Dune by Herbert

I read this book before, maybe ten years ago, and have counted it among my favorites ever since.  Reading through a second time, I realized how many things I missed in my first reading and that this book is a lot more interesting than I thought.  In my younger years, my skills as a reader and a thinker were not as good, and rereading Dune reminds me of my desire to reread many of the books I read in my teen years.  Also, it supports my belief that young people shouldn't be urged to ingest literature before they are capable of getting something out of it. (Even better example: The Scarlet Letter.)

One thing that is done very well in this book is the balance between plot and description.  This is one of my personal pet peeves about so many writers, that they provide so many details to set a scene or establish a mood but I as a reader don't feel convinced that they are worth my time and energy to take in.  Also I feel that the reader should be given the freedom of a little wiggle room for the imagination; if the details are not relevant, then the author does the reader a disservice by fixing them.  In many books I skip/skim a paragraph if I realize that it's describing a character looking at a fence, or describing the room in which a meeting takes place, or some other stupid little thing.  In Dune, I really felt like I received a rich setting, and I could easily imagine in my mind the places and people in the novel, but I wasn't bogged down.  Somehow the writer earned my trust that each paragraph was worth reading, and I did very little skimming.

I also enjoyed the subtle politics and relationships that are a central part of this book.  What does it take to deceive someone?  What does it take to inspire perfect loyalty? When does logical reaction to the odds turn into treachery? When does a man stop being a son, lover, warrior and start being his own legend?

A couple negative things: the book is very heavy on its internal system of religion, legend, and prophecy, which can be a bit tedious at times.  The end was not satisfying, it seems clear that Herbert had the sequels in mind when he finished this book.  I haven't read the sequels before, but I will, even though I'm always a little afraid of reading sequels.  If I like the first book enough to want to read the second, I don't want to have my experience of it ruined by a crappy follow-up.

A small note: I noticed he took some things from real existing religions of course, but I wonder how my reaction to his using the word jihad for something in the book is different from the reaction he intended back in the 60s?