prefer Wayne's movies and their hopefulness. But for something I'll actually watch, the pure aesthetics of Eastwood's flicks always gets me.

[@alyssinclair8598]

@@WhiteManOnCampus neither mention the ongoing genocide

[@folksurvival]

@@alyssinclair8598 Well modern movies and novels don't mention the current ongoing genocide of Europe either.

[@alyssinclair8598]

@@folksurvival Umm, I live in europe and I'm not aware of any deathcamps or mass graves

[@folksurvival]

@@alyssinclair8598 So?

[@darkranger116]

I think the biggest difference between the two can be seen within their works in contrast to one another. To put in a more detailed way, Tolkien specifically wrote about a political society, where they got lucky because their king to be, was actually a nice guy. Herbert on the other hand, wrote about a political system, where everyone is a dystopian neo-liberal exploiter, and the only "good people" either die, or turn themselves into emperor worms and forget what its like to be human. I can imagine Tolkien being depressed by Dune. Tolkien's work shows a force of human nature within hope. Herbert shows a force of human nature within negligent greed and xenophobia.

[@demonic_myst4503]

same reason tolken would of disliked game of thrones he disliked realistic depictiona of humanity he rather see a magic object cause hunabs to be rvil that to show humans are capable of evil inherently outside of small cases of just oh that guys evil he a one off ignore him

[@TorianTammas]

Aragon becomes ruler, because it is his destiny and his blood. He does not have a choice in that matter.

[@michaelterrell5061]

@@demonic_myst4503 If realistic depictions of humanity mean overly nihilistic depictions of what humanity is, then that says more about your world view than it does Tolkien's. Tolkien was aware that humans were capable of evil(he fought in one of the largest battles of world war one), he however knew that this good would triumph over that evil.

[@demonic_myst4503]

@@michaelterrell5061 i studied human hevaior humans are capable of good orevil but are neither one themselfs we self regulate by our enviroment take away society and humans are not good people

[@michaelterrell5061]

@@demonic_myst4503 Society was created by humans, humans can not exist without a society, in fact most animals can’t exist without a society. So taking away society is really quite impossible. So impossible that it would be impossible to know what humans would be if we didn’t have society.

[@rowantreahs2863]

Absolute bliss to listen to. Thank you for this. I'd heard about this and your commentaries have made it super clear. Thank you again, Sir.

[@pyerack]

Tolkien was an optimist Herbert was a realist Both had strenghts and weaknesses. It's like trying to compare two different genres, I don't see the point.

[@blackwoodbaritone]

As a traditional Catholic myself, I think you probably hit the nail on the head with Tolkien really finding issue with the Nietzchian, cynical philosophy presented in Dune. I read it before I was Catholic, and now, having converted and even read “Tolkien’s Philosophy” by Kreeft, I would find it hard to believed Tolkien would *not* have taken great issue with at least the philosophical and religious perspectives promoted in Dune.

[@ahmadfrhan5265]

Scott please cut it. Dune is based entirely on Islam and Arabs and Islamic prophcy. It has no link to Catholicism

[@TempleofSolomon]

@@ahmadfrhan5265well Herbert definitely threw some shade at a religions that are hierarchical which the Catholic Church is probably the most notable example

[@ahmadfrhan5265]

@@TempleofSolomon Islam is the most notable. what's Catholic about Arabic and quotes from the Quran? you want to undermine Islamic influence and will never admit it. how Catholicism is the most notable? go ahead teach us swine blood pale faced kafir

[@icipher6730]

@@ahmadfrhan5265 Catholicism is Christianity. Christianity is Abrahamic monotheism. Islam is Abrahamic monotheism. The rest is up to you. Dixi.

[@darkknightsds]

This is an incredibly misinformed comment. Christians typically don't have a problem with Nietzsche. Most of us view him as an intellectually honest atheist. Far worse are secular humanists, who want the ethics of Christianity but not the God. The problem is that Christian ethics don't work without the God. If there is no God, well, Nietzsche understood the implications of that. It means an utter repudiation of Christian morality and a reckoning with the chaos of the universe. Nietzsche is honest about his atheism and intelligent Christians do not have a problem with him. My guess is Tokien would have felt the same. As a Christian, your take is really bad.

[@apollyonkatastrefia1586]

Herbert's writing is incredibly deep. Like the baron says "plots within plots within plots." I can read one paragraph in dune and find so much meaning in it that I didn't catch in the first reading.

[@markusmaximus629]

"plots within plots within plots." is a copout for actually describing those plots. Hubert is a weak writer at best.

[@apollyonkatastrefia1586]

@@markusmaximus629 I think you're just jealous. How many people love your writing? How many movies have been adapted from what you've created?

[@markusmaximus629]

@@apollyonkatastrefia1586 Your comment has meanings within meanings... oohh... Another internet pundit potato strikes. And congratulations, you can now say, with your previous comment, that you are published in the comments section of KZbin. Pulitzer Prize? Perhaps!

[@vikasnishad7253]

​@@markusmaximus629-_-

[@markusmaximus629]

Did you read all the books? I did. And what did I get for it? "One laugh at "The Whores From Outer-space" whereupon I threw the last book out the toilet window.

[@yogsenforfoth5948]

Excellent video. This was one of the best comparison analyses I have ever seen.👍👍

[@p5ych0p4N]

Nice analysys Thx for your time.

[@neiliusflavius]

It's strange - I had never really thought of them existing in the same world - that Tolkein might have read, never mind having an opinion on Dune. The world is smaller and more intertwined than we imagine.

[@pjarmitage8003]

The professor died in 1973. That means he saw the moon landing! Crazy to think about.

[@babelKONI]

@@pjarmitage8003 Right, I used to have the impression that he existed in the 19th century or some forgotten age, but nope he was alive in living memory

[@folksurvival]

@@pjarmitage8003 Nobody has seen that.

[@pjarmitage8003]

@@folksurvival What do you mean?

[@folksurvival]

@@pjarmitage8003 I mean you're implying he witnessed an event that nobody witnessed.

[@dudermcdudeface3674]

Both pinnacle works of greatness, but fundamentally opposite visions. Tolkien's a work of devout faith and grace, Herbert's a work of fearless curiosity and boundless ambition.

[@Pradeep_889]

Dune reflects the realities of our world, showing the possible outcomes of blindly obeying leaders without examining their intentions, and the risks associated with unquestioningly holding onto beliefs.

[@strossarts]

Nice, work. I enjoyed this a lot. Thank you.

[@EuropaPhoenix]

I didn't know that Tolkien strongly disliked Dune. After hearing your arguments (quite convincing), it really makes sense. I'm glad I can enjoy these two antagonistic stories.

[@JP2GiannaT]

I'm wondering if it was the idea that all religions are basically saying the same thing (the OC Bible) and that the supernatural is ultimately just a tool to be used for power. There's no clear good and evil in the supernatural realm of Dune; there's only forces and power that people use or don't use. In LOTR, there's both good and evil supernatural powers, and they are very clearly distinct from one another. They can be misused or misunderstood, but their source is clearly good or evil.

[@michaeljay4816]

Well done Sir. This was insightful and demonstrates a good deal of study. Thank you.

[@wills.8662]

I also have read both works and enjoyed them both. Thanks for the insights in this video.

[@arongamman927]

Thanks for addressing the issue fairly and without click-bait. I think both authors hold a lot more in common in writing about myth, but in the ways you already clarified in the video. I think a potential shared interview might have been mind-blowing between the writers! Not sure how or where they might have ever encountered each other, though!

[@kmtrammel]

Thank you for this analysis, Ellis. I really enjoyed it and found it added to my appreciation of both works. Many points I hadn't fully considered and some wonderful new (new to me) information about Tolkien and Herbert. You've added dimensionality to both stories for me! Thank you.

[@drewdevlin9192]

Herbert asks us to wake up, Tolkien asks us to be brave

[@hamishmitchell884]

Love both works. Thanks for the video

[@MrChristophSteininge]

Thank you for this! The in depth analysis of both works is very good and much needed. Great work!

[@D0NTST4RT]

You really hit the nail on the head about their prose styles. I've listened to Lord of the Rings on audiobook at least 3 times and will continue to listen to it. I can barely sit through one listening to Dune. Tolkien, and a lot of older writers I've noticed, writes in a way that is meant to be read aloud. As someone who was clearly fixated on an aesthetic aspect of language as both written and spoken aloud, it makes sense that Tolkien's prose was deliberately meant to be more pleasant to listen to. I hear a lot of people speculate that Tolkien's thoughts on allegory/applicability is part of what he didn't like Dune. I don't get it. Herbert's fiction feels very much in Tolkien's spirit of avoiding one-to-one allegories.

[@popeagapitusi8]

i feel similiarly, i had trouble reading dune for the first time, i think due to the way herbert tries to integrate jargon for worldbuilding purposes without explaining them directly. to me this shrouded the story in a sense of mysticism but made significant plot points quite hard to follow. as for the allegories, i think its important to acknowledge that while tolkein himself disavowed allegories, they can be, and in the case of dune iw ould say they are, very powerful tools in a storyteller's toolkit. for me, both stories and authors are fascinating, both established many of the tropes of their respective genres, but went about doing it in very different ways.

[@Randsurfer]

1. "Tolkien writes in a way that is meant to be read aloud". I find it hard to believe Tolkien expected even 1% of his audience to experience the gargantuan Lord of The Rings in audible form. 2. Avoiding allegories? Both Dune and LOTR are dripping in allegory and analogy.

[@richvandervecken3954]

My perspective is that the "Lord of the Rings" was a tail of the triumph of good over evil, of the weak over the powerful, the bond of friendship overcoming authoritarian dictatorship. Dune is the tail of a boy with a good heart turning into a demigod that no one can defeat and how this power changes him.

[@tombuilder1475]

well done being fan and reader of both authors!

[@PeloquinDavid]

A good overview and some quite plausible speculation... I suspect Tolkien generally didn't care for "Big Idea" sci-fi (though he might have been happier with the more black-vs-white world of Star Wars - which is more fantasy than sci-fi in any event). Moreover, what he decries as "allegory" is virtually inevitable in sci-fi, I suspect. Another possible reason for his dislike of Dune is that his own traditionalist personality seemed to feature (and imbue his writings with) a wistful longing for a past Golden Age. The idea that the "Good Old Days" were better and that today's world is going to hell in a hand basket isn't of course limited to Tolkien (or to "young fogueys" either) but it's quite alien to a lot of sci-fi (which can go to the opposite extreme to depict a future that's often much rosier than the past - think Star Trek - or at least one that is just as dominated by simplistic tales of good-vs-evil as LOTR, e.g. Star Wars). Dune is a much more morally ambiguous universe than any of these properties, of course, and I think your speculation as to why Tolkien would have hated that aspect of it is bang on...

[@arvid1190]

I don't think it's fair to characterize Tolkien's writing as simplistic. This critisism of Tolkien seems to come from the fact that we are at a point in culture where modernism is scoffed at merely for the notion that there is some universal nature to morality in these stories. The characters in Tolkien's legendarium aren't more one-dimensional or unrealistic just because contemporary media is obsessed with a nihilistic soap-opera version of humanity where everyone is morally decrepit, like in game of thrones for instance. Tolkien's works have people with real internal moral conflict - it just manifests in different ways than in more modern fiction.

[@PeloquinDavid]

@@arvid1190 Fair comment: I should correct myself. I certainly shouldn’t have described Tolkien's writing or themes as "simplistic": he tells powerful, complex stories with a clearly epic and mythic quality to them. But I don't think there's any doubt they ARE imbued with a wistfulness and longing for a past Golden Age. But it would be wrong to assume that moral ambiguity is just a modern invention or that the founding myths and great epics of various human societies were all in the same mould as Tolkien: whether we're talking about the myths and epics of ancient Sumeria, India or Greece (or even those preserved in the Hebrew bible) - and, I presume, of Norse or many other mythical traditions I know even less about - there are a lot of thought-provoking moral dilemmas and deeply flawed heroes (and gods) lurking around in those tales. SOME of those tales were of "good guys vs bad guys" or "struggles against the forces of pure evil" for sure, but it's not necessarily those that have held the most fascination for people down the ages.

[@arvid1190]

@@PeloquinDavid I agree with the second part of your statement. I think he's mostly interested in this sort of escapism that you describe as wistfulness. I think that sounds about right. I attribute moral ambiguity a lot with morality with its root within the individual - which seems to be a largely post-modern notion. Previously, we haven't thought of morality in this way. I agree that moral ambiguity is something that's used in literature and other creative works not just in contemporary art, but we used to see a lot more of morality being measured by an external standard rather than an internal one, if that makes sense. Tolkien has lots of morally ambigious characters - the difference being that the narrative tells us whether their actions are good or not. In post-modern works this determination is more left up to the reader. Sam and Gollum are two morally ambigious characters for instance. Less famous, but arguably equally important examples are the valar themselves, turgon, maedhros, maglor and turin. Those are just off the top of my head. I agree with you about the moral ambigiouty of heroic figures in mythology - and I think Tolkien does a lot of that too - even though people tend to downplay that aspect of his writing.

[@mistersharpe4375]

​@@balloonfiesta15 I appreciate you sharing your opinion. I've recently returned to the all the Lucas Star Wars films, and have fallen in love with them all over again. But man... I just can't relate to the idea that the sequel trilogy are the best Star Wars has ever been. I just think they are terrible films, even if I try to forget the rest of the franchise. I disagree that imagination is really what Star Wars is all about, at least not on a deeper level. The Lucas Star Wars films do have certain themes which give them their own unique identity and overall narrative, rather than being an open-ended playground of ideas. (The youtube channel So Uncivilised goes over this better than a youtube comment could). You can tell that JarJar Abrams, when given the chance to direct Force Awakens, deeply misunderstood the appeal of the Original films and didn't understand what Lucas was trying to do with the Prequels. Which resulted in Abram's directing what he felt was a Star Wars movie "as it should be". And while he clearly tried to recapture some of the magic of New Hope, I think he failed miserably. That's not to say that Lucas' films are technical masterpieces. Attack of the Clones is, as a standalone film, rather unsatisfying. But the earnestness, thematic mirroring, and broader themes that make them compelling as a complete a rich and complete mythic cycle, at least in my eyes.

[@blackbeard1988]

Seeing the horrors of WW1 due to technological advances would make any one wish for "golden days."

[@jony4real]

5:48 "who had learned multiple languages such as English, Middle English, Latin, Greek, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Welsh, Finnish..." I really like how this sentence makes it seem like J. R. R. Tolkien learned English. He did, of course, but as a 5-year-old, like most people in England :-)

[@marykateharmon]

He was born and raised first in South Africa. You have a point (though of course, he then also became a philogist and really learned English down to the very roots, so there's that), but it's not like he couldn't have had to take some time actually learning English. I've personally always kinda wondered if he heard any African languages as a kid, maybe even studied some of them later in life even if he never focused on them like he did the Nordic/European languages.

[@RubelliteFae]

That's really interesting. I personally like both stories even though I don't enjoy either author's writing style. I also don't share either author's views and wouldn't have thought of this as a prerequisite for enjoying a story. But clearly some people could do, which is fascinating to me. Also, props to you for proper attribution. It's something I thought was disappearing from the world.

[@sonpacho]

If this was today, the conversation between Tolkien/Lanier would've happened on Twitter/X/etc and everyone would've seen it. You'd have, 'Shots Fired: Tolkien HATES Frank Herbert' click bait titles all over the internet...any semblance of a nuanced conversation would've been dead on arrival.

[@richardparsons]

Spoiler alert: There are still classy people in the world that don’t feel the need to air their grievances on public display. There are absolutely no circumstances that would lead to Tolkien being on Twitter, ever😂

[@erikred8217]

Tolkien was such a self aware class act . I bet he and frank could have had some good letters back and forth about how dark the sequel to LOR tried to 'be'. The way he describes his base interests and their reasons without touching Dune it's self is almost invisibly profound. What a guy. What an Artists Scholar. Frank too mind you. Apples and oranges.

[@rabokarabekian409]

Self aware? He denied his clear racism.