Opening my "Dune: Part Two" research folder

Everyone agrees that it looks fantastic and has something to do with dangerous religious believers, maybe

First, a confession. I have not seen “Dune: Part Two,” since I am not the die-hard science fiction reader in our family. I didn’t see “Dune,” either — including the old David Lynch version with a very young Sting.

It’s not the whole desert thing. I love the stunning restored version of “Lawrence of Arabia,” which has a messianic thing going on, as well. Every time someone tries to explain the “Dune” saga to me, it sounds like “Game of Thrones” with dragons under the sand and lots of supernatural elements (with a vague God, maybe).

I do understand that we are talking about a visual masterpiece (and my iPod is packed with Hans Zimmer soundtracks). “Dune: Part Two” also appears to be a cultural Rorschach Test, with cultural conservatives seeing an anti-woke manifesto and progressives seeing a searing sermon against religious fundamentalism (maybe the Latin Mass world is in there somewhere).

Thus, I have opened a research folder on “Dune: Part Two” and I would welcome comments-section suggestions about key articles that I have missed.

However, I will start with an authoritative voice who, obviously, knew more about fantasy literature than I do — J.R.R. Tolkien. Let’s look at a few ideas from the essay “Why Tolkien Hated Dune,” by Scott Mauldin at the Whither the West website. The overture:

J.R.R. Tolkien maintained a very private, but very negative opinion of Frank Herbert’s Dune. In Tolkien’s Library, entry 964, Tolkien is quoted as having written in an unpublished letter to John Bush, on March 12 1966, “It is impossible for an author still writing to be fair to another author working along the same lines. At least I find it so. In fact I dislike Dune with some intensity, and in that unfortunate case it is much the best and fairest to another author to keep silent and refuse to comment”.

The key is a matter of philosophy, according to Mauldin: “Herbert and Tolkien are exact moral opposites.” The two key terms are “Deontologist” and “Consequentialism.”

Back to Tolkien and Herbert:

Deontology (from Greek: δέον, ‘obligation, duty’ + λόγος, ‘study’) says “acts are in themselves either good or bad”, whereas Consequentialism says “whether an act is good or bad depends on the consequences”. The central message of Tolkien’s work, hammered again and again and again, is that you should be a deontologist, just be a simple, good person who does charitable and good things, and that evil isn’t the result of being “bad” but rather of being convinced that one can commit small acts of evil that nonetheless work toward a greater good. As Gandalf, speaking with the author’s voice, no doubt, says, “Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

Dune is much the opposite. The Dune saga focuses on the morality of consequence, with the tradeoffs of rule, with the interactions of large and often amoral systems, how a man wields these powers to achieve his goals and how the long-term consequences of his actions determine his ultimate moral worth. “Greatness is a transitory experience. It is never consistent. It depends in part upon the myth-making imagination of humankind.” That is to say, greatness depends on human perspectives; if people perceive something as great, it is great, and that opinion can change over time as morality evolves.

That’s just the start of the essay, but that’s a strong place to start. In a way, this argument is similar to those who see “Game of Thrones” as, on multiple levels, an anti-"Lord of the Rings" manifesto.

But, let me say, “Read. It. All.”

When starting a “Dune: Part Two” research folder, it is also interesting to look at these two Google searches. The first (click here) seeks for the writings of those who see Christian themes in the movie and the second (click here) those who see links to Islam.

For pastors, parents and teachers, here are a few interesting links:

* The Gospel Coalition: “Dune: Part Two’: Cinematic Spectacle, Faith Skeptical.”

* Religion News Service: “UFOs and science fiction in Muslim culture goes well beyond ‘Dune’.”

* Law and Liberty (Titus Techera): “Dune's Moral Unseriousness.”

* National Catholic Reporter: “‘Dune: Part Two’ confronts religious fundamentalism.”

* The Wardrobe Door: “Faith Without Love Is Dangerous in “Dune: Part Two.”

* U.S. Catholic: “‘Dune: Part Two’ invites critique of our religious mythologies.”

* A Rod Dreher discussion of “Dune: Part Two” in his Substack diary.

Since so many Rational Sheep readers also read Dreher (my friend for 25 years or so), here is a chunk of his commentary. It helps to remember that he was once a professional film critic in the mainstream press:

About religion: I won’t get into the details of religion in Dune, because it’s pretty complex, but this is the aspect of the plot that I find most interesting. It’s enough to know that in this world, there is a powerful matriarchal cult called the Bene Gesserit, composed of female sorcerers who guide society through power intrigues. Their ultimate goal is to produce a messianic super-being, which they believe Paul Atreides to be (Paul’s mother, Lady Jessica, is a Bene Gesserit). Their powers are real, but the religion itself is a fraud scheme designed to trick the masses into doing the bidding of the Reverend Mothers, as the sorceresses are called.

What I find interesting about all this — and I haven’t read the Dune novels, nor do I intend to — is the way it presents the Bene Gesserit religion as more or less a sham, but also tapped in to real sources of paranormal power, including the power to see the future. The “fundamentalist” Fremen masses of the southern hemisphere of the desert planet Arrakis really do believe in the messiah prophesied by Bene Gesserit religion; a significant number of the Fremen of the north, where Paul is, believe that the BG faith is nothing more than a lie manipulated by the religious hierarchy and its allies to establish and maintain political control.

The story of Paul Atreides is about what happens when both things are true.

Readers may also want to dig into a Religion Unplugged piece by Joseph Holmes, a culture critic based in New York City who co-hosts a podcast called “The Overthinkers.” The headline: “What The ‘Dune’ Sequel Doesn’t Understand About Religious People.”

Here is a chunk of that essay that pretty much stands on its own. Folks, “Dune” is its own world and it’s hard to write about it without veering into the book’s own dictionary. I have edited out a few sentences linked to specific characters:

Religions with prophecies about a coming Messiah — such as Judaism and Christianity — typically have signs to look for that help adherents try to discern who is the true Messiah and who is a false prophet, leading to much debate. The Gospels, for example, spend a lot of time trying to make the case that Jesus fulfills all of those prophecies about the Messiah. Likewise, the science around bias shows that despite our best efforts, when we want to believe something (such as a Messianic prophecy), we are more likely to distort evidence to reinforce it.

Where “Dune: Part Two” goes wrong is where it reinforcing the stereotype that secular freethinkers and their common culture are less likely to get swept up in fanaticism that leads to tyranny than their religious counterparts and their common culture. …

The movie even draws a hard-line regional distinction between those who believe and those who don’t, with the religious fanatics all living in the south and the wise skeptics living up north, repeatedly calling out “The Fundamentalists” who live “Down South” as the people to fear also reinforces that “us vs them” “blue state vs red state” parallel. …

Likewise, the movie reinforces the conspiracy model to explain to religious fundamentalists that the source of their beliefs comes from cynical manipulators who prey on their fear, rather than sincere religious conviction. The prophecy of “Dune II” is one planted by the Benne Geseret to manipulate the people of Arrakis and the rest of the galaxy so they can control them.

Once upon a time, hit movies of this kind served as what I called — in my Denver Seminary days — full-spectrum signals aimed at the whole culture. Think “Star Wars,” “Star Trek” or, to a lesser degree, the Marvel universe. Church leaders interested in talking about faith, family and mass culture — in classes, retreats or even specific illustrations in a sermon — could assume that large numbers of people in their flocks would be familiar with the langue, plots and worldviews of these movies and television shows.

But is that true with “Dune”? Are we now in a world in which popular culture has become a “niche” phenomenon — PERIOD. This has obvious implications for the Rational Sheep project, doesn’t it?

Please let me know what you think by leaving comments. Oh, and the Mattingly household is discussing the need to organize a church expedition to see “Dune: Part Two” on a large screen.