Dune: use of conflict

Brian G Turner

Fantasist & Futurist
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
26,711
Location
UK
Reading Dune again this year it's remarkable how much of the extra detail really stands out.

The first time I read it was in my teens, the second time was last year, when looking for a commercial model to emulate for my own writing, so it was as much research of the style: use of Point of View (POV), etc.

This time I've really appreciated all the extra cues and the depth of the story being built up.

However, one of the best aspects of Dune, IMO, is the use of conflict.

The first few chapters - up to the actual capture of Duke Leto - are a superb use of conflict. Often a story will open with a "first cause" statement to establish the conflict - a killing to be revenged, for example, and so on, and usually quite short and introductory. With Dune everything is so much more focussed yet also sustained. The fact that, from the beginning, the main characters know that they are walking into a trap is a superb way to build up the conflict, and this is played upon by the suspicions of Thufir that Lady Jessica is in fact a traitor.

However, looking more deeply at it all - use of conflict is one of the ways that you can make or break a book. A book requires conflict of some kind to drive the characters and the story with them. With Dune Frank Herbert achieves that quite masterfully by ensuring that so much of the actual conflict is internal, rather than external.

A lot of writers make the mistake of externalising conflict - I would say that, as a sweeping generalisation, a lot of fantasy can falls under this by implying a statement of kind that anyone who fights the "externalised evil" must therefore be "good". Dragonlance bucked the seeming trend nicely by their use of Raistlin, but overall conflict within fantasy is overwhelmingly externalised in the form of a "rising evil" - Tolkien, Feist, Eddings, and for the most part Dragonlance, too. And, of course, many others. Sometimes these writers can involve internal character conflict in a very accomplished manner, but too often there is the danger that young fantasy writers fail to realise that the story is never about the external detail, but the internal character-driven conflict.

The use of internal conflict in Dune is the real prize engine of that novel. This is characterised brilliantly by the use of what can otherwise be a tired old cliche of a plot device - the Messianic figure. All too often this construct can lack dimension and originality, and even the opening chapter of Dune skirts close around this flaw with the Gom Jabber test.

However, it's how we see the conflict unfurl in the prescient experiences of Paul Maud'dab that really open the tension - the constant struggle he has against a genocidal future that he foresees and is desperate to prevent.

The use of conflict here in itself is very well used, but what I find sublime is how he develops this conflict further by pitting the clear designs of his mother against Paul's developing vision, and brings them firmly into a tense and uncomfortable alignment.

Dune is a novel that pushes with a pace that not many novels can match, and although they are not always the best developed characters, Frank Herbert always makes sure that, for the most part, there is still some good painting of them to communicate something of a eral personality to the reader.

But overall it's the use of tension that frames the story - tightly, and with purpose. IMO that is what really makes and drives the entire Dune engine: without it Dune would be just another uprising. Instead, the significance of the conflict Paul struggles through without the book defines an unwritten future for the novel that the reader is left to savour for themselves.

I don't like uncertain endings, but Dune has none of that. There is future, there is uncertainly, and there is a remaining tension. But, perhaps, that is where it should have ended.

I have tried reading something of the sequels, but IMO Dune Messiah failed to continue any of the original tension. Thus the sequels and prequels are nothing more than garrulous appendixes, and unnecessary at that. After all, all they can do is fill in the details of a story. But never can they replace the epic of the original.

2c.
 
Very interesting, Brian. I hadn't really though of it that way, but now that you mention it, that sense of internal drive is really what set the book apart. Oddly, you've reminded my why I thought this was a classic in the first place, only I hadn't quite seen the reason in that light. It's that very vivid sense of being in the mind of the characters, particularly Paul, but to an extent the others also - simply because of the insight into their own struggles within, if I'm understanding that aspect of it right?
 
While I disagree with your generalization of fantasy characters being simply 'good' without internal struggle, there are quite a few but I would say that more often than not, the main character is going through some sort of mind game where he/she must understand their place in society and the effect they have on their immediate and not so immediate environments - otherwise the characters would end up as paper figures moved around a map; dull and lifeless. I do agree that Herbert did a fine job of examining the mind-set of all the major characters so that the reader was given a wonderful view of the coming struggles both internally and externally. For example, you could tell immediately through the thoughts of Jessica and Paul that they were going to have to come to grips with their opposing roles in the future.
 
dwndrgn said:
While I disagree with your generalization of fantasy characters being simply 'good' without internal struggle, there are quite a few but I would say that more often than not, the main character is going through some sort of mind game where he/she must understand their place in society and the effect they have on their immediate and not so immediate environments - otherwise the characters would end up as paper figures moved around a map; dull and lifeless. I do agree that Herbert did a fine job of examining the mind-set of all the major characters so that the reader was given a wonderful view of the coming struggles both internally and externally. For example, you could tell immediately through the thoughts of Jessica and Paul that they were going to have to come to grips with their opposing roles in the future.
Yes, I knew the generalisation of fantasy would be contentious - and may not even hold true to a nearer candle. :)

However, what fantasy genre seems to be very famous for is the epic externalisation of conflict, especially via mass conflict. With Dune, the sense of conflict is almost entirely communicated through the feelings of the characters, rather than any external view of the conflict itself. The conflict remains internalised. That's the point I'm trying to drive at (moral conflicts is a distraction I tried to keep from, and probably erroneous to include: moral issues can serve as a source of conflict, but in Dune it's not an issue of moral issues as much as mere survival).

For example, even when the Atreides on Arrakis are overwhelmed by the Sardauker-Harkonnen force, you never actually witness the invasion, or see any aspect of the actual attack. In fantasy - and sub-genres of sci-fi, such as space-opera - it would be expected reading to see extensive mass battles, fighting, and loss of life. That is very much my point about the issue of internalising/externalising conflict. :)

Frank Herbert portrays the entire invasion through the death of Shadout Mapes and the drugged Atreides. He shows no actual violence, yet communicates teh tension and conflict entirely through the character perceptions. That gives the reader no opportunity to dissociate from events, and keeps them in an emotional tension along with Paul and Jessica.

Knivesout - yes, I remember reading books on writing, by Orson Scott Card and Sol Stein, etc. Something that was mentioned repeatedly across was the need for conflict in a story, and how this can be externalised and internalised. Dune is a particularly good example of how you can push conflict through internal processes. :)
 
I said:
However, what fantasy genre seems to be very famous for is the epic externalisation of conflict, especially via mass conflict.
Everyone knows I am a fully paid-up SF hardliner, so I'll jump right in and say that this same generalisation can be made to apply to SF just as much as fantasy - as you yourself refer to when you mention genres like space opera soon after.

Still, SF stories, beyond the VERY early pulp days (pre-Campbell) have usually hinged on concepts rather than action, so it might seem as if fantasy is a more 'outward', battle oriented genre. I am not really certain if this is fair...showing a techie figuring out a new way to handle some deep-space conundrum is not quite the same as illuminating his internal processes in any real way I should think?

Even though the actual insight may be mental, SF has largely concentrated on the cerebral aspects rather than the more well-rounded mental immersion we see in Dune.

Although I would argue that the 60s and 70s in particualr did see an amazing number of works in the sf field that turned more inward in their storytelling (Dying Inside, Flowers for Algernon, Venus Plus X, most of Phlip K Dick's work and so on) , in this case I don't know if fantasy does or doesnt have an equivalent?
 
I said:
Yes, I knew the generalisation of fantasy would be contentious - and may not even hold true to a nearer candle. :)

However, what fantasy genre seems to be very famous for is the epic externalisation of conflict, especially via mass conflict. With Dune, the sense of conflict is almost entirely communicated through the feelings of the characters, rather than any external view of the conflict itself. The conflict remains internalised. That's the point I'm trying to drive at (moral conflicts is a distraction I tried to keep from, and probably erroneous to include: moral issues can serve as a source of conflict, but in Dune it's not an issue of moral issues as much as mere survival).
When you say 'the conflict remains internalised' I get the meaning that the actual conflict happens solely in their minds. But what I gather from the rest of your post is that your use of 'internalised' means more an insular thing - we aren't seeing things firsthand but still get the experience through the characters' thoughts and feelings. Thus the characters are effected by the physical conflict but aren't physically a part of it. If that is what you are saying, I see your point. As a reader we don't witness any real physical fighting but we get the sense that outside of the core group of characters, there are physical conflicts taking place.

I actually find this to be a fault with Dune. Not to say that I particularly enjoy reading about battles and whatnot, but you don't get a real sense of what is going on. While reading Dune, I felt detached from it - it doesn't feel as real. Of course, that is the view of a hardcore fantasy fan so I might be a little biased :D.
 
Heh, when I made the point about fantasy in the original post I knew it was risky. :D

The point though is of the internal conflict versus the internal, and how Dune does so well with it through the former,

After all, there is so much violence implied in Dune, but remarbly little is ever shown when you actually read it closely.

It has made myself even more mindful with my own writing - I have some externalisation that I really should internalise. Dune really demonstrates why dealing with conflict through internal processes can hold so much power for a reader than simply describing "pretty" or "dramatic" external processes.

That's something that I never understood when I first started writing, many years ago. It took other people to push that point across.
 
dwndrgn said:
But what I gather from the rest of your post is that your use of 'internalised' means more an insular thing - we aren't seeing things firsthand but still get the experience through the characters' thoughts and feelings. Thus the characters are effected by the physical conflict but aren't physically a part of it. If that is what you are saying, I see your point. As a reader we don't witness any real physical fighting but we get the sense that outside of the core group of characters, there are physical conflicts taking place.
Yes - am I having one of those "difficult explaining myself" days again? :)

dwndrgn said:
I actually find this to be a fault with Dune. Not to say that I particularly enjoy reading about battles and whatnot, but you don't get a real sense of what is going on. While reading Dune, I felt detached from it - it doesn't feel as real. Of course, that is the view of a hardcore fantasy fan so I might be a little biased :D.
Okay, there's a spanner for me to bear in mind. :D
 
I said:
Yes - am I having one of those "difficult explaining myself" days again? :)
More likely is I am having one of those difficult understanding things days!


I said:
Okay, there's a spanner for me to bear in mind. :D
I'm an odd duck so I wouldn't consider my opinion to be that of any sort of majority, even for hardcore fantasy fans. For example, my 'geek quotient' was higher than anyone elses who took that little quiz on this site but I read only select sci fi books. Go figure. Of course I do know all the words to every Devo song...:p
 
Oh yea, and with the scores of SF books I keep consuming I still got the lowest score on that one - 'poser' it seems!:eek:


Regarding dwndrgn's point about feeling a bit detatched from the events in Dune - this is a possible downside to the very quality of internal insight that is otherwise the book's strength. It often works that way, as I have noticed in some of my recent reads - the very qualities that 'make' a work often also mar it in some ways. Specificaly, the Mieville novel i just read - its great strengths for me were the vivid descriptions and thick, evocative prose - but once the plot picked up pace, these were the very qualities that occasionally threw me off!

I will also add that Herbert's books are largely more cerebral than external in their focus. Fortunately, in his best works (for me: Dune and The Jesus Incident) he also creates a richly imagined and detailed world toset the tale in, which balances out this quality.

What I mean is, it is the combination of internal conflict and large-scale planet-building that goes together to make this novel work.
 
Note: Thread necromncy; I hope no-one minds.

Brian, I think you managed to capture precisely why, for me, Dune stood out so much. I have just finished reading it, and I think you are exactly right in saying that the reason for its greatness is its focus on the internal, as opposed to the external (conventional?), conflict. I said in another post that I would have liked to see some of that external conflict - the events which occur during the book are certainly grand enough to provide the set-pieces demanded for greatness in the usual sense - and, while that is true, I recognise that the very choice not to focus on the battles and action makes Dune what it is - a big cut above and away from pretty much all the other sci-fi I've read.

In a perfect world, a book would do both really well, giving the reader both a grasp of the complex emotions, motives, and political situations which drive world-changing events - and then let us get good and bloodied as those events unfold (because world-changing events never happen without having to wade through the corpses of those who object, right? :(). Perhaps the WoT series does this - I haven't gotten far enough in the series to find out. But I'm sure you get my meaning.

I do think that that would be very difficult to pull off while still rattling along at the pace Dune does, which, as you say, is pretty damn fast. Anyway, Dune will remain in my memory as one of the best sci-fi books I have yet read, and for the reason Brian outlined so well (that and the clever complexity weaved throughout - the characters may not have been developed completely, but they used very well). I'm sure that other authors have taken note of the lesson Brian highlighted, as it can only be to the benefit of the genre.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top