In Defense of Paul Atreides: A Short Essay
He isn't perfect, but he's the best there is.
[WARNING: Spoilers for the new Dune movie ahead. Advance at your own peril.]
With the recent release of Dune Part II, the discussion about the true nature of Paul Atreides’ character has returned. News outlets have lined up to condemn Paul as an anti-hero or outright villain. The chief complaints seem to be that Paul plays into his messianic role, that he lets power go to his head, and that he ends up taking actions which lead to a bloody holy war.
I aim to contend that this is all confused, and I will very briefly lay out reasons why. I am doing this mostly because I enjoy the Dune universe and because I find this to be a fun thing to write about.
To start, we are told that the role of the Mahdi and the Lisan al-Gaib are completely fabricated, and that the Fremen are deluded by Bene Gesserit programming. This is true, but only in part. When we examine things closer, we realize that while it may have originally been intended as a controlling mechanism, it is now the source of the Fremen’s liberation and rise to power, as well as the weakening of the Bene Gesserit order. Furthermore, Paul objectively meets every criteria of the Mahdi. Whether he is doing this intentionally or not does not matter. It is only the difference between a messianic figure who is a messiah unwittingly and one who knows they are the messiah and embraces it. The irony of the story is that though the Fremen religion begins as an artifical Bene Gesserit psyop, it ends up becoming the dominant religion of the universe and the cause of the Bene Gesserit’s plans to fail. Paul really becomes their messiah and the culmination of all their hopes.
Again, we are told that Paul is merely the product of Bene Gesserit breeding and that all of this was according to their plan. This couldn’t be further from the truth! Paul’s birth was in defiance of the Bene Gesserit, as Lady Jessica was meant to birth a daughter who would be given over to Feyd-Rautha to produce the Kwisatz Haderach (a sort of all-powerful, all-knowing figure). Paul, born out of authentic love between Lady Jessica and Duke Leto I, represents a repudiation of the Bene Gesserit programme. His coming to power amongst the Fremen, his drinking of the Water of Life, and his eventual overthrow of the Emperor are all in defiance of the Bene Gesserit plans. Lady Jessica, though a Bene Gesserit, actually sides fully with her son and advances his interests against the Bene Gesserit order (hence why in the movie she tells the Reverend Mother that she picked the wrong side. The movie tries to say there are no sides but this plainly isn’t true).
Now, it is said that Paul did not have to embrace his role and that he could have given up the power open to him. One journalist even suggested he should have just become a peaceful planetary leader of Arrakis, asking: “When they board the Imperial ships to wage jihad—er, “holy war”—on the Great Houses, it seems a little strange—like why not just control the spice and work on remaking your planet into a paradise?”
Well, for one, Arrakis is the actual center of the universe due to its spice melange which is what allows space travel in the Dune universe, and it is subject to the most intense power politics of all, which we see play out in the books and films. When we watch the film and read the book, however, we see that Paul, thanks to his prophetic vision and ability to discern the future, has come to the conclusion that the viable paths for peace and order in the galaxy are extremely slim, in fact, perhaps only singular, and that he is following the narrow but optimal path for all of humanity, known as the Golden Path (I recommend reading about it). Now, I will grant that this path isn’t just peace and love on the planet Arrakis, but we must remember how it compares to the other paths that we see available in the film (and in the Dune saga). To simplify this argument, let me break it down in a simple multiple choice format:
Choose one (1):
The rule of Baron Harkonnen and then eventually Feyd-Rautha over the known universe and the continued dominance of the corrupt, conniving Bene Gesserit in all affairs from the shadows. Also maybe the coming of the Kwisatz Haderach, who would ideally be fully controlled by the Bene Gesserit (this choice entails extreme levels of violence, depravity, tyranny, and the potential destruction of the whole human race).
The rule of Paul Atreides as Emperor, the coming-to-power of the Fremen, a holy war against the geriatric empire and other houses which turned a blind eye to the murder of Duke Leto I and the destruction of the House of Atreides, and the finding-out of the Golden Path which ensures the survival of mankind in the end, and even its flourishing.
Neither choice is “clean.” They both involve war, it is true. But are we just going to pretend that the Harkonnens didn’t just attempt and nearly succeed in the genocide of an entire House? And I am supposed to believe that Paul should have just sort of…let this happen? Or that he was wrong to pursue so-called “revenge” (which, by the way, exacting justice against an evil person who did evil to you and others around you is not “revenge”).
There seems to be a bizarre inability to understand this in the aftermath of the film. Read what this journalist had to say, for instance: “Some viewers of Dune: Part Two also felt that Paul was the hero of the story, despite the end of the film framing his victory as a terrifying escalation into violence.”
Another journalist says this: “In some ways, it may be true: to stop the Harkonnens, Paul's alliance with the Fremen is a powerful tool. Still, being in control of so many people goes to Paul's head. When the other great houses refuse to recognize Paul as Emperor, the Kwisatz Haderach orders his Fremen to attack the orbiting fleets, thus launching his foretold holy war.”
Neither of these criticisms of Paul make any sense. Apparently the Harkonnen genocide of the House of Atreides, their plans to usurp the Emperor, and their overall brutality don’t exist, or at least, aren’t enough to be called an “escalation into violence” which is the catalyst of the events of the series.
Similarly, to the second criticism, am I supposed to believe that Paul’s attack of the other Houses is somehow an abuse of power? Does the author understand that the spice melange of the planet Arrakis is, as I said before, truly the most powerful substance in the whole universe and that the Houses—let alone the Bene Gesserit— will, under no circumstances, allow the rogue Paul Atreides have a monopoly on it? Paul offered the houses peace if they would accept him as Emperor, and they declined. But according to the movie itself and the book, the Emperor was always going to be usurped; it was just that the Harkonnens were supposed to take power, not the Atreides. And, speaking of the geriatric Emperor who ordered the Harkonnens to kill Duke Leto I, I can’t say I feel bad for him getting usurped by Paul.
It’s being said that the book is a warning against the danger of a demogogue or something like that, or a subversion of the white-savior trope, but frankly this just isn’t the case. While Herbert may have wanted that to be the case, he failed. An honest reading of the book—and knowledge of later events like the God-Emperor Leto II and his fulfillment of the Golden Path—make it clear that Paul Atreides worked with the limited options presented to him and that while all the options involved violence of some kind, he chose the path where the violence led to some greater good, even if it took a very long time for that good to be fully realized.
A final point I wish to address is that of Chani. The movie presents Chani as being a rebellious character who opposes Paul and eventually leaves him. First of all, this is a complete change from the book, wherein Chani remains extremely loyal to Paul even when he intends to marry Irulan. This is because she knows that Paul is just playing politics with Irulan and that his true devotion is to her. Indeed, she essentially tells us in the book that Irulan will become a lonely nobody and that she, Chani, will be the one with power and influence. Instead, Denis throws this away and makes her into the supposed voice of reason. But I am curious about what exactly movie Chani would have Paul do. Is he supposed to just perpetuate a forever-war against the Harkonnen as a freedom fighter? Are we expected to believe that if the Fremen were successful they would not be put down by the Empire or reduced again to the status of an annoying but manageable group? I suppose Paul could deny his role as the Lisan al-Gaib, but the questioning continues there too: why, and to what end? As I’ve pointed out already, the other outcomes seem far more ghastly.
The Dune universe is a complicated and often bizarre place. To call Paul Atreides a perfect man or a true hero would not be right. He is no Aragorn, but he is about the only decent option available presented to us in the series. I think we should appreciate that.
I think of how watered-down Napoleon was in the recent film about him, and how this stems from Hollywood’s unwillingness/inability/fear of depicting something akin to Carlyle’s man of destiny. Showing leadership or power, a man of action in a true sense, is hazardous because it could seep into the popular consciousness and create conditions for some kind of strongman to arise. I guess they didn’t see this risk in Dune because it’s just fiction and fun sci fi, nobody would take fiction seriously! But Dune II depicts the dark appeal of a man of destiny taking the reins of history and exerting his will. This is terrifying for the journos because the regime they rely on is so dependent on keeping down any exertion of will to power in culture or politics, so the crying against Dune that “akshually, Paul Atreides is the bad guy” is the regime’s immune response to this dangerous depiction.
Denis V’s attempt to make the film more “self aware” in terms of the shallow “white savior” interpretation the media literate crowd like to reiterate, produces something that is confused about what it is supposed to say. Chani wants the fremen to be led by one of their own (yet none of them rise even close to rival Paul’s influence). She represents a sort of nativist (and weirdly athiestic) element that I can only understand as liberal sensibilities imposing themselves despite Paul’s own admission that he sees only one way for a fremen victory. The confused messaging is interesting in light of Gaza and the support of Hamas by many westerners. Language about “fundamentalists” like from the Iranian revolution (another conflicted stirred by western liberals/intellectuals) point blame towards organized religion. But the fremen are also rewritten to be egalitarian, and Jamis’ wife and kids (who in the book become Paul’s property after killing Jamie) are completely left out. The contradictory messaging shows really a naive and facile outlook that “media literate” midwits hold to be deep and profound.