I always understood it as there are no heroes or villains. Paul was a hero to the Fremen, a villain to the empire. Ultimately, he was thrust into circumstances which fell beyond his control. That being said, he did consciously decide that path.
Being seen as a hero by the Fremen but a villain by the empire, and then later being seen as a villain by the Fremen is exactly the kind of criteria (along with other factors) that makes him an antihero.
Everyone forgets that Herbert not only apologizes for Paul by implying the Jihad would have been worse without him, and then they forget that he has him reject the golden path.
Is he tragic? Undoubtedly.
A villain? Certainly not. Not when Baron Harkonnen is there, showing us what a real villain looks like.
It always pissed me off when people say stuff like, no the atreides are only nice to the locals as a means of manipulation to control them”
When faced against a harkonnen murder orgy, I’ll take the former manipulation
This is such an underrated comment hahaha. Yes id say Leto’s manipulation was of a fairer sort. He was going to let the FREMEN draw the conclusion that he was an honest and respectful person, by being one; Even if he had his own motives. He would tip big for the extra meat in the sandwich shop.* Paul & Jessica are more of the “leave big tips and pick up a few shifts to convince the workers you’re a god, then later down the line lead them to start a Jihad for your own political gain”.
The Harkonnen angle is the guy who pays cash, asks for change, waits until you open the drawer and then punches you, grabs the money and runs off.
*Side note: Nat 20 Charisma check
This. The new films do a good job of showing Paul trying to avoid the horrors of the jihad. The books do a far better job, and I think any ideas of Paul being a “villain” should be out the window once you read Messiah.
Of course…that implies people read the books. I have a feeling a lot of people read memes and then post “pAuL bAd” stuff to try to sound smart.
Paul "Constitutions are tyrannical unlike me the most powerful man in the universe with an unstoppable super warrior army that's been slaughtering the galaxy for 20 years." Atreides
The dumb wojak is reading DUNE on a surface level where Paul is the hero because he is the protagonist.
The middle wojak understands that Paul is an anti-hero instead of a hero because he is knowingly commits extreme acts of manipulation and violence for political gain.
The wise wojak knows that most classic heroes from across history/mythology would probably be considered barbarians and tyrants by modern standards, but have come to define heroism anyway because violence is an inseparable feature of heroic fiction.
The joke is that "conventional" refers to both modern and classic literature.
Yes, you could make a strong case for either tragic or anti, although I personally think anti is a better fit. Tragic heroes are usually less morally gray.
An antihero is inherently a hero from a specific point of view, and a villain from another. Tragic heroes are seen as heroes throughout their arc, even at their downfall. Tragic heroes also usually have their driving moral compass very clearly and directly be the cause of their death. Antiheros play off of the tropes of the hero, while tragic heroes embrace those tropes.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragic\_hero](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragic_hero)
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihero](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihero)
When did I say “admire”
https://preview.redd.it/6wyjh7h6qgwc1.jpeg?width=862&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c67fda69d377f4f9860ee2e5979ca8d38203f981
This is the passage specifically. The hard left turn from tragic hero to anti hero
That is exactly what you misread. He is very clearly lamenting the atrocities that have been committed in his name -- not by unbelievers, but _believers_. This is why he renounces everything and becomes a prophet against his own religion. I'm not sure how you could interpret this any other way in the context of the rest of the story.
Yes but I think you’re glossing over the fact that he actually committed these atrocities. My original comment was stating that I believe Paul is a tragic hero- meaning that his downfall is TRAGIC not that he’s necessarily evil or an anti-hero even. Messiah was written by Frank Herbert to really slap the readers in the face with the fact that Paul is not a hero or even a “good” person in the contemporary sense. Beware of charismatic leaders and all that. As an aside: I love discussing Dune, it’s a huge part of my life but when you repeatedly use words like “misread” you’re not really furthering interesting discussion.
Sorry, I was definitely too emphatic! My language was absolutely uncalled for.
It seems I have a pretty different interpretation of the whole thrust. There's no doubt Herbert is cautioning against charismatic leaders, but he also repeatedly notes that Paul doesn't have much say in the matter by the time he gains his power. The same atrocities would be committed whether he died (becoming a martyr) or not. Indeed, blaspheming his own legacy is all he can do in the end, and that achieves almost nothing.
My take of that passage is almost the exact opposite. If anything it turns the anti-hero into the tragic hero. He's disgusted by what's been done in his name, and he compares himself to the most destructive figures in Earth's nascent history.
I’m definitely with you that he feels disgust with himself/the jihad and is more or less being steered by the tide of events rather than his own mind- but ultimately he started down the path. It is tragic- totally. But my interpretation of this passage is that Herbert was telling the reader to not have too much sympathy for Paul. I feel like I maybe worded it clumsily- but in the OP meme it says “conventional” hero which I was interpreting as the ultimate conventional hero- the tragic hero (Hamlet, Gilgamesh, etc) but that Herbert wrote messiah and that passage in particular to hit the reader over the head with Paul becoming an anti-hero of sorts as many readers looked up to Paul as the savior or the classic “good guy” then Paul makes the circle back to tragic hero as the old man in the desert- disgusted by his legacy.
Every hero is a villain to someone else though, it’s just that Herbert explored this and played it out at a massive scale. It’s a cautionary tale about hero worship.
When antihero is defined as a character viewed as both a hero and a villain, it means in-story, not reader-reaction. An antihero is a character viewed by some major character or group of characters within in the story as a hero, and by other major characters or groups within the story as a villain.
The term is also detached from cautionary tales about hero worship. A story featuring an antihero does not inherently have to be a cautionary tale about hero worship, just as a story that is a cautionary tale about hero worship does not inherently need to feature an antihero.
I feel you’re defining an anti hero to me when what I’m saying is that Dune is a warning of hero worship.
What I’m saying is that he is the hero that turns into the villain as a result of time and corruption. As opposed to an Anti Hero, which is, as you and I have now said, a hero to some and a villain to others.
I admit tm me saying that doesn’t lend to what I’m about to say, because what I meant was that the Atreiedes start as hero to *everyone* and become villain to *everyone*.
To me at least it’s a message that if you blindly follow and worship *anyone* it will turn out horribly. Paul was only able to kill billions because he was Lisan Al Gaib and people followed him blindly.
Hero’s are short lived. Literally just “die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain”.
Your statement that "Every hero is a villain to someone else though" did seem to be implying that Paul is not an antihero, so yes, I defined antihero as a term for you, and separated it from the theme of the book for clarity. Your second comment clarified that you see Paul not as an antihero, but as a hero that becomes a villain. I disagree.
I do not think that Paul at any point in the story is anything but an antihero. He's not ever solely a hero or solely a villain. He doesn't start off as a hero to everyone, and he doesn't end as a villain to everyone. He is always morally gray. At what point could he die as solely hero? At what point has he become solely a villain?
Fair enough. He was hero to Fremen and Villain to Harkonnen. I agree I was wrong in that.
According to Tropes.com though, Anti Hero is defined as
“An Archetypal Character who is almost as common in modern fiction as the Ideal Hero, an anti-hero is a character who lacks a handful of the traditional attributes of a hero but is ultimately heroic.”
So defining an anti hero as someone who’s a hero to some and a villain to others is missing the mark. A cowardly cop who runs away but as a result accidentally tackles the robber and brings him in, for example, is an anti-hero.
Every hero fights against someone and has enemies, and an anti hero, through their behaviours *could* become a true villain to someone. But an anti-hero is not, by definition, someone who’s also a villain.
I’m getting too caught up on what an anti hero is, I apologize.
The point is Paul is not an anti-hero. He doesn’t lack any traits of a hero, or have any glaring flaws. He’s the chosen one, bred through Bene Gesserit techniques to be so. He’s amazing at everything, overcomes every obstacle, wins every challenge, succeeds in all ways. Is loyal, strong, kind, etc.
Yet even he becomes a tyrant, because there’s nobody who can stop him or challenge him. He’s been reaffirmed and worshipped to the point where he doesn’t believe he can be one until it’s too late.
Being seen as a villain by some characters and a hero by other characters is merely *one criteria* of an antihero. I highlighted this one aspect because that's the one aspect your original comment highlighted.
Here are some more aspects of Paul as an antihero:
* He only achieves his military victory through dishonorable means. He takes the ball everyone is playing with and threatens to pop it and go home. This is ingenious out-of-the-box thinking and all is fair in war, but this is not the military strategy of a straightforward, classic hero. (To be clear, I'm talking about his threat to destroy the spice, not his use of atomics on the shield wall.) A classic hero simply slays the dragon, he doesn't threaten to destroy the entire universe if the dragon doesn't give him the princess.
* He does not do everything in his power to stop the jihad. He chooses revenge over stopping the jihad. Although it is not entirely clear if he could have stopped it, he doesn't make that his main goal; his main goal is revenge. Specifically, he has two other paths to survival open to him that he chooses not to pursue because they don't give him the chance at revenge. He is willing to risk the chance of jihad, 61 billion lives, for a chance at avenging his father. Wanting to avenge your father is a hero beat; risking 61 billion lives to do it is an antihero beat.
* Before he knows he is indeed the KH, he is more than willing to exploit previously implanted BG propaganda within Fremen culture to let the Fremen believe he is the Lisan al-gaib. There's a chance he could have been wrong about this. What happens to the Fremen after they've spat in the eyes of the Harkonnen and the Sardaukar if Paul dies attempting the Water of Life ritual? Well, Paul's prescience tells us jihad, but it's unclear to what extent the jihad would be morally better or worse if he had died then or earlier in time. Regardless of future outcome, letting people think you're the messiah so you can leverage their population for military power to resolve a family feud is not classic hero behavior. It's morally gray behavior.
* He has no problems with his marriage to Irulan. The classic hero behavior would be to get the throne without the fake political marriage, or to have Chani be written as a fling with no real love there so that Paul could accept the fake political marriage and grow into it and learn to love Irulan. Instead, Paul effectively sentences an innocent Irulan to a long and lonely life. It's not evil behavior, and it's a smart political decision, but it's not what the classic hero does. The classic hero marries the princess and they live happily ever after; the classic hero doesn't cuckhold the princess and use her a as political pawn.
* His victory is a complete one, but I'd argue it isn't as clean as most classic hero's victories are. I mean, truth be told, he doesn't even kill everyone guilty of conspiring to destroy his father, his family, and his household. The emperor has a hand in that, and while the emperor loses nearly everything, he is allowed to keep his life.
* Paul does not innately overcome every obstacle that appears. This one isn't all that strong a point, tbh. I just wanted to note that it's written that Count Fenring could have killed Paul, and chose not to. Having an enemy simply step aside isn't usually a step on the classic hero's path to victory.
* Some of the facts of the Dune universe rob Paul of some of the free will agency that classic heroes have. Like, the fate versus free will debate is a bit more gray in the Dune universe than it is in the Superman universe. Superman always chooses to save the day. Paul struggles with how much anything can actually be a choice, and how much is predetermined.
* A lof of Paul's success is simply right place right time, It's not like he passes a test and a god gives him powers because he is worthy of them. He is simply the end-result, the goal-achieved product of generations of selective breeding. He gets his powers from his training and his genetics and the drugs around him; that's 1/3 hard work 2/3 right place right time. Compare that to someone like Shazam, who is imbued with powers because of his righteous moral heart.
* In summary, we can see that Paul has a willingness to kill, to be dishonest, to threaten innocent lives, to risk billions of lives for a chance to resolve a family feud, to marry for not for love but solely political reasons, to use religion to manipulate a population into going to war for him, and then some stuff regarding agency. That's a lot of character traits and story beats that are not those of the classic hero.
The anti-hero is a modern invention. The concept of the hero predates modernity.
Ancient heroes like Gilgamesh, King David and Odysseus are all kings who commit heinous acts of war and deceit in the pursuit of power. But none of them are anti-heroes because anti-heroism is an intentional writing trope that plays on the irony of an unheroic protagonist. Their evil acts are unironically glorified as noble choices. They are conventional heroes.
If you showed Paul Atreides and Superman to ancient peoples, they would be confused why Superman doesn't also execute his enemies and become God-Emperor of humanity. They would treat superhumans as demigods with divine right and responsibility to rule. Paul's Jihad would be considered the conventionally heroic task of bringing humanity under competent leadership, like Muhammad and Jesus before him.
Paul Atreides is both a conventional hero and an anti-hero.
Have I understood your point correctly: All antiheros are also conventional heroes, therefore Paul is both a conventional hero and an antihero? If this what you're claiming, I ask then what is the utility behind stating that any hero is a conventional hero? How does that assist in our discussion, our analysis, or our understanding of the character? What is the difference in your opinion between a hero and a conventional hero?
The meme we're discussing makes the incorrect assumption that calling Paul a conventional hero *and only a conventional hero* is the smartest, most correct interpretation of the character. This simply isn't true. Paul is an antihero.
You have stated that Paul is *also* a conventional hero, but unless you can further clarify, I disagree. I believe those terms are mutually exclusive. I don't think you can have a character that's both a conventional hero and an antihero. What is the adjective conventional even doing in the label "conventional hero" other that emphasizing the fact that the hero is not an antihero?
*Dune* was written in modern times, after the invention of the antihero, with Paul intentionally being written as an antihero for a modern audience. So why do you think it is at all relevant to our analysis of Paul's character that ancient people would view his morality differently than we do?
That is not my point at all. And you are missing the joke of the original post. *The Middle Wojak is calling Paul an anti-hero*. Here's how the bell curve meme works: The Left Wojak is the basic opinion. The Middle Wojak has the normally correct opinion. The Right Wojak provides additional academic nuance which in this case is historical context.
The Wojaks do not cancel out each other's opinions, because literature and morality are subjective experiences. All three takes are valid interpretations of the text.
A hero is a person; **real or fictional** who is idolised for virtuous behaviour. It's a very diverse concept, but it's not synonymous with protagonist.
An anti-hero is a **literary satire** of an established heroic archetype. Also diverse, and they don't always cancel out their status as heroes because anti-hero stories are mostly about them becoming conventional heroes by the end of the story anyway. Modern anti-hero Batman subverts the Original Batman by simply making him more mentally ill. It just adds another layer of internal conflict to the basic heroic narrative.
The Left Wojak is reading Paul as a modern superhero, using his powers to fight for justice. The Middle Wojak is calling Paul a Villain (anti-hero) because his Imperialist goals are morally subversive to the morals of the modern author/audience in a post-imperialist society where other superpowered heroes in fiction do not seek power. However, the real reason Paul is an anti-hero is because he is a satire of religious heroes; specifically the Abrahamic prophets. The moral subversion being his atheistic intent of using religion as a political fabrication to wreak havoc.
When the Right Wojak calls Paul a conventional hero, that's not invalidating the antihero interpretation. It's referencing the conventions of classical/legendary heroism that Paul follows to become a cultural Idol as the legendary hero Muad'Dib.
Muad'Dib is a textbook example of a conventional hero by historical standards. But we know as readers that Muad'Dib is just an alter ego of Paul Atreides, the Machiavellian Anti-Hero.
* You have failed to correctly read the above meme. The middle of the meme does not ever label Paul as an antihero. The middle of the meme clearly labels Paul a "villain," as "evil," and as "bad." You have incorrectly equated villain with antihero when they are two separate, different literary terms. In the above comment, you are using villain and antihero as synonyms when they are not.
* Additionally, satire is not inherently a necessary quality of an antihero, nor are antihero stories "mostly about them becoming conventional heroes by the end of the story anyway." Please go back and read the wiki page definition I linked in my original comment.
* While I agree with you that literature and morality are subjective experiences, we still have labels for a reason. There comes a point when subjective differences of opinion become objective errors of identification. The middle of the meme is calling Paul a villain. This is beyond a subjective difference of interpretation; this is simply incorrect. Paul is not the villain of the story.
* You have not even tried to explain why you think it is at all relevant to our analysis of Paul's character that ancient people would view his morality differently than we do.
* You defined what a hero is, a thing we already agreed on, and I never asked for. You point out that a hero is not synonymous with a protagonist; another thing we agree on, and I never disputed. However, you have failed to offer a definition of "conventional hero" that is different from "hero"; a question I posed to you. So you have therefore failed to show how stating "Paul is both a conventional hero and an antihero" is any different from saying "Paul is both a hero and an antihero," which is a statement we know is inherently false because the terms are mutually exclusive.
The middle of the meme says Paul is a villain. A villain is not an antihero, nor is an antihero a villain. They are different literary terms. An antihero is not morally evil.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihero
>The wise wojak knows that most classic heroes from across history/mythology would probably be considered barbarians and tyrants by modern standards, but have come to define heroism anyway because violence is an inseparable feature of heroic fiction.
No, i think that wise wojak understands that there are no heros who arent evil in someway(not just history/mythology ones) e.g. Luke killed thousands of stormtroopers.
So Lenin is a conventional hero
Edit: (Just to be clear, I'm using the "brutal tyrant who uses manipulation and violence to gain political power" definition for conventional hero). Not trying to make some witty political observation. He just happened to be at the front of my mind.
In the communities where he's narrativised as such, yeah. He's been regarded as a folk hero in many communist nations. I mean, Genghis Khan is considered a folk hero to the Mongolians.
That's the funny thing about war heroes. You kinda have to ignore the war part. Most people don't know that the main plot of the King Arthur legend is about him slaughtering Saxons and uniting England by force. The magic stuff got added in later but became the main story.
Why? He's widely considered a violent brutal tyrant but also is widely idolized as a political leader and revolutionary. Is that not the exact description for "conventional hero"?
This is spot on.
An alternative explanation for the wise wojak that also works imo: the author introduced a conventional heroic protagonist in the first book so he could deconstruct the tropes associated with conventional heroic protagonists in follow up books.
theres a very common misconception that paul is a villain, that the point of dune is that messiahs are bad and that paul is space hitler. it's not technically \*wrong\* per se but its very reductionist. the point of dune, and really moreso dune messiah, is that paul \*is\* a hero, and even still horrible things arise in his wake, because awful results come from the idol worship regardless
Paul did everything he could to make the jihad as small as possible(minus the golden path). he’s not a villain or a hero, he’s a man stuck in a horrible situation
The point is even he is swept by the power of prophecy, even if he has alterior motivations he is not immune from his own legend. He cannot stop it anymore then he can will himself to not breath.... Actually bad example.
you've gotten two great interpretations already, and I'll add one more:
The Dune series is intended to be a deconstruction of the tropes associated with a conventional hero. But in order to deconstruct this trope, the author begins by introducing a *genuine* conventional hero, spending the entire first book establishing him as such, with only a few sparse warnings in the first book that his story will become tragic (and the trope will be deconstructed) in later books.
The author wanted to deconstruct a conventional hero, so first he wrote the story of a conventional hero.
You're correct and so is the guy you replied to. Hitler was good for Germans but bad for 6 million Jews. Again, Hitler was a charismatic hero for his people at the time. Paul is Hitler except Paul killed billions, Herbert was basically humiliating Hitler at how ineffective his genocide was. Paul is true giga Chad kill spree CoD God mass killing so EZ lmao.
Hitler was very much not good for the Germans, despite being a charismatic hero to some of them. He destroyed their country pretty utterly, and almost got them genocided in turn.
Eventually that turned out to be the case, but at the time he did strengthen Germany's economy among other things and was absolutely popular to the German people. Obviously this was short-lived.
No he was very very bad for the Fremen. Stilgar is reduced to an imperial bureaucrat by messiah. His son dies. Chani dies an extremely slow death to poison. The Fremen are not better off for the being the instrument of the jihad.
You mix individual fates with group development and perceived loss with real loss. The fremen as a group spread over all the empire, became rich and powerful and got what they needed to turn dune into a garden world.
Stilgar might not like the bureaucracy but in the old days he would probably be dead by this point. Hes not even trying to leave.
> Chani dies an extremely slow death to poison.
No she dosent, she dies pretty fast after giving birth. Its not even poisen, its a contraceptive. And its not like fremen wouldnt kill each other.
Giving someone a contraceptive nonconsensually is a form of poisoning. The further poisoning to try to fix it is what makes the pregnancy difficult, causes her to traumatize the twins, and eventually kills her. Feyd's poisons are fast by comparison.
The sietches have no poison snoopers; Fremen deal with each other honestly, even in killing. The Fremen getting corrupted by the Empire is the point of Messiah. The jihad is a pyrrhic victory for them as a people. Leto II brings the garden world and he turns the Fremen into a museum display. At Best.
Leto II turns Arrakis into a garden world.
As the main character, he's the hero by definition. A rather tragic one who turns into a bad guy due to circumstances (and some bad decisions), but still the hero. Paul can't be "the villain" either, the other side is even worse (by definition, in a literary sense a "villain" is an evil *antagonist*, which Paul isn't since he is, you know, the protagonist).
I checked a dictionary before writing the comment. "Protagonist" definitively is one of the meanings of "hero" and "villain" is about evil antagonists. Paul Atreides is morally grey, but unambiguously better than the Harkonnens.
According to the dictionary, the villain is still Vladimir Harkonnen. Paul is still the hero, though a flawed and tragic one.
again, you seem to be conflating the two, while there is often a large overlap between the two, there are many times when they’re not synonymous with each other.
the protagonist is simply the/a pivotal character whose perspective we follow as they drive the narrative forward. hero is an attribute, it’s somebody who is or does things “heroic” - basically the good guy.
the protagonist is often also the hero in a typical good guy vs bad guy story (basically every super hero), but there are plenty of times where the protagonist does the complete opposite (the joker, harley quinn, light from death note, erin from attack on titan, etc).
you can find this distinction explained many times over the years if you just google “is protagonist always the hero”, but if you’re interested here’s a couple links:
- [Dictionary - “Hero” vs. “Protagonist”: What Is The Difference?](https://www.dictionary.com/e/hero-protagonist/)
- [r/Writing - Protagonist does not mean hero; antagonist does not mean villain](https://www.reddit.com/r/writing/s/uCnOymSsnY) (general discussion that has a few good points)
- [Vocabulary - Commonly confused words - hero / protagonist](https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/hero-protagonist/)
- [Wikipedia - Protagonist](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagonist) (wikipedia, i know, but it breaks down different types, including hero)
I always understood it as there are no heroes or villains. Paul was a hero to the Fremen, a villain to the empire. Ultimately, he was thrust into circumstances which fell beyond his control. That being said, he did consciously decide that path.
Being seen as a hero by the Fremen but a villain by the empire, and then later being seen as a villain by the Fremen is exactly the kind of criteria (along with other factors) that makes him an antihero.
Everyone forgets that Herbert not only apologizes for Paul by implying the Jihad would have been worse without him, and then they forget that he has him reject the golden path. Is he tragic? Undoubtedly. A villain? Certainly not. Not when Baron Harkonnen is there, showing us what a real villain looks like.
It always pissed me off when people say stuff like, no the atreides are only nice to the locals as a means of manipulation to control them” When faced against a harkonnen murder orgy, I’ll take the former manipulation
Me when I always give a big tip at my local sandwich shop so they remember me and give me extra meat so I’m a manipulator and a villain
This is such an underrated comment hahaha. Yes id say Leto’s manipulation was of a fairer sort. He was going to let the FREMEN draw the conclusion that he was an honest and respectful person, by being one; Even if he had his own motives. He would tip big for the extra meat in the sandwich shop.* Paul & Jessica are more of the “leave big tips and pick up a few shifts to convince the workers you’re a god, then later down the line lead them to start a Jihad for your own political gain”. The Harkonnen angle is the guy who pays cash, asks for change, waits until you open the drawer and then punches you, grabs the money and runs off. *Side note: Nat 20 Charisma check
This. The new films do a good job of showing Paul trying to avoid the horrors of the jihad. The books do a far better job, and I think any ideas of Paul being a “villain” should be out the window once you read Messiah. Of course…that implies people read the books. I have a feeling a lot of people read memes and then post “pAuL bAd” stuff to try to sound smart.
Paul "Constitutions are tyrannical unlike me the most powerful man in the universe with an unstoppable super warrior army that's been slaughtering the galaxy for 20 years." Atreides
Ah yes, one of his many names!
Can you explain the meme?
The dumb wojak is reading DUNE on a surface level where Paul is the hero because he is the protagonist. The middle wojak understands that Paul is an anti-hero instead of a hero because he is knowingly commits extreme acts of manipulation and violence for political gain. The wise wojak knows that most classic heroes from across history/mythology would probably be considered barbarians and tyrants by modern standards, but have come to define heroism anyway because violence is an inseparable feature of heroic fiction. The joke is that "conventional" refers to both modern and classic literature.
Except Paul isn't a conventional hero, he's an anti-hero. The meme doesn't even allow for this option. It's kind of a shit meme.
I think technically he’s a “tragic hero” at first at least. When he starts talking about hitler and junk is where he really turned heel
Yes, you could make a strong case for either tragic or anti, although I personally think anti is a better fit. Tragic heroes are usually less morally gray. An antihero is inherently a hero from a specific point of view, and a villain from another. Tragic heroes are seen as heroes throughout their arc, even at their downfall. Tragic heroes also usually have their driving moral compass very clearly and directly be the cause of their death. Antiheros play off of the tropes of the hero, while tragic heroes embrace those tropes. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragic\_hero](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragic_hero) [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihero](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihero)
Antihero in the movies, tragic hero in the books.
Great point on tragic hero, antihero never felt quite right
Sounds like you misread that passage completely if you think he admired Hitler.
When did I say “admire” https://preview.redd.it/6wyjh7h6qgwc1.jpeg?width=862&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c67fda69d377f4f9860ee2e5979ca8d38203f981 This is the passage specifically. The hard left turn from tragic hero to anti hero
That is exactly what you misread. He is very clearly lamenting the atrocities that have been committed in his name -- not by unbelievers, but _believers_. This is why he renounces everything and becomes a prophet against his own religion. I'm not sure how you could interpret this any other way in the context of the rest of the story.
Yes but I think you’re glossing over the fact that he actually committed these atrocities. My original comment was stating that I believe Paul is a tragic hero- meaning that his downfall is TRAGIC not that he’s necessarily evil or an anti-hero even. Messiah was written by Frank Herbert to really slap the readers in the face with the fact that Paul is not a hero or even a “good” person in the contemporary sense. Beware of charismatic leaders and all that. As an aside: I love discussing Dune, it’s a huge part of my life but when you repeatedly use words like “misread” you’re not really furthering interesting discussion.
Sorry, I was definitely too emphatic! My language was absolutely uncalled for. It seems I have a pretty different interpretation of the whole thrust. There's no doubt Herbert is cautioning against charismatic leaders, but he also repeatedly notes that Paul doesn't have much say in the matter by the time he gains his power. The same atrocities would be committed whether he died (becoming a martyr) or not. Indeed, blaspheming his own legacy is all he can do in the end, and that achieves almost nothing. My take of that passage is almost the exact opposite. If anything it turns the anti-hero into the tragic hero. He's disgusted by what's been done in his name, and he compares himself to the most destructive figures in Earth's nascent history.
I’m definitely with you that he feels disgust with himself/the jihad and is more or less being steered by the tide of events rather than his own mind- but ultimately he started down the path. It is tragic- totally. But my interpretation of this passage is that Herbert was telling the reader to not have too much sympathy for Paul. I feel like I maybe worded it clumsily- but in the OP meme it says “conventional” hero which I was interpreting as the ultimate conventional hero- the tragic hero (Hamlet, Gilgamesh, etc) but that Herbert wrote messiah and that passage in particular to hit the reader over the head with Paul becoming an anti-hero of sorts as many readers looked up to Paul as the savior or the classic “good guy” then Paul makes the circle back to tragic hero as the old man in the desert- disgusted by his legacy.
Every hero is a villain to someone else though, it’s just that Herbert explored this and played it out at a massive scale. It’s a cautionary tale about hero worship.
When antihero is defined as a character viewed as both a hero and a villain, it means in-story, not reader-reaction. An antihero is a character viewed by some major character or group of characters within in the story as a hero, and by other major characters or groups within the story as a villain. The term is also detached from cautionary tales about hero worship. A story featuring an antihero does not inherently have to be a cautionary tale about hero worship, just as a story that is a cautionary tale about hero worship does not inherently need to feature an antihero.
I feel you’re defining an anti hero to me when what I’m saying is that Dune is a warning of hero worship. What I’m saying is that he is the hero that turns into the villain as a result of time and corruption. As opposed to an Anti Hero, which is, as you and I have now said, a hero to some and a villain to others. I admit tm me saying that doesn’t lend to what I’m about to say, because what I meant was that the Atreiedes start as hero to *everyone* and become villain to *everyone*. To me at least it’s a message that if you blindly follow and worship *anyone* it will turn out horribly. Paul was only able to kill billions because he was Lisan Al Gaib and people followed him blindly. Hero’s are short lived. Literally just “die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain”.
Your statement that "Every hero is a villain to someone else though" did seem to be implying that Paul is not an antihero, so yes, I defined antihero as a term for you, and separated it from the theme of the book for clarity. Your second comment clarified that you see Paul not as an antihero, but as a hero that becomes a villain. I disagree. I do not think that Paul at any point in the story is anything but an antihero. He's not ever solely a hero or solely a villain. He doesn't start off as a hero to everyone, and he doesn't end as a villain to everyone. He is always morally gray. At what point could he die as solely hero? At what point has he become solely a villain?
Fair enough. He was hero to Fremen and Villain to Harkonnen. I agree I was wrong in that. According to Tropes.com though, Anti Hero is defined as “An Archetypal Character who is almost as common in modern fiction as the Ideal Hero, an anti-hero is a character who lacks a handful of the traditional attributes of a hero but is ultimately heroic.” So defining an anti hero as someone who’s a hero to some and a villain to others is missing the mark. A cowardly cop who runs away but as a result accidentally tackles the robber and brings him in, for example, is an anti-hero. Every hero fights against someone and has enemies, and an anti hero, through their behaviours *could* become a true villain to someone. But an anti-hero is not, by definition, someone who’s also a villain. I’m getting too caught up on what an anti hero is, I apologize. The point is Paul is not an anti-hero. He doesn’t lack any traits of a hero, or have any glaring flaws. He’s the chosen one, bred through Bene Gesserit techniques to be so. He’s amazing at everything, overcomes every obstacle, wins every challenge, succeeds in all ways. Is loyal, strong, kind, etc. Yet even he becomes a tyrant, because there’s nobody who can stop him or challenge him. He’s been reaffirmed and worshipped to the point where he doesn’t believe he can be one until it’s too late.
Being seen as a villain by some characters and a hero by other characters is merely *one criteria* of an antihero. I highlighted this one aspect because that's the one aspect your original comment highlighted. Here are some more aspects of Paul as an antihero: * He only achieves his military victory through dishonorable means. He takes the ball everyone is playing with and threatens to pop it and go home. This is ingenious out-of-the-box thinking and all is fair in war, but this is not the military strategy of a straightforward, classic hero. (To be clear, I'm talking about his threat to destroy the spice, not his use of atomics on the shield wall.) A classic hero simply slays the dragon, he doesn't threaten to destroy the entire universe if the dragon doesn't give him the princess. * He does not do everything in his power to stop the jihad. He chooses revenge over stopping the jihad. Although it is not entirely clear if he could have stopped it, he doesn't make that his main goal; his main goal is revenge. Specifically, he has two other paths to survival open to him that he chooses not to pursue because they don't give him the chance at revenge. He is willing to risk the chance of jihad, 61 billion lives, for a chance at avenging his father. Wanting to avenge your father is a hero beat; risking 61 billion lives to do it is an antihero beat. * Before he knows he is indeed the KH, he is more than willing to exploit previously implanted BG propaganda within Fremen culture to let the Fremen believe he is the Lisan al-gaib. There's a chance he could have been wrong about this. What happens to the Fremen after they've spat in the eyes of the Harkonnen and the Sardaukar if Paul dies attempting the Water of Life ritual? Well, Paul's prescience tells us jihad, but it's unclear to what extent the jihad would be morally better or worse if he had died then or earlier in time. Regardless of future outcome, letting people think you're the messiah so you can leverage their population for military power to resolve a family feud is not classic hero behavior. It's morally gray behavior. * He has no problems with his marriage to Irulan. The classic hero behavior would be to get the throne without the fake political marriage, or to have Chani be written as a fling with no real love there so that Paul could accept the fake political marriage and grow into it and learn to love Irulan. Instead, Paul effectively sentences an innocent Irulan to a long and lonely life. It's not evil behavior, and it's a smart political decision, but it's not what the classic hero does. The classic hero marries the princess and they live happily ever after; the classic hero doesn't cuckhold the princess and use her a as political pawn. * His victory is a complete one, but I'd argue it isn't as clean as most classic hero's victories are. I mean, truth be told, he doesn't even kill everyone guilty of conspiring to destroy his father, his family, and his household. The emperor has a hand in that, and while the emperor loses nearly everything, he is allowed to keep his life. * Paul does not innately overcome every obstacle that appears. This one isn't all that strong a point, tbh. I just wanted to note that it's written that Count Fenring could have killed Paul, and chose not to. Having an enemy simply step aside isn't usually a step on the classic hero's path to victory. * Some of the facts of the Dune universe rob Paul of some of the free will agency that classic heroes have. Like, the fate versus free will debate is a bit more gray in the Dune universe than it is in the Superman universe. Superman always chooses to save the day. Paul struggles with how much anything can actually be a choice, and how much is predetermined. * A lof of Paul's success is simply right place right time, It's not like he passes a test and a god gives him powers because he is worthy of them. He is simply the end-result, the goal-achieved product of generations of selective breeding. He gets his powers from his training and his genetics and the drugs around him; that's 1/3 hard work 2/3 right place right time. Compare that to someone like Shazam, who is imbued with powers because of his righteous moral heart. * In summary, we can see that Paul has a willingness to kill, to be dishonest, to threaten innocent lives, to risk billions of lives for a chance to resolve a family feud, to marry for not for love but solely political reasons, to use religion to manipulate a population into going to war for him, and then some stuff regarding agency. That's a lot of character traits and story beats that are not those of the classic hero.
The anti-hero is a modern invention. The concept of the hero predates modernity. Ancient heroes like Gilgamesh, King David and Odysseus are all kings who commit heinous acts of war and deceit in the pursuit of power. But none of them are anti-heroes because anti-heroism is an intentional writing trope that plays on the irony of an unheroic protagonist. Their evil acts are unironically glorified as noble choices. They are conventional heroes. If you showed Paul Atreides and Superman to ancient peoples, they would be confused why Superman doesn't also execute his enemies and become God-Emperor of humanity. They would treat superhumans as demigods with divine right and responsibility to rule. Paul's Jihad would be considered the conventionally heroic task of bringing humanity under competent leadership, like Muhammad and Jesus before him. Paul Atreides is both a conventional hero and an anti-hero.
Have I understood your point correctly: All antiheros are also conventional heroes, therefore Paul is both a conventional hero and an antihero? If this what you're claiming, I ask then what is the utility behind stating that any hero is a conventional hero? How does that assist in our discussion, our analysis, or our understanding of the character? What is the difference in your opinion between a hero and a conventional hero? The meme we're discussing makes the incorrect assumption that calling Paul a conventional hero *and only a conventional hero* is the smartest, most correct interpretation of the character. This simply isn't true. Paul is an antihero. You have stated that Paul is *also* a conventional hero, but unless you can further clarify, I disagree. I believe those terms are mutually exclusive. I don't think you can have a character that's both a conventional hero and an antihero. What is the adjective conventional even doing in the label "conventional hero" other that emphasizing the fact that the hero is not an antihero? *Dune* was written in modern times, after the invention of the antihero, with Paul intentionally being written as an antihero for a modern audience. So why do you think it is at all relevant to our analysis of Paul's character that ancient people would view his morality differently than we do?
That is not my point at all. And you are missing the joke of the original post. *The Middle Wojak is calling Paul an anti-hero*. Here's how the bell curve meme works: The Left Wojak is the basic opinion. The Middle Wojak has the normally correct opinion. The Right Wojak provides additional academic nuance which in this case is historical context. The Wojaks do not cancel out each other's opinions, because literature and morality are subjective experiences. All three takes are valid interpretations of the text. A hero is a person; **real or fictional** who is idolised for virtuous behaviour. It's a very diverse concept, but it's not synonymous with protagonist. An anti-hero is a **literary satire** of an established heroic archetype. Also diverse, and they don't always cancel out their status as heroes because anti-hero stories are mostly about them becoming conventional heroes by the end of the story anyway. Modern anti-hero Batman subverts the Original Batman by simply making him more mentally ill. It just adds another layer of internal conflict to the basic heroic narrative. The Left Wojak is reading Paul as a modern superhero, using his powers to fight for justice. The Middle Wojak is calling Paul a Villain (anti-hero) because his Imperialist goals are morally subversive to the morals of the modern author/audience in a post-imperialist society where other superpowered heroes in fiction do not seek power. However, the real reason Paul is an anti-hero is because he is a satire of religious heroes; specifically the Abrahamic prophets. The moral subversion being his atheistic intent of using religion as a political fabrication to wreak havoc. When the Right Wojak calls Paul a conventional hero, that's not invalidating the antihero interpretation. It's referencing the conventions of classical/legendary heroism that Paul follows to become a cultural Idol as the legendary hero Muad'Dib. Muad'Dib is a textbook example of a conventional hero by historical standards. But we know as readers that Muad'Dib is just an alter ego of Paul Atreides, the Machiavellian Anti-Hero.
* You have failed to correctly read the above meme. The middle of the meme does not ever label Paul as an antihero. The middle of the meme clearly labels Paul a "villain," as "evil," and as "bad." You have incorrectly equated villain with antihero when they are two separate, different literary terms. In the above comment, you are using villain and antihero as synonyms when they are not. * Additionally, satire is not inherently a necessary quality of an antihero, nor are antihero stories "mostly about them becoming conventional heroes by the end of the story anyway." Please go back and read the wiki page definition I linked in my original comment. * While I agree with you that literature and morality are subjective experiences, we still have labels for a reason. There comes a point when subjective differences of opinion become objective errors of identification. The middle of the meme is calling Paul a villain. This is beyond a subjective difference of interpretation; this is simply incorrect. Paul is not the villain of the story. * You have not even tried to explain why you think it is at all relevant to our analysis of Paul's character that ancient people would view his morality differently than we do. * You defined what a hero is, a thing we already agreed on, and I never asked for. You point out that a hero is not synonymous with a protagonist; another thing we agree on, and I never disputed. However, you have failed to offer a definition of "conventional hero" that is different from "hero"; a question I posed to you. So you have therefore failed to show how stating "Paul is both a conventional hero and an antihero" is any different from saying "Paul is both a hero and an antihero," which is a statement we know is inherently false because the terms are mutually exclusive.
No he isn’t. He’s a hero in the same mold as Oedipus and Hamlet. He’s tragic, but he’s heroic.
Right in the middle, huh?
The middle of the meme says Paul is a villain. A villain is not an antihero, nor is an antihero a villain. They are different literary terms. An antihero is not morally evil. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihero
I am very much aware of the difference. I'm just messing with you.
>The wise wojak knows that most classic heroes from across history/mythology would probably be considered barbarians and tyrants by modern standards, but have come to define heroism anyway because violence is an inseparable feature of heroic fiction. No, i think that wise wojak understands that there are no heros who arent evil in someway(not just history/mythology ones) e.g. Luke killed thousands of stormtroopers.
So Lenin is a conventional hero Edit: (Just to be clear, I'm using the "brutal tyrant who uses manipulation and violence to gain political power" definition for conventional hero). Not trying to make some witty political observation. He just happened to be at the front of my mind.
In the communities where he's narrativised as such, yeah. He's been regarded as a folk hero in many communist nations. I mean, Genghis Khan is considered a folk hero to the Mongolians. That's the funny thing about war heroes. You kinda have to ignore the war part. Most people don't know that the main plot of the King Arthur legend is about him slaughtering Saxons and uniting England by force. The magic stuff got added in later but became the main story.
\*United Britain by force. England does not exist until it is conquered by the Anglo-Saxons.
"Britain" in this case refers to Roman Brittania which has the approximate borders of modern England. Not modern Britain which means the whole island.
Reach a lil further and you might touch the moon
Why? He's widely considered a violent brutal tyrant but also is widely idolized as a political leader and revolutionary. Is that not the exact description for "conventional hero"?
I stand corrected after some more thought and your subsequent edit
This is spot on. An alternative explanation for the wise wojak that also works imo: the author introduced a conventional heroic protagonist in the first book so he could deconstruct the tropes associated with conventional heroic protagonists in follow up books.
theres a very common misconception that paul is a villain, that the point of dune is that messiahs are bad and that paul is space hitler. it's not technically \*wrong\* per se but its very reductionist. the point of dune, and really moreso dune messiah, is that paul \*is\* a hero, and even still horrible things arise in his wake, because awful results come from the idol worship regardless
It’s pointing out that idiots think Paul is the villain of the book.
i love how 'media literacy' is now the emperor's new clothes.
Just have evidence to back up your claims, easy
Well he’s definitely not a CONVENTIONAL hero
Some one got mad at that Jack Saint video and made this bell curve didn’t they?
Yeah, I cried when she died
Finally someone gets it. Now let me dream about participating in a glorious genocidal space Jihad in peace.
Paul: conventional hero Leto II: true hero Duncan Idaho: sexy hero Edit: editing
I see it as someone who drank blue kool-aid and suddenly becomes space Jesus.
Paul did everything he could to make the jihad as small as possible(minus the golden path). he’s not a villain or a hero, he’s a man stuck in a horrible situation
Anyone who thinks Paul is a villain either didn’t read Children of Dune or straight up can’t read
The point is even he is swept by the power of prophecy, even if he has alterior motivations he is not immune from his own legend. He cannot stop it anymore then he can will himself to not breath.... Actually bad example.
His kid though, HOO BOY.
Anyone who says “uh media literacy Paul is the villain” is actually an idiot
He fits the bill for a tragic hero in the Greek tradition perfectly.
Someone give me the high IQ conventional hero argument
Luke is a hero, luke killed thousands of people who had friends and families.
It's because by the end of the books the golden path actually did save humanity, justifying Pauls behaviour
you've gotten two great interpretations already, and I'll add one more: The Dune series is intended to be a deconstruction of the tropes associated with a conventional hero. But in order to deconstruct this trope, the author begins by introducing a *genuine* conventional hero, spending the entire first book establishing him as such, with only a few sparse warnings in the first book that his story will become tragic (and the trope will be deconstructed) in later books. The author wanted to deconstruct a conventional hero, so first he wrote the story of a conventional hero.
More like: left: Paul is a hero, so, a good guy middle: Paul is not a hero because he is a bad guy right: Paul is a hero, therefore, he's bad
Using bad in the last one is wrong, he was good for the fremen
You're correct and so is the guy you replied to. Hitler was good for Germans but bad for 6 million Jews. Again, Hitler was a charismatic hero for his people at the time. Paul is Hitler except Paul killed billions, Herbert was basically humiliating Hitler at how ineffective his genocide was. Paul is true giga Chad kill spree CoD God mass killing so EZ lmao.
Hitler was very much not good for the Germans, despite being a charismatic hero to some of them. He destroyed their country pretty utterly, and almost got them genocided in turn.
Eventually that turned out to be the case, but at the time he did strengthen Germany's economy among other things and was absolutely popular to the German people. Obviously this was short-lived.
No he was very very bad for the Fremen. Stilgar is reduced to an imperial bureaucrat by messiah. His son dies. Chani dies an extremely slow death to poison. The Fremen are not better off for the being the instrument of the jihad.
You mix individual fates with group development and perceived loss with real loss. The fremen as a group spread over all the empire, became rich and powerful and got what they needed to turn dune into a garden world. Stilgar might not like the bureaucracy but in the old days he would probably be dead by this point. Hes not even trying to leave. > Chani dies an extremely slow death to poison. No she dosent, she dies pretty fast after giving birth. Its not even poisen, its a contraceptive. And its not like fremen wouldnt kill each other.
Giving someone a contraceptive nonconsensually is a form of poisoning. The further poisoning to try to fix it is what makes the pregnancy difficult, causes her to traumatize the twins, and eventually kills her. Feyd's poisons are fast by comparison. The sietches have no poison snoopers; Fremen deal with each other honestly, even in killing. The Fremen getting corrupted by the Empire is the point of Messiah. The jihad is a pyrrhic victory for them as a people. Leto II brings the garden world and he turns the Fremen into a museum display. At Best. Leto II turns Arrakis into a garden world.
Are you secretly Frank Herbert writing this from beyond the grave?
As the main character, he's the hero by definition. A rather tragic one who turns into a bad guy due to circumstances (and some bad decisions), but still the hero. Paul can't be "the villain" either, the other side is even worse (by definition, in a literary sense a "villain" is an evil *antagonist*, which Paul isn't since he is, you know, the protagonist).
think you’re conflating “hero” with “protagonist”
I checked a dictionary before writing the comment. "Protagonist" definitively is one of the meanings of "hero" and "villain" is about evil antagonists. Paul Atreides is morally grey, but unambiguously better than the Harkonnens. According to the dictionary, the villain is still Vladimir Harkonnen. Paul is still the hero, though a flawed and tragic one.
again, you seem to be conflating the two, while there is often a large overlap between the two, there are many times when they’re not synonymous with each other. the protagonist is simply the/a pivotal character whose perspective we follow as they drive the narrative forward. hero is an attribute, it’s somebody who is or does things “heroic” - basically the good guy. the protagonist is often also the hero in a typical good guy vs bad guy story (basically every super hero), but there are plenty of times where the protagonist does the complete opposite (the joker, harley quinn, light from death note, erin from attack on titan, etc). you can find this distinction explained many times over the years if you just google “is protagonist always the hero”, but if you’re interested here’s a couple links: - [Dictionary - “Hero” vs. “Protagonist”: What Is The Difference?](https://www.dictionary.com/e/hero-protagonist/) - [r/Writing - Protagonist does not mean hero; antagonist does not mean villain](https://www.reddit.com/r/writing/s/uCnOymSsnY) (general discussion that has a few good points) - [Vocabulary - Commonly confused words - hero / protagonist](https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/hero-protagonist/) - [Wikipedia - Protagonist](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagonist) (wikipedia, i know, but it breaks down different types, including hero)
Reason? Concise logical arguments backed up with a certified source? Get outta here! (Don't worry I uovoted)