(Pictured at left: the author of this post, preparing to propose marriage.) Okay, today we're going to talk villains. Everyone loves a good bad guy; without one, a story lacks vitality. Good needs something over which to triumph, and someone has to make sure that the course of true love never runs too smooth.
Villains can be fun, and they can be infuriating. And, as Thomas C. Foster points out in How to Read Novels..., they can actually carry a story pretty much on their own. One of his best examples is that of Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita, whose Humbert Humbert, while charming and occasionally sympathetic, is an absolutely abhorrent human being (of course, he has Clare Quilty to divert some of the blame). A well-executed, three-dimensional scoundrel is a beautiful thing. He or she complicates a story and richens it immeasurably. How well do you feel that Herbert handles this crucial aspect of the story in Dune? Does he give his antagonists the shading and complexity they deserve, or do you feel that they lack nuance? Beyond that, who's your all-time favorite villain of film, literature, etc., and why? What makes them unique, and why do you find them particularly compelling? Discuss amongst yourselves. I'm feeling particularly wicked now; I've got a lot of mustache-twirling and cackling to do. Where are my top hat and cape?!
151 Comments
Smrithi Ramachandran
7/20/2015 03:46:10 am
1. With the large scale Dune is presented in, I think that Herbert took a different approach to highlight the same antagonistic element that all novels contain. By splitting up the characters via houses, Herbert broadly characterizes good from evil. The Baron, who is arguably the most prominent antagonist, is a part of the Harkonnen house. While the novel has sections put aside just for the Baron’s perspective, the overall characterization of evil takes the holistic view of the Harkonnens. Nevertheless, Herbert still manages to create that desired rift between character types because of his generalizations. On a broad scale, he manages to effectively paint a complex image of a villain through this approach, instead of choosing to follow one specific character (in this case, the Baron) and attribute all villainous characteristics solely to him.
Reply
Luca Tomescu
7/21/2015 05:16:16 am
Personally, I think good villains are ones that are, first and foremost, memorable. I don't mind what I specifically remember them for, but as long as they're unique and preferably have a deeper side to them than merely what's on the surface, I will most likely be highly satisfied with them. As for picking a villain that sticks out the MOST to me, that's pretty hard to do because there have been a great deal of memorable villains throughout literature and media. I mentioned Mr. Burns in my post below, but there are countless others that stick out in my mind and that I could have written about instead.
Reply
Sabrina Shaikh
8/27/2015 01:11:20 pm
I have to agree with Luca. Villains give you insight to a different side of people. None of us (I hope), want to end up the villain. As readers, we are often intrigued by the way they act and their overall character because it makes us lean away from making similar mistakes and acting with malice ourselves.
Maggie Cheung
8/6/2015 03:39:59 pm
I agree with Luca's response that the best villains are the memorable ones, rather than the ones who take the predictable paths. I tend to appreciate the villains that are clever and rather intelligent when it comes to being... villainous, I suppose. The Joker has already been mentioned as a classic villain, but in my mind, he epitomizes what a great villain should be. He is successfully creepy, while perfectly walking the line of insane and very intelligent. When watching his character unfold (which it never fully does- another reason why I like him), you're never entirely sure what he is up to because sometimes his motive is not obvious, and often he doesn't really have one.
Reply
Andrea Rosales
8/26/2015 12:52:50 pm
I also agree with Luca. The best villains are the ones that give you nightmares (re: Smrithi's comment) and make you re evaluate life! Numerous of my favorite villains have been mentioned and I personally love Hannibal Lector. He is such a genius (and cannibal) that I can't even bring myself to hate him. The fact that he can basically profile you by the way you walk and look makes him un human almost.He is such a nasty condescending, animalistic, plotting man. Man? He makes me uncomfortable yet he doesn't even exist. I never get tired of watching The silence of The Lambs (whats wrong with me?) and I truly believe it is Hannibal's mind that I love although very sick and twisted in some areas. There is a lot more where that came from.
Melinda Cloudy
8/9/2015 04:42:09 am
I think that a good villain has motive. There needs to be some reasoning behind the evil. It adds depth and makes the story more interesting in my opinion when you have to piece together the clues as to what makes the villain do what they do. Even if the villain is shaped by a mental disorder or something, that is still satisfying. I do not usually like when the villain is evil just because. For one it's not as interesting. But even more than that it is really uncomfortable for someone to just be a terrible person. When you can see logic behind the atrocious actions it dulls down some of the horror with reason and provides a little sense of control over the situation.
Reply
David Hartman
8/27/2015 10:33:19 am
I, too, feel that villains are illegitimate if they lack depth in the sense that they require a motif for their malice. The need for logic that you mention is all-important, for villainous beings who are cruel just for the fun of it are not realistic. History has shown us that the infamous villains of our world have some reasoning behind the violence they often enact. Not that I support him, but Adolf Hitler is in my eyes, the ideal real-world villain. Aside from his desire to bring about genocide, Hitler took charge of his country and led an entire population. His dream to create a German empire under Nazi rule would've been successful without U.S. intervention, and the man still had time to create beautiful works of art. His violent tendencies and his ability to appreciate the beauty of artwork absolutely intrigues and baffles me all at once.
Eric Tsai
8/10/2015 09:06:11 am
Luca made a good point in saying that good villains have to be memorable and that they have to be unique in some way. I don't have any most favorite or least favorite villains, but notable villains include Snape, Voldemort, and Shan Yu (Hun leader from Mulan). Snape stands out to me because he is always there trying to discourage and knock Harry down, bringing out Harry's perseverance in growing as a wizard and eventually defeating Voldemort. Snape also stands out to me because he switches sides. As the audience, I always remembered telling Snape to "shut up and leave" and his doing so fulfilled a little "dying wish," I suppose, for me. Voldemort also stands out because of how ugly and how seemingly undefeatable he is. Shan Yu stands out to me simply because Mulan is one of my favorite movies.
Reply
Ahad Haidry
8/14/2015 01:23:07 pm
I agree that the best of villains are those that are memorable, usually by some unique characteristic or backstory. The type of villains that usually captivate me the most are those wholly devoted to being the best they can possibly be (at villainy and such), and villains whom have a certain thought process that sets them apart from other villains ( I'm thinking villains like Anakin Skywalker, the Joker, the Godfather, Magneto, Tywin Lanister, Light Yagami, Megamind, etc.). I guess in this way my favorite villains also resemble my favorite heroes. What makes me dislike a villain are the same things that make me dislike any type of character: lack of development, cliche, plot holes, bad pacing; stuff like that.
Reply
Kerry Furman
8/16/2015 05:46:49 am
I would guess the "most" favorable villain would be the one we relate the most to. After all, we're naturally drawn to those who are most like us. And "least" would be the ones who just lack total humanity, who do no good and only bad, who appall us with their actions and words to a point where forgiveness is something we can't give them anymore. Also, the lack of a background story could give us even less trust in this character, because we don't know the foundation of their actions and thoughts.
Reply
Marina Zafiris
8/18/2015 09:42:16 am
Awesome Question!
Reply
Phillip Valdecanas
8/23/2015 07:32:53 am
I agree with what Marina stated. The villains that we sympathize the least with are those that are heartless and entirely inhumane. However, I think it is important to note that there are cases in which we come to love the villains. In order for a villain to become lovable in the audiences eyes, they must either exhibit remorse at some point or display a humane and loving act which would normally be considered out of character. If this is done, the audience is more likely to empathize and consider alternatives as to why a villain committed such unforgivable acts. Moreover, it is the villains that are largely misunderstood that come to be the ones that the audiences falls in love with. After all, it is society's fault that a villain turns cold. Society at large is exclusive and does not openly accept people who are different. Growing up as an outcast from society can produce a villain who has been groomed into the mentality that society deserves to be punished due to the injustices it has caused to the villain himself. In turn, the audience can feel remorse as they begin to understand that the root cause of a person evolving into a villain was because of how society functions.
Janie Hu
8/20/2015 05:30:10 am
I strongly concur with Luca and Melinda since they brought up notions that a good villain must be memorable and have motive. These two aspects go hand in hand. When a bad guy has a central motive for their actions, their devious personality begins to form. Once this event has taken place, usually the schemes to obtain their greatest desire become more complex and undeniably evil because they become increasingly immersed in their own twisted thinking pattern to deceive others. Therefore, their actions become more outlandish, complex, and just plain malicious, which captures our attention and leaves us in awe. To me, weak villains are determined by their predictable plans. All villains are terrible, but what primarily sets the good ones from the bad ones are their schemes. People adore the bad guys who are clever and dangerous because they are intriguing and unpredictable. We want to be surprised by their next course of action, not be let down by our own accurate prediction on their intentions.
Reply
Daniel Cheung
8/20/2015 01:21:52 pm
While I certainly agree that the rift of good and evil is created between the rival houses of Harkonen and Atreides, I don't agree that the Baron was a complex villain. His motives were too simple; sure, greed is a repulsive incentive, but if that's his only motive, so the character seems flat. I see Reyd-Rautha as a far more developed villain, despite his lesser influence. Similar to the Baron, he is ruthlessly evil, indiscriminately torturing those around him. However, he has a youthful charm, and his naive notion that he could simply assassinate his uncle shows that he is more than just evil; he is also an adolescent that is discovering the boundaries of his freedom, and finding his place in the twisted family. Sadly, he doesn't play a major role, but I sincerely wished he did. The Baron, in my opinion, was no more than a cardboard cutout, run-of-the-mill villain; he creates the initial conflict, but he remains uninteresting. He is merely a necessity for a story to take place. Yet, perhaps it was Herbert's decision to downplay the villain. His focus on the Fremen and the struggle of the remnant members of the Atreides family -Paul and Jessica- was intriguing to say the least. Paul's inner conflicts are layered; it is a battle between his loyalty towards his heritage, his acculturation into the Fremen culture, his sense of duty towards his prophetic abilities, and his new-found role as a husband and father. The Baron lacks depth, but maybe it's Herbert's way of focusing onto a far more complex conflict.
Reply
Sahib Chandnani
8/24/2015 12:38:52 pm
Daniel, I could not agree more. Even in the case of villains, I definitely feel we are attracted to those who we perceive to be similar to ourselves. Although their acts can be beyond the scope of would see ourselves actually doing, there is a certain element of familiarity that makes the most heinous characters in literature appeal to us. This is one reason why I think zombies have picked up so much popularity in recent times-they are inherently corrupted humans. No supernatural creature could seem SO real unless we see it as being so similar to who we already are. These are like white collar monsters. They live and breathe and look like us, but they show us a primitive and cannibalistic nature that we simultaneously abhor.
Pranidhi Dadhaniya
8/25/2015 12:58:30 pm
I found your perspective on this question fascinating, Daniel. I believe that Herbert may have downplayed the Baron as villain because he wanted to enhance and add more depth to the other conflicts in the novel. For instance, there is constant conflict between the Fremen tribe and the harsh, desert environment on Arrakis. I believe that readers can develop a greater understanding of this conflict as well the internal conflicts of Paul by downplaying the Baron's development as a villain.
Marwan Madi
8/22/2015 03:18:51 am
I believe that Herbert did a generally good job with his villains in the sense that he clearly established good and bad - Atriedes vs. Harkonnens (respectively). Other than that, I feel like the villains in Dune lack depth. For example, by the end of Dune the reader does not know much about House Harkonnen besides the fact that they're evil and live by trickery and selfish ways. The best villains have a compelling backstory that explains why they are evil. Therefore, my all-time favorite villain is Harry Osborn, or the New Goblin, from Spider-Man 3. Harry started out as Peter Parker's best friend (Peter Parker is secretly Spider-Man), but Harry is led to believe that Spider-Man killed his father, thus leading him to seek revenge and creating a villain with noble intentions. There is also a large sense of dramatic irony throughout the movie due to the fact that the audience knows that Spider-man did not actually kill Harry's father, it just seemed that way. There is also a sense of dramatic irony in the fact that Harry does not know that he is attempting to kill his best friend since he does not know that Peter Parker is Spider-Man. What makes Harry my favorite villain is that he is a well developed character with a compelling backstory and understandable (and realistic) reasons for becoming a villain.
Reply
Shaheen Khimani
8/26/2015 02:08:05 pm
My favorite protagonist of all time is Katniss Everdeen from Hunger Games. There’s always just been something about her that I find intriguing. Perhaps, its because character has such depth and that she's shown to live a life of difficulty and pain. This adds to how this plays such an influential role in they way she perceives. Maybe it’s because I can relate to her and the sacrifices she makes out of love. She exhibits unparalleled bravery from the very start when she volunteers as tribute for her sister, reflecting a lot about her selfless character. As the novel progresses further, one can see the gradual change from being an angry captive to a brave hero fighting for her life and standing up against the capital. Paul and Katniss are a lot alike in many ways, the obvious being that they both start off as normal teenagers, their stories telling of the rise of an underdog to a path of victory over their unmatched opponents. Both also resist from taking a path of violence and blood, as Paul chooses to save Stilgar's life and Katniss choses to avoid killing anyone at first during the Hunger Games. Personally, Katniss’ character comes across as more three-dimensional and complex than Paul's, as a result of the details Suzanne Collins includes about her past in District 12 and her emotional reactions to the experiences taking place.
Asma Virani
8/27/2015 08:38:10 am
Harry Potter is considered a protagonist/hero because he survives Voldemort’s death curse and saves the world from Voldemort’s wrath. He is a special wizard who steps in conflict’s way and defeats it himself, instead of letting it attack others. He is my favorite protagonist because he is a very loyal friend and he’s good at heart. Similar to Paul, Harry’s life is full of trials and tribulations. Both characters’ parent(s) was/were murdered by the antagonist. Paul and Harry struggle to subdue their enemies, who are responsible for all the problems that occur in each story. Also, Both teenagers have special powers such as precognition and wizard spells which help them protect themselves and the people around them.
Jenny Lang
8/27/2015 12:52:00 pm
One of my favorite protagonists of all time has to be Rick Grimes from The Walking Dead because he doesn’t exactly fall under each condition for a typical protagonist and neither does Paul. They’re both considered anti-heros because even with good intentions, mistakes are inevitable while trying to execute them. Rick Grimes in the beginning of the series had resisted for a while the position as the group’s leader even though he was a natural leader, because all he really wanted to do was protect his wife and son and not have to worry about everyone else around him. Later on in the series, his character becomes more aware of his surroundings and hardens from his experiences with death and murder, similarly to Paul’s journey of reaching his terrible purpose and his mother realizing the inner fear she held within her because her son had transformed into someone unrecognizable. Rick Grimes follows the same transition where he loses himself in all the savagery and desire for safety that his own son fears him at one point.
Ching Liuhuang
8/27/2015 01:23:39 pm
Herbert did in deed set a good foundation for the story in regards to the opposing houses like you mentioned; however, I feel that he also established the villain quite well, which in this case is Baron Harkonnen and the Emperor. In attempt to a power grab, the Baron and the Emperor devised a plan and cooperated to out the House of Atreides. The overlook of the Baron’s personal agenda, from screwing over his own family to his domination of the personal sex slaves that look like his enemy only paints the best of villains: one of deception and merciless will. On the other hand, I do agree with you in part of the fact that good villains need a backstory to back up his/her character.
Chelci Harris
8/22/2015 04:00:31 am
My most favorite villains are villains with a purpose, with a background, villains that you relate to--as much as you hate to admit. They have an honesty to them that not even heroes or protagonists can achieve and that makes more dynamic and easier to understand. That's another big thing for me because I thoroughly enjoy understanding the motives of the villain. The least favorite of the villains are know are the ones that I have yet to understand. Among my least favorite villains is Rasputin from the film Anastasia. In short--the man was a traitor and for this he was banished. In anger, he sells his soul in order to gain the dark powers that he needs to execute his revenge. That's all that matters when it comes to making my point which is "Rasputin...why art thou mad?" There's a way of the world. And that way says that actions have consequences. I still can't seem to understand why Rasputin even made it his business to seek revenge. To me, these kind of villains don't have purpose. They're just little baby villains throwing temper-tantrums.
Reply
Chandni Patel
8/23/2015 02:19:20 pm
I think a good villain is one that refrains from killing their protagonist. A good villain toys with the emotions and causes the protagonist to suffer a great deal, but does not let them die. This way, the villain is memorable and unique. Additionally, I like a villain who has a story for the reason they are evil.
Reply
Rushabh Mehta
8/24/2015 07:27:23 am
For me, the thing that distinguishes my favorite villain apart from my least favorite villain has to do more with the villain's relationship with the hero, if the hero is an intelligent one that is. A villain gains my respect based on the challenge they present on the hero, if the villain is able to confuse the hero, make it nearly impossible for the hero to stop him, or even make the hero question their own morals, that is what creates a good villain in my mind. If it is easy and the hero just has to bs his way to beating the villain such as in shows like Chuck, then that villain is clearly no good.
Reply
In terms of villainous acts, House Harkonnen is second to none. Whether it is Rabban’s systematic oppression of the Fremen on Arrakis, Vladimir’s assassination of Duke Leto and Doctor Yueh, or Feyd’s attempt to kill Vladimir in an effort to seize his position as Duke, the Harkonnens are ruthless and show little respect for anyone but themselves. For this reason they fit they role of the traditional villain but they lack the complexity and depth of a truly fantastic villain. Bad guys do bad things, that is obvious, but what else? Are they truly that one sided? As Foster puts it, a successful villain will have that which will either draw sympathy from the audience or generate interest as to why the antagonist does what they do, and the members of the House Harkonnen have neither.
Reply
Pranidhi Dadhaniya
8/25/2015 11:52:49 am
In my opinion, a background story and path of development are essential to effectively shape a villain. It is my firm belief that every human being is born with good within them and thus, no one is born evil. Rather, it is there experiences and influences that cause them to develop evil characteristics. For this reason, I believe that an ideal villain must have a backstory so we can understand the events in their life that have caused them to develop evil characteristics. It also significantly adds complexity because it evokes a sense of sympathy for the villain. Another belief I have is that no one can be characterized as completely good or completely evil. I believe that every person has aspects of both good and evil, in different proportions, of course. Thus, when an author develops a backstory for a villain, we are able to see good characteristics they had and the reason those characteristics were overshadowed by evil.
Reply
Shravya Arra
8/26/2015 01:06:33 pm
I liked how Herbert developed Baron Harkonnen, but more importantly, I liked how he made him similar to Duke Leto. Both men were ambitious and greedy and had many other parallels in their actions, but the only thing that separated them was their intentions. While Baron Harkonnen would do anything to get what he wanted, Duke Leto still watched out for his House. They are both evil hearted enough to kill people, which I believe is a sin regardless of the motive. Thus, I really enjoyed Baron Harkonnen's role in this book because it was somewhat hypocritical of Duke Leto to dislike him so much.
Reply
Robin Dimaunahan
8/27/2015 07:49:00 am
This is quite an interesting question. I suppose my most favorite villain would be one that is thoroughly developed. However once understanding what drove the villain I cannot help but empathize towards them, regardless of their actions. I think I somehow manage to find myself in each villain and maybe that is the scariest part.
Reply
Shravya Arra
8/27/2015 10:30:47 am
I agree with Robin in that villains usually have the most internal conflict which makes their characters more gray rather than black and white. Their development is usually based off of that gray area that their characters encompass.
Shaheen Khimani
8/27/2015 10:47:30 am
Personally, I think a villain must chose an unpredictable path to be memorable. They can't just be a cookie-cutter villain who's motives are simply to obtain power. Like Luca said, the villains that have a deeper side to them tend to come as the better ones. For me, I've noticed that most of the villains I enjoy reading about usually tend to have a disturbed past or previous experience that causes them to be the way they are. An example of this would be Voldemort, as I mention in my other post.
Reply
Seamus Gildea
8/27/2015 11:03:22 am
The best villains are the ones that are so well developed that you can sense an intrinsically evil vibe to them that you can not pull yourself away from. This vibe can either bring you to root for this villain or despise him depending on the author's intentions and execution. While a villain like this is not necessary for all stories, the bad guy we know the most about is the one that draws us in the most.
Reply
Farah Hashmi
8/27/2015 11:47:55 am
Personally, I believe that a successful villain is one that is not only memorable and impactful, but also someone that embodies equal aspects of humanity and monstrosity in his/her character. I feel as though some of the best villains are those fully aware of their actions and willingly disregard morality and human values for their own ambitions. An intriguing villain is often someone that has as much wit as he has strength- a deceptive charm that belies his cruelty; someone who does not want redemption, and is remorseless of his actions. A good villain is supposed to be stunning- and not in the physical sense; they should be tragic, powerful, ambitious- someone who retains his/her humanity, but is capable of the utmost monstrous acts. Someone who evokes sheer presence, and counteracts the cookie-cutter image of what a villain should be. There is no true definition between 'good' and 'evil' after all- people don't exclusively associate with one or the other- so in order to be a successful villain, he/she must walk the grey area in between- be an appealing character, while remaining undeniably ruthless.
Reply
Alex Wong
8/27/2015 12:42:12 pm
I believe that a good villain is someone with a solid reason for doing what they are doing. What makes them the villain is that their ideals contrast from that of the protagonist (and possibly our own), and is portrayed in a way to make them look irrational. If we truly understood why they did the things they did, we may see the story the opposite way. This is why narration is so important in a novel. If we sympathized and understood a villain they may become an anti-hero sort of character, such as Dr. Yueh. A weak villain would be someone like Baron Harkonnen, someone who is evil just for the sake of evil. Because all we know is that he acts in his self interest and greed, we can't understand why he does things the way he does. Perhaps the Baron would had been a stronger villain character if we knew more of his backstory and the way his mind thinks.
Reply
Ada Chau
8/27/2015 12:49:06 pm
For me, I think that my favorite villains are the ones with a background story and an explanation. I like to believe that there is goodness in everyone, no matter how deep, deep down it may be, and knowing that somewhere under all that evil and malice there is someone who is broken and in need of comfort, and that with the right words and actions they may become a better person. My least favorites are the ones who are just bad because they like seeing people suffer. There is no goodness in them and so I don't really feel anything for them. I just kinda want them to go away. So to conclude, I think my most favorite and least favorite are the opposite of yours.
Reply
Kartik Talwar
8/27/2015 12:50:26 pm
My favorite types of villains are ones who destroy the protagonist mentally, rather than physically. These villains are the ones who effect the hero the most and they usually come from the roughest backgrounds. Another characteristic I like about them is that they don't have any motive, goals or plans, they just do evil things because they are fun.
Reply
Luca Tomescu
7/21/2015 05:09:07 am
1. In my opinion, the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen isn't all that interesting of a villain. This is primarily due to the lack of attention that he receives, totaling only a few short chapters throughout the course of the novel, and these chapters, for the most part, all seem to portray him just about the same way. A chapter from the Baron's point of view doesn't tend to provide a serious insight into his soul and continues to emphasize how purely evil, disgusting, and despicable he is. Furthermore, the Baron doesn't appear to be unique or especially charming in way. Instead, he seems to be just your stereotypical power-hungry antagonist without much attention to his character development. He only exists to be the antagonist of the novel and not a fully-fledged character in his own right. With this in mind, I would classify the Baron as a flat character because is very existence is only justified by the role that he fills in the story, albeit an important one. He's not special or memorable in any way, and he lacks any sort of charm that would make him stand out as a villain. He isn't particularly graceful or smart or anything for that matter. His one potentially distinguishing characteristic is his cunning, but in my mind, that's just part of the generic villain package. Aside from the Baron himself, the other "bad guys" are even less developed. The only one that's even partially interesting bad guy is the Count Fenrig, but that's mostly only because he's shrouded in mystery.
Reply
Smrithi Ramachandran
7/22/2015 02:33:09 am
There are probably a number of reasons as to why the Baron lacks characterization. In my opinion, Herbert wanted to focus more on establishing a divide between different groups of people (the Houses), rather than individuals themselves, because that's why Paul rises to power. As the prophet and the leader, he focuses more on improving Arrakis as a whole and fighting for such causes, which is highlighted by characterizing the enemy on a larger scale. Additionally, there's the whole theme aspect Herbert wishes to emphasize. With a more detailed description of the Baron, readers would be left with a choice on who to connect with more in the story. Villains usually tug at the hearts of readers when their human side reveals itself. By providing little to no description of the Baron's evil character, Herbert clearly paints the path that he wants his audiences to follow. Focus on Paul's development and actions toward the environment therefore become the more central aspects to the story, rather than a typical protagonist - antagonist dilemma.
Reply
Abigail Cloudy
8/9/2015 03:08:54 am
One reason that the Baron lacks character development could be because of the story Herbert is trying to tell. He writes about good against bad. He develops a protagonist, who for the most part, never sways from his path of heroism. This is contrasted with an antagonist who never sways from his path of evil. There is never any question during the novel about who is the good guy and who the reader should side with. Herbert writes about a messiah figure who rises to power and faces off against the devil. By Paul opposing a clear cut villain, there is never any question in the mind of the reader over whether or not Paul is the hero and doing the right thing. Herbert builds up Paul's credibility as the hero by pitting him against a villain who lacks heart.
Reply
Caitlyn Nguyen
8/18/2015 02:53:49 am
Well the Baron's purpose in the book is to provide a conflict for the protagonist (Paul, Fremen, etc.) and he does serve his purpose. I think he is meant to be portrayed as a stark, cookie cutter bad guy, because really, he's like any other villain. It goes back to what Foster says about not putting in too much detail and letting the reader fill in the gaps. Because he is a "common" bad guy, Herbert knows the reader will be able to imagine the Baron in the right way without having to use too much detail.
Reply
Cody Nkrumah
7/22/2015 09:19:10 am
1.) According to Dune, Herbert took a very innovative approach to juxtapose the basic antagonist element. For example, it is stated the Hebert separates the characters into different houses. Meanwhile the Baron, being a part of the Harkonnen family, sets the whole pace of the story. Although there are key ulterior motives through the Baron's perspective in the story itself, it still doesn't change the fact of Hebert feels about different types of characters in the situation at hand. So in my opinion, Hebert lack the severity of how catastrophic the villain can be.
Reply
Gordon Chen
8/22/2015 03:38:38 pm
Did the Baron actually set the whole pace of the story? I believe that the Padiashah emperor contributed towards the pace of the story. The Atreides house were sent to Arrakis only because of the Emperor's order. Therefore, setting the beginning of the story.
Reply
Shravya Arra
8/27/2015 10:48:08 am
I think Gordon is right because the Emperor's orders are what set off the story. If we were to draw a plot diagram, that would be the inciting incident. The emperor is the reason the story even happens.
Rushabh Mehta
7/26/2015 08:42:01 am
1. The villain in this story, Baron Vladimir Harkonnen lacks the development required to create a truly three dimensional character. He provides a character that is completely predictable and all need for insight into his motivation is lost. He is a basic, power hungry, war monger-er, who wants money. There is nothing that makes him unique in this sense. Essentially he acts as the United States does in sense of international affairs. This makes him so bland and transparent that he does not provide the hero of the story , Paul Atriedes (Maud'dib), a truly challenging opponent to overcome besides the brute force that the Baron has with the Sarduakar army he rented from the Emperor.
Reply
Kalpana Vaidya
7/26/2015 09:43:33 am
1. I think it is interesting the way Herbert built up the antagonist for Dune. He not only limited it to one person, which if we had to pick one it would be the Baron, but he made the whole Harokonnen household the villains in this novel. I think that Herbert uses the antagonists just to advance the plot such as when the Duke is killed right at the beginning. However, the Baron and the household in general never really come into fruition. Though they have certain chapters dedicated to only them, their development, in my opinion, only highlights the same characteristics each time, for instance, their cunningness and vengefulness. For me, they stay mostly flat and lack complexity. Their motives are quite obvious, and they do not really have many mysteries behind them. I think the only character that we truly do not understand their motives is the Count Fenrig. He pretty much seems like the mastermind behind the whole mission, but still, I think the Harokokennens and the Baron are the more obvious answer for the antagonists. They are the ones that truly give Paul a reason to fight. It is only because of their actions that Paul must fight for his life and the livelihood of the Fremen and Dune.
Reply
Ahad Haidry
7/28/2015 05:46:52 pm
1. I feel that Herbert skillfully executed creating a set of antagonists whom are substantial and move the stories plot along. The story's primary antagonist, Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, is singularly driven by his own thirst for power. Yet this does not impede him from being a substantial antagonist. The Baron is shroud, cunning, and resolved in his quest for power. For example, the Baron is able to crush the Atreides by paying a staggering sum of money. To paraphrase, more money than one could make from milking Arrakis for all the spice its worth for 60 years! For a person as greedy as the Baron, one can not deny resolve and ability to look ahead when he parts with so much wealth to further his ambitions. Herbert shows that in addition to being cunning, the Baron is fully aware of his mortality. This is why the Baron invests so much effort into preparing Feyd-Rautha to succeed him one day. In addition to developing the Baron, Herbert also gives other secondary antagonists such as Dr. Yueh and Emperor Shaddam IV some (though in the case of Emperor Shaddam IV ample) development. I feel that Herbert adds depth to both of these characters by showing the internal conflict they have to face yet also relaying the greater purpose which motivates their actions.
Reply
Kalpana Vaidya
8/1/2015 03:21:12 am
I think that greed is one of the most popular reasons for a villain. However, I think that every villain is somehow prompted by revenge. The Harokonnens (in particular the Baron) is out for Duke Leto because he has taken over Dune from under him. We can even take a more known villain, like Voldemort, and relate him to revenge. His quest to kill Harry Potter stems from the fact that he could not kill him as a child. Harry proved that he was not the most powerful wizard, and Voldemort is now out to prove him wrong - he wants revenge.
Reply
Konan Mirza
8/5/2015 11:17:24 am
Greed is a central component in many villains in movies and in literature, however greed is not necessarily a fundamental quality to be an effective villain. In fact, one could argue that greed is the most cliché motivation and serves to delink the antagonist from any sort of uniqueness. On the other hand capturing a motive that is unique and creative serves to enhance the overall experience. Moreover, relating this back to Dune, I feel like Baron is quite simplistic and doesn’t quite have an interesting motive and as a results fails to be a memorable villain. His ultimate goal to gain a monopoly on spice and become rich is both dull and overdone. Because villains can differ so much trying to find a true defining characteristic is a very hard task. Greed however is not necessarily a defining characteristic all villains must have. Take the Joker for example, there is actually a scene in the movie where he burns a whole stack of cash. His sole motivation was to create havoc, didn’t care for power or money. In essence the only element that could qualify as a defining characteristic, in my opinion, is “evil”.
Reply
Caitlyn Wingerson
8/7/2015 06:37:57 am
Defining a villain as greedy would imply they are unsatisfied with all they have and NEED more. I feel that would limit the scope of a villain's capabilities by implying they can't control their motivations. Villains who are in control of themselves and perceptive to their motivations and desires are more dangerous and "villainous" than those who act simply to satisfy a need they don't have control over. To illustrate this, let's say Paul is a villain. Compared to the Baron (a cliche, greedy, power hungry antagonist who rarely shows restraint to get what he wants) Paul would be TERRIFYING as a villain. Why? He's in control of himself, he's perceptive to EVERYTHING, and his motives aren't transparent. These attributes would make him a memorable villain. Now, addressing the second part of the question: if Paul was a villain, then the Fremen would be the people who did atrocious acts for selfless reasons. People willingly commit to leaders who display self-control and Paul is nearly the epitome of that sort of leader. The Fedaykin selflessly serve him and lay down their lives for him because they believe in him and what he stands for. While this observation may be a little off the mark, in cases where people act in this way they do so for a purpose higher than themselves which is, only in and of itself, admirable.
Reply
Rushabh Mehta
8/24/2015 08:26:20 am
I think that greed is a common characteristic given to villains because it is easy to portray. But the issue with this is that it creates a very weak villain to center the plot around, a villain that is greedy is also predictable, making it very easy for the hero to find his motive and stop him.
Reply
Laura Paglicawan
7/30/2015 02:38:42 am
Greed takes its place as one of the most popular inner motivation of a villain but I don’t think you necessarily have to be greedy to be a villain. Villains are so huge in number and they come from very different spectrums. I feel the defining characteristic that generally connects all villains is the vile acts that they commit. However, motivation from these actions can come from many different places whether it is hatred, jealousy, or even distrust.
Reply
Jonathan Wang
8/2/2015 11:38:03 am
1. While the author presents the Baron as an obviously antagonistic and vile character during the near beginning of the book, this one-sided perspective is not drastically diverted as the story progresses. Instead of creating a backstory for the Baron as to why he may have been as power hungry as we see him, Herbert primarily focuses on the Atreides house and how they react to the malicious Baron. While the Baron may have achieved its purpose as the driving force of the story in "Dune", his background and development is not advanced enough for me to consider him a complex character as his driving force is simply the common want for power. But with this in mind, while the Baron may not be that much special when compared to other villains, Herbert is still able to develop a story of his fictional universe with great information and detail in other characters and settings granting appreciation from me and perhaps even the entire Sci - fi loving community.
Reply
Victor Guo
8/27/2015 09:21:49 am
I agree with you on how the Baron isn't the best villain of all time but nevertheless he suffices for the story. However adding backstory to the Baron may have removed some of the hate that readers may have had towards the Baron. Also it would have been unreasonable for there to be backstory on the Baron. The book just throws us into this universe without preparation and adding extensive backstory to any character would have removed from the experience of being a stranger in a new world that many would have felt when reading the book.
Reply
Melinda Cloudy
8/3/2015 09:07:11 am
The Baron is a good villain. He is horrible, sick, selfish, and completely lacks morals. In that aspect of a villain, he is textbook. There is some complexity to him as seen in his relationship with his nephews and his sexual desires. However, the Baron is entirely without sympathy. His motivations are always selfish; he purposely sets up his own kin for failure when he gave Rabban Arrakis. Not to mention his creepiness with the slave boys. Because of this, the Baron remains somewhat flat as a character. It does not make him seem any less real, as there are plenty of repulsive people in real life, he just lacks a little depth.
Reply
Konan Mirza
8/5/2015 10:19:06 am
Ultimately, the main antagonist in the novel is seemingly Baron Harkonnen. Although infrequently appearing in the novel, Herbert from the very beginning of the novel establishes baron as the mortal enemy of the House of Atreides. However, the underdevelopment in his character in conjunction with the neglection to give him a more active role in the novel serves to make him fall short as a fully executed three dimensional villain. In essence Baron proves to be a villain that is not at all entertaining. Although ruthless and cruel from the very beginning, the necessary complexity and mysteriousness any memorable villain would have is blatantly missing.
Reply
Suhrin
8/21/2015 11:32:29 am
To answer your question with all honesty, a vicious, blood-boiling villain would enrich the novel immensely. However, it does not just apply to a villain. If more rich development was added onto any character, plot or theme, it could only make the literature piece truly better. Never had it occurred to me that Baron’s lack of character development made the novel any less phenomenal than it was. In the back of my mind, I believe that Frank Herbert had intentionally made Baron a flat character. While he was the main antagonist, he rather served an important purpose to the overall story. After all, his ignorance to the obvious is what allows our young hero at the beginning of the book to truly mature and able to rule and defeat his antagonists. His lack of development could be viewed as an intentional action of Herbert to make a more powerful plot- so it does not undermine the book’s potential whatsoever.
Reply
Suhrin Whang
8/21/2015 11:35:31 am
I accidentally posted without my full name so here is a second post just to make sure.
Marwan Madi
8/22/2015 03:32:36 am
I agree with Konan that the Baron was not a three dimensional character, and I believe that his lack of development decreases the potential of how good the book could be. Herbert constantly shifted between narrating the events of House Harkonnen and House Atriedes and separating the two story lines by Princess Irulan quotes. With this format Herbert could have easily added more depth to the character of the Baron and House Harkonnen, but the problem is that if he did this, Herbert would have added considerable length to an already long book. The majority of the book revolves around Paul and develops him as a character. If Herbert had spent more time developing the Baron then it could distract from Paul's development, but overall this would have been a good tradeoff because the rivalry between House Atriedes and Harkonnen would have been much more intense. The scene where Alia kills the Baron would have also been a lot more exciting, interesting and deep if the Baron had been further developed.
Reply
Arun Sabapathy
8/26/2015 12:51:30 pm
In the same way I concur with Konan and Marwan's statement. We are introduced into the cold and ruthless characterization of the Baron, but the dynamics of the character he really is is not throughly specified. By allowing more interaction within the limits of the Harkonnen house, presumbably the elite in Feyd-Rautha and the Baron, among others, we could make better insight into the truth of what the Baron's motives or such are. The understand of motives in any character give multi-dimensional understanding of the character, as more than likely it would require of a thought process from both the character and the author, which would contribute to understanding the role in the novel. The purpose of the character should be fully emphasized, and besides the place of the antagonist, I do not feel as though he is a complete character.
Chidera Azubike
8/10/2015 04:08:40 am
1.As the main antagonist position was filled by the baron i just felt as a villain he pretty classic with same old archetype of being a "bad boss", with the same old "you have outlived your usefulness" bit to anyone he feels has failed him, also the fact that the author ha all but outright said he's a depraved pedophile who would lust after his own nephew(which makes me want quetion the current morality held by humans during the setting of the story, as no one seemed to react much to this aspect of him in the book, only for the reason of driving it home that he's scum, i just feel as a villain he wasn't played out in a very powerful way and seemed a tad flat altogether.
Reply
Nikki Gandhi
8/26/2015 12:33:04 pm
I agree! He is your typical bad mob boss. Hes bratty and acts like he always gets what he wants. I think its REALLY interesting how you mentioned his pedophilia towards his nephew. I never really thought about how we never talk about that. It didnt even occur to me as a striking fact. I also feel like isnt it ironic, in the time that this book was written, when anything gay was seen as disgusting, the Baron is gay? Or well, lusts after young boys. Which is gross, in all sense given, but why boys? Just food for thought, maybe I am thinking too much into it. Back to him being a villain however, he does indeed fall flat because hes just like any other bad guy, there for the sake of moving the plot along. I wonder where we'll find a more cunning villain.
Reply
Amy Chen
8/10/2015 10:59:55 am
1. After reading Dune, I feel that the Baron is not a character with a very complex story or dimension to his personality. After all, what more do we know about him other than the fact that he is fat, greedy, devious, and power-hungry? Herbert never really mentions his ulterior motives and what really fuels his actions. Readers do not fully know what exactly he has against the House Atreides, or what could have possibly happened in his childhood that is driving his actions, or if his ancestors were betrayed by the Atreides; the possibilities are endless. However, this adds depth to the story because as Foster states in How to Read Novels Like a Professor, characters are only developed to an extent that readers can understand and relate to. There's no need or time to describe the Baron's entire life story and all the workings of his mind. Readers are left to interpret the story and fill in the blanks to characters in accordance to our own life experiences and knowledge; this is what makes each novel unique and different to each person's perspective.
Reply
Amy Chen
8/10/2015 11:09:26 am
Question:
Reply
Laura Paglicawan
8/11/2015 01:24:58 pm
Herbert may have added that detail for plot purposes, since it stands as evidence of the Bene Gesserit scheme of improving the gene pool and breeding amongst the nobility to create a master individual. Jessica, the daughter of a Harkonnen Baron and the Atreides Duke, Leto, surely would produce an offspring that would be a noteworthy possibility for their plan. By mixing bloodlines, they are ensured that the best characteristics distinct of each House will not be extinct and will be incorporated into their super race. Paul exhibits characteristics from both Houses like the famed loyalty of the Atreides or the steel determination of the Harkonnens. It must be added that the Bene Gesserit’s pattern of mixing lineages reaches back many generations so that heritage is nothing but a complicated web. Thus, this information is a physical manifestation of the intricacies of the Bene Gesserit strategy. Furthermore, it also accentuates the immense control of the Bene Gesserit since they can manipulate even the greatest of aristocracy without revealing the details of their plan. Even Jessica, Bene Gesserit trained, was shielded from the truths of her ancestry until Paul revealed it with his vision.
Reply
Karthik Reddy
8/21/2015 05:09:41 am
The central reason for Herbert's inclusion of that in the story was to further introduce or back up the idea of a Bene Gesserit Breeding Program. It also showed the extent of Paul's powers in his heightened awareness right after the fall of the Atreides and was also a little ironical plot twist. The breeding program was designed to create the Kwisatz Haderach, which we know is Paul. The plot of the book could have advanced without adding that Jessica and Paul were related to the Baron, but it strengthened the plot. It also just shows how magnificent Herbert was in all the lore in the Dune universe that could branch off into other completely different stories.
Reply
Laura Paglicawan
8/11/2015 02:17:27 pm
1. Herbert wonderfully executed the antagonists of Dune, best embodied by the Harkonnen Baron. The Baron exists in the story only to present the protagonist with the obstacle that will allow him to develop explaining why Herbert dedicated only a few chapters from the Baron’s perspective. The Baron exemplifies the quintessential aspects of being a villain: corruption and greed. Besides his motivation reeking of only self- consideration, his outward appearance also fits the archetypical villain with his manner of walking, gluttony showing in his face and body, his laugh, attire, and even his style of speech. This allows the reader to follow the roles and intricacies of the story more closely as the Baron’s characterization acts like a complete opposite to Paul even to the point of accenting it. Moreover, Herbert delivering the Baron’s villainous character with such plainness and straightforwardness played into the main components of the story. For instance, the Bene Gesserit’s core principle is to isolate the human mind from the animal instincts in order to nurture awareness and humanity in the population. That much cannot be said for the Barron who overindulges in meals and is only motivated by his greed. In this, he not only represents the villain but also the savage animal. A remnant of humanity that is to be despised and a path to be discouraged. I feel Herbert perfectly emphasized the fragility of humanity in the face of uncertainty and instability. A feat he accomplished by oversimplifying the Baron’s role as villain.
Reply
Eric Tsai
8/12/2015 05:30:51 am
1. As I was reading Dune, I found myself comparing the antagonist, Baron, to many other villains that appear in different movies that I have watched over the summer. He is given very little attention and not developed much as a character in that respect. Some villains or antiheroes that come to mind are Darren Cross from the recently release Ant-man, Dr. Evil from Austin Powers, or Juntao from the first rendition of Jacky Chan and Chris Tucker's Rush Hour. As these stories progress, we learn very little about these characters. The only key facts that are revealed to us, the audience, are how they plan on ruining or taking over the world as we know it and how they might go about realizing their dream. I do not feel like villains, as characters, need to be developed very much due to the fact that they do not add too much to the plot as a whole. Many stories focus on how the main character, or protagonist, changes and learns to defeat the villain and "save the day" or save the world from impending doom. Herbert does a good job in developing key aspect's of Baron's character, however, like previously mentioned characters like Juntao or Darren Cross. Throughout the course of all of these stories, Dune included, it is revealed to the audience how the villains are greedy and self centered--willing to destroy and take from the world in order to seek personal gain. I feel like although it would've been nice if Herbert included more information about Baron's character, but it doesn't prove necessary to the story or plot as a whole.
Reply
Kerry Furman
8/16/2015 05:42:11 am
1) I think Herbert did a good job overall of constructing the bad guy (The Harkonnens and his cronies). But to be completely honest with you, the enemies in this novel weren't exactly built with a lot of depth, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing, No villain is going to have an extravagant story apart from daddy issues or having a rough childhood most of the time. But Baron Harkonnen just wanted power over the spice and over the people of Arrakis, and if he could get it, the universe. Not much substance to that, really. But the fact that Baron Harkonnen lacked all feeling for living things, such as his mentat Piter, and pretty much anyone else after they'd lost their "use", is showing what a true villain is. Even Feyd Rautha, his nephew, was only cared for because he was going to further Harkonnen's plan. Even if he didn't want to admit it to himself. Herbert gave Harkonnen a very ruthless feeling, which made us scared of him, and of what he would do to the Atreides.
Reply
Caitlyn Nguyen
8/17/2015 05:46:00 am
To me, it all depends on who and what they've done. While some villains get what they deserve, some can't control how they've ended up as a villain. For example, in the Lovely Bones when George Harvey dies, I feel a little bit happy because I witnessed all the pain that Susie's family went through. On the other hand, I do feel somewhat sorry for Gollum from Lord of the Rings. After he is saved by Frodo and Sam he wants to change but the ring kept torturing him. He didn't even want to use the ring for evil. It just kept tempting him and this temptation is what led to his death. It wasn't something he could control but it ended up killing him.
Reply
Hannah Fasching
8/19/2015 10:28:22 am
Kerry, I must agree that I love Voldemort's character, and to answer your question I feel sorry for him. Yes, he is evil and is basically a wizard Hitler but i pity him. Not that I'm saying his actions were justified, because they weren't, but I think of his background and his reasons for becoming who he is. While he and Harry share many similar traits and show that choosing a different path can define you, Tom Riddle was conceived under the effects of a love potion and it is because of this he is incapable of love. Love is ultimately the difference between him and Harry. For some reason this has always saddened me and it is why I come to feel sorry for the small wizard who knew nothing of love and became so dark.
Reply
Elaine Messiha
8/23/2015 11:57:18 am
Villains are my favorite character in any book or movie. No offense to any other characters but the villain is always the one to keep the story interesting. Without them, their would be no need for a hero and world peace would magically appear. Not that I hate world peace, but the idea is unrealistic. There will always be that person throughout our life that likes to see someone else in pain, such as bullies, terrorists, extremists, rapist, and more. And even though I find pleasure seeing them suffer, the feeling only lasts for a minute. Afterwards I just feel bad for them. They, more likely than not, have encountered issues of their own and insecurities that led them to do what the did. Eventually I will began to feel sorry for them because they didn't get the same blessings and opportunities that I've received. Villains aren't the worst thing to happen to any story, they are usually the person that takes the fall for someone else to rise, similar to everyday people in society. And although I personally love to see the villain suffer, if they show even an ounce of humanity, I instantly pity them. I might get hate for this but I even pitied "he who shall not be named." His actions might have been too extreme for his reasoning but we can all get pushed too far.
Reply
Sakshi Shah
8/23/2015 01:39:59 pm
Honestly speaking, I do feel bad for some villains. The reason being that many villains have a terrifying past which impacts who they become in life. Depending on the character, sometimes i'm glad that they died or something really terrible has happened to them, on the other hand, sometimes I feel that everyone deserves a chance to become better no matter how awful their deeds were in the past.
Reply
Albert Chen
8/24/2015 10:10:37 am
For myself, I sometime feel pity toward the villain, but it all depends on the background of the villain. It might be a certain mental disorder that prompted the villain to do the actions. In this case I would feel sympathy towards them. There are times where I think it would be OK if the villain won, but it depends on the stakes and the context. Ultimately it has to be a villain that I already like, not just like as a concept, but actually like as a person.
Reply
Sheila Patel
8/25/2015 11:05:37 am
To me, it depends on the circumstances of the villains actions. Sometimes, when a villain does something evil, it is a result of circumstances they cannot control. For example, Cersei from Game of Thrones has done some pretty horrible things, such as killing children and letting her crazy son, who also happens to be a powerful king, get away with anything. However, the viewer later sees that everything she does is out of love for her family. This makes her pitiful in my eyes. Although she hasn’t died in the series (yet), if/when she dies I think I will feel a bit sad to see her go. Not only is she pitiful, but she’s also such a great influence on the plot.
Reply
Vivan Kothari
8/26/2015 09:01:25 am
I personally believe that my feelings about a villain would be different if I knew their past and the reason behind their destructive motives. For example, Dr. Yueh in Dune became a villain the minute he went over to the Harkonnens' side. But, knowing his past about how the Harkonnens killed his wife led me into thinking that he isn't such a bad guy after all, since he betrayed the Atreides, who had provided him with everything for a long period of his life. Yet, "human nature" does come into picture here, and whatever would happen to Dr. Yueh after he went over to the Harkonnens' side did make me sympathize for him, knowing his dark past. On the other hand, if the villain were someone like Baron Harkonnen, who only desires wealth, fame, and power, I would not feel any pain or sympathy at all considering all his doings. The Baron "indirectly" does kill Paul's father, and actions as such led me into thinking that sympathy should be felt for the Baron after all. The Baron's motives were obviously skewed, focusing on whatever would benefit him and him only, so sympathy would be the last of my emotions that I would feel when relating to the Baron. In the end, Alia kills Baron Harkonnen, and it felt like justice was served due to the cruel, horrendous actions of the Baron himself. To top that off, Baron Harkonnen's own nephew tried to assassinate him because he did not like him as much either. Villains as such, whose family members want to kill them off too, are ones who should deserve whatever comes their way since their past doings would later lead to bite them in their backs. If there is a justified reason for the villain being "the villain", human nature would make me empathize with them, but if the villain's motive is just to conquer and show greed, the sympathy fades away.
Reply
Matthew Nevle
8/26/2015 10:22:56 am
It depends on the villain. Some villains are good people who end up doing bad things because of the circumstances. Lets say for instance the villain was a serial killer who killed the protagonist's family, i would feel nothing when the villain is killed because he had it coming. I'm not superman, I don't believe everyone should be caught and thrown into jail rather than be killed. My view on punishment against villains would lay in the gray area depending on what exactly the villain did and why he did it.
Reply
Caitlyn Nguyen
8/17/2015 05:54:10 am
1. I think the villains in Dune (the Harkonnens) are your typical, cookie cutter bad guys. The Baron is greedy, ruthless, cowardly, sneaky, scheming, just like most all other villains in any other piece of work. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Their role in the novel was to provide a conflict for the protagonists, Paul, the House Atreides, and the Fremen. Though they do not go as in depth as Paul, they serve their purpose, which is to challenge Paul for control of Arrakis and the spices it holds.
Reply
Fariha Ahmed
8/21/2015 09:34:06 pm
Caitlyn, I agree with your opinion as the villains were rather clouded with mystery throughout the whole story. One only gained about a fourth of insight into their thoughts and intentions when reading their sections. But even still, it was evident that they all had the same typical greed that is characteristic of the stereotypical villain. It was rather disappointing of their underdevelopment, but they do serve their purpose. It would have been more pleasing and satisfying if they were more unique, however.
Reply
Janie Hu
8/17/2015 04:59:06 pm
1) Frank Herbert does not spend a whole great deal of time developing his antagonists. The Baron is the blatantly obvious villain in Dune because he is the leader of the Harkonnens, the opposing force of the Atreides House. Throughout the novel, we observe that the center of leadership and power lies with the spice melange. Arrakis is the primary location where all the spice is stored, and logically for a power-hungry antagonist, he will do what it takes to conquer the resource in order to obtain supremacy and universal authority. I think that Herbert came short when it pertained to “the shading and complexity” because we were given a limited scope on the Baron’s thoughts and background story. Reason why I mention background story is due to the fact that villains’ stories bring upon a sense of association between them and us. We can typically relate to fictional characters. Personally to me I believe that a good “bad guy” should tear us apart from the inside out with his devious acts because we, the audience, should be conflicted with the motivation driving his/her actions. We see ourselves in them. There should be a sense of sympathy. Unfortunately, I did not feel any concern for the Baron because he did not possess any dynamic or multidimensional qualities that evoked that much wonder or made me relate to him in any way. I agree with the fact that the Baron is indeed a villain because of his corrupted, cunning, and selfish ways. However, he is not one to go down in history due to his one cardboard cutout characteristics: evil, predictable, and driven by selfish yearnings. Basically, the Baron is a generic antagonist that is like a plain sugar cookie; he is basic and everyone is familiar with that. We all want something new and unique once in a while and this idea applies to our taste in characters as well.
Reply
Marina Zafiris
8/18/2015 11:17:04 am
Specifically with Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, to say that Herbert created a villain I saw depth to would be false. But Herbert did create a character that became almost the physical image of the central conflict of Dune, which I believe is greed, and the greed centered around the lust for Melange. Herbert painted Vladimir as an obese, cunning and cruel dictator that saw pleasure in taking advantage of people, as well as his disgusting sexual desire for young boys. ("I'll be in my sleeping chambers," the Baron said. "Bring me that young fellow we bought on Gamont, the one with the lovely eyes. Drug him well. I don't feel like wrestling.") And this is the moment that Herbert achieved my absolute hatred towards Harkonnen.
Reply
Chelci Harris
8/19/2015 06:11:52 am
Herbert's ability to immediately give his villains villainous characteristics is what persuades me to agree that he is a brilliant villain creator. The first example of this being Baron Vladimir Harkonnen. The Baron's depth is not clear at first. He is introduced as hateful and malicious, detesting the Atriedes family for whatever reason. Similar to any other villain you've ever known. Oh, and fat...as Herbert uses the anaphora of "The fat hand..." to depict his villain. This aspect of Baron Harkonnen reaches it's depth later in the story where the culture of Dune is exposed to be incredibly reliant on spices and water. The fact that the villain doesn't seem to lack either of those shows a deeper drive to his character: greed. Yes, the fat Baron Vladimir Harkonnen is nothing more than the king of greed. It is his greed that feeds his hate, his hate and greed that feed his motivation to deceive and kill, and his deceit and murderousness that move Paul to avenge all lives lost to the greedy, child-lusting monster. You've got to hate a villain that drives your love toward the "hero".
Reply
Suhrin Whang
8/20/2015 07:49:14 am
1. The predominant villain, Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, proves to be one I would classify as a rather flat villain. In the limited chapters he is discussed, the antagonist himself is simply unwise, careless, and troublesome with a lack of charm on top of all that. The head of House Harkonnen clearly sets up the conflict of the novel in which he prepares a devious plan to ruin the Atreides house. His plan is rather simple- using Dr. Yueh as a traitor of the Atreides and then at their most vulnerable state to attack the Duke and his companions. Throughout the rest of the novel, he does not make any progress that could complicate the story. His recklessness allows him to believe that Paul and the Lady Jessica had died. His simplemindedness makes him unable to realize that Alia is clearly Lady Jessica and Duke Leto’s daughter. Moreover, he does not even have suspicion of this newly worshipped, Muad’Dib of the freemen and underestimates the power of freemen altogether. Clearly, we can see that he is not very complex-minded, but rather a simple-minded, power hungry villain. So going back to the question on whether Herbert involves the intensive shading of an antagonist, it is a resounding no. Still, his ignorance and blindness to the obvious, his fatal flaw, could be what makes the story so great. After all, his simplistic character allowed Paul to have the upper hand in their battle since it bought him time to truly become the wise, experienced man he is towards the end of the novel. Herbert made Baron not the well-thought out villain but rather a well-thought out element to serve as a catalyst to the story’s climax and resolution which readers can gladly appreciate as much as they would for a complex villain.
Reply
Arianna Carr
8/23/2015 12:09:58 am
This idea of anti-heroes is interesting and a new realization for me. As Foster explained, these characters are the star of the novel and do not follow the traditional role of good guy. In movies and television, I have actually seen characters like this on more than one occasion (I just never realized they were "anti-heroes). I watch a lot of crime shows, and the star detective is often times corrupt in their own way and do unjust things to accomplish something for the "greater good." For example, a show titled Damages has a main character named Patty Hughes (played by Glenn Close) who is an excellent lawyer in NYC and the best in the field. She fights cases for people who have been unjustly mistreated by major corporations. However, this woman's life is so dysfunctional, and her hard-core, "do anything it takes" type personality drives her to do some cruel and despicable things to accomplish her agenda. She is someone I would classify as a superior anti-hero.
Reply
Fariha Ahmed
8/21/2015 09:30:31 pm
1) From my perspective, it would seem that Frank Herbert put much more effort and thought into developing the personas and identities of other characters, like Jessica and Paul for example, than into developing that of Baron Vladimir. I only say this because throughout the three different sub-books within this one giant novel, the Baron only received a fraction of the chapter devoted to his perspective or following his actions. And the rare occasion that one did encounter a chapter that was focused on him, he was portrayed as doing sort of the same old "villainy" actions each and every time. On the contrasting side, however, each time the focus was put onto Paul Atreides and his life course, Paul was found engaging in unique and completely contrasting activities each time. This made Paul a much more interesting character to read and follow. This feat is different as usually the villain is the interesting and unique character to read about, that is, with all his flaws and evil plans and all. The antagonist in this case was made rather a background character, instead. There was a villain present in the story line, simple for the sake of having a villain present in the story line. Nothing about Baron Vladimir makes him stand out.
Reply
Gordon Chen
8/22/2015 03:30:40 pm
In my opinion, Baron Vladimir Harkonnen is probably the most overrated antagonist presented. Yes, even though his intentions were to destroy the Atreides family, the one responsible for all mishaps is the Padishah Emperor himself. The Emperor was the person behind the scenes, manipulating the stage to make his perfect play. The spice called Melange developed the Emperors obsession to protect his precious, disregarding human life. As the Atreides family becomes more superior as the ruling house, fear consumes the Emperor's mind. And with fear, the Emperors develop the decision to destroy the Atreides house, so no ruling house becomes over superior than the Emperor. We the reader can believe that the Emperor is nothing near to being complex, but equally simple as they can find. The Emperors purpose of acting behind the panorama is to not draw his hands dirty, but leaving others to manage the job for him. In this case, allowing Baron Vladmir Harkonnen taking out the Atreides family.
Reply
Skyler Williams
8/23/2015 03:31:54 am
While it is true that the Baron was a prominent antagonist in the story, I would say the biggest "bad-guy" of the story was the Harkonnen House. Herbert did dedicated sizable portions of the story to development of the Baron and his nephew, the more whole part of the story focuses on the protagonists and how they defeat "the Harkonnens", not always specifically the Baron. I also agree with what some others said earlier: the Baron was not particularly an interesting bad guy. He was definitely disgusting, but still not very memorable. Another bad guy of the story seems to be the Emperor. He is deceitful and traitorous, and I was over excited when Paul and the Fremen conquer his party and Paul takes his daughter to have the throne. Beautiful.
Reply
Phillip Valdecanas
8/23/2015 07:20:08 am
1. The antagonists in Dune are mainly the Harkonnens, including the Baron. Because the Baron is part of the Harkonnen house, he is an accurate representation of the Harkonnen house as a whole. The Baron is undeniably a villain. This is seen through the description of his appearance, his actions, and his desires. These aspects come together to successfully create a villain that is three dimensional. The baron is depicted as grossly overweight. His mannerisms are crude and unrefined and his voice is deep and daunting. He is unethical in his actions regarding the manipulation of others in politics and also with sexual desires. Furthermore, he does not withhold from selfish desires. There are no boundaries when it comes to furthering himself towards his greedy desires of power and wealth. His intelligence and cunning instincts do not fall short in his villainous motives. As a well developed villain his weaknesses and shortcomings are also apparent. For example, it is stated that a liaison was able to seduce him, resulting in a secret daughter. Thusly, one of the Baron's vices relates to the inability to abstain from sexual desires. In addition, the Baron vividly exhibits a personality fit for a villain, He has a twisted humor and a disregard for the well beings of others, even his close associates such as Piter, The Baron's thoughts often consist of devious plotting and humor for the suffering and downfall of others, with his success as the ultimate goal.
Reply
Stephanie You
8/23/2015 07:56:04 am
For me, Frank Herbert fell flat in developing the villains, namely the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen. I prefer villains to have a reason for committing acts that the audience finds so horrible. I believe that villains are not born villains, so if the story does not present any reasoning behind the evilness, I cannot consider the villain three-dimensional. They are there purely to provide conflict. Everything Herbert does in the novel regarding the baron only serves to further incriminate him as a downright evil, power-hungry villain because there is no backstory. For example, Herbert mentions how the baron likes to take advantage of slave boys in the bedroom, but there is no reasoning behind this. To me, it does not make the baron complex because this tells me nothing about the baron except that he is repulsive, which I already knew. In How to Read Novels Like a Professor, Thomas C. Foster always comments on how it is the reader’s responsibility to determine meaning if the author is particularly subtle about something. I just do not think that Herbert provided enough information for even the readers to figure out what makes the baron so greedy and awful.
Reply
Sahib Chandnani
8/23/2015 10:23:05 am
Herbert's antagonist(s) are dispersed far and wide throughout the novel. Paul finds enemies in Stilgar, the Emperor, Feyd-Rautha, his mentors, and any other person in he comes in contact with outside his own house. The most prominent and "antangonist-y" is the Baron, but even he only comes to know about Paul's survival much later. However, every enemy of Paul's is a carefully crafted figure that test's Paul in different ways. Feyd-Rautha for example tests Paul's fighting ability. The Emperor tests Paul's mettle as a military leader and to some extent a diplomat on behalf of the Fremen people. Every character Paul comes into contact with serves some purpose in the grand web of destinies that Paul attempts to control. They test him in ways that make him better, but also serve as obstacles to achieving his goals like any good antagonist should. Regardless of complexity, they serve their unique purposes so it is two thumbs up for Frank Herbert's antagonists from me.
Reply
Carter Heard
8/26/2015 01:22:23 pm
I agree with Sahib in that the Baron is not the only antagonist so he does not have to be three dimensional. The protagonist of the story is Paul and he is challenged by more than just the Baron throughout the book. Like Sahib said the Emperor is a perfect example of this. What is so great about the book is that wherever Paul goes there is always someone there to challenge his in a certain way and that helps intensify and add action to the story. Paul faces many trials and tribulations in the novel and the result of them really define him as a character.
Reply
Carter Heard
8/26/2015 01:22:58 pm
I agree with Sahib in that the Baron is not the only antagonist so he does not have to be three dimensional. The protagonist of the story is Paul and he is challenged by more than just the Baron throughout the book. Like Sahib said the Emperor is a perfect example of this. What is so great about the book is that wherever Paul goes there is always someone there to challenge his in a certain way and that helps intensify and add action to the story. Paul faces many trials and tribulations in the novel and the result of them really define him as a character.
Reply
Ragini Kondetimmanahalli
8/27/2015 11:31:43 am
I also agree. A villain doesn't necessarily have to be three dimensional. At the core of every evil character is greed. All their actions are driven by greed and are inherently self-centered. Also, because there are so many antagonists in the novel, like Yueh when he betrays the Atreides, Herbert doesn't necessarily focus on making the Baron a dynamic character.
Elaine Messiha
8/23/2015 11:44:16 am
Herbert never really mentions his ulterior motives and what really fuels his actions. Readers do not fully know what exactly he has against the House Atreides, or what could have possibly happened in his childhood that is driving his actions, or if his ancestors were betrayed by the Atreides; the possibilities are endless. However, this adds depth to the story because as Foster states in How to Read Novels Like a Professor, characters are only developed to an extent that readers can understand and relate to. There's no need or time to describe the Baron's entire life story and all the workings of his mind. Readers are left to interpret the story and fill in the blanks to characters in accordance to our own life experiences and knowledge; this is what makes each novel unique and different to each person's perspective. As previous comments have stated, I definitely feel like a villain is considered a "good villain" by their impact on memory. Personally, like Smrithi, I think memorable villains are people who scare us and frighten the depths of our souls. In one of my favorite Disney movies, Snow White, the Evil Queen would have to be my favorite villain of all time. Her hate for Snow White led her to do despicable things that are malicious but not shocking. Her name is the Evil Queen, it was no surprise she was evil, but the actions she took to become the fairest in the land showed desire and jealousy, two characteristics that leave her looking human.
Reply
Really though
8/23/2015 03:42:16 pm
Hey Elaine!
Reply
Hannah Fasching
8/28/2015 10:47:58 am
Elaine, I really love that you tapped into the world of Disney villains. The Evil Queen is a favorite of mine and I was always disturbed how she wanted Snow's heart cut out and placed into a box for her to keep. If we're discussing Disney villains, my all time favorite is Mother Gothel from Tangled. I love how it takes a few times of watching it to realize the love she has for Rapunzel is based solely on her hair, whenever she kisses her, it is only on her hair Whenever she is "protecting" her she really is only caring for her magical hair. These are things you don't notice until afterwards, and I really appreciated how well her true evil was disguised,
Reply
Sakshi Shah
8/23/2015 01:30:46 pm
Talking about Baron feels like a drag because there isn’t much he gives to the book. His role is limited and therefore I think he does not make a good villain. He has his peaks when he acts ruthless in a couple parts of the books but mostly throughout the novel Baron seems to play a “regular” villain. His act seems predictable and he could be harsher. I believe that Herbert does not do justice to his antagonists because they lack nuance. One of my all time favorite villain has to be Plankton from SpongeBob SquarePants. Plankton does everything a good villain should; he tricks people, tries to steal and fails miserably, destroy Krusty Krab and last but not least rule Bikini Bottom.
Reply
Chandni Patel
8/23/2015 02:16:06 pm
The Baron Vladimir Harkonnen is the story’s antagonist, however I do not believe he is developed into a three dimensional character. He is portrayed as a political villain, striking the weaknesses of his enemies to gain power. He shows malevolent behavior by going after Paul and Jessica after killing the Duke. The Baron isn’t developed well throughout the book, largely, in my opinion, because he makes his minions do his dirty work. The Baron wants his hands clean when the Emperor’s men start questioning him about his involvement of the killing of the Duke. The Baron is shown as a greedy and self-centered villain killing for his benefit and increase in power. The Baron goes to the extent of setting up his own nephew, Rabban, as the fall out guy. Overall, his character remains flat because he lacks depth as a well-rounded villain.
Reply
Kasey Zhang
8/23/2015 02:18:04 pm
1. I think that the Baron is not as three-dimensional as he could possibly be. His only motivation for controlling the planet Arrakis is for the power of the spice, and he seems to do nothing else in his free time than to discuss with his nephew and Mentat about his plans. I think that true villains must be complex and have a back story to which can explain his hate towards the Atreides and his constant methods of betrayal. It does not seem like he does much to ensure his power, except to get rid of those that threaten him. The lack of content focused on the Baron makes me believe that Herbert did not truly give his antagonist the complexity they deserved and that he existed in order to give Paul an obstacle to dismiss.
Reply
Matthew Nevle
8/25/2015 08:45:22 am
I don't believe there really is any answer to any of these questions. What may be moral to someone may be immoral to someone else. A common example would be the sick mother and her son. Would it be wrong for him to steal medication if it was the only way to save her life? While stealing would be considered immoral, trying to save his mother would be the moral thing to do. A villain isn't defined by the things they do, but instead a persons point of view.
Reply
Viren Joopelli
8/25/2015 01:38:36 pm
I think the answer to your question is contingent on the degree of the evil deed and the degree of what they desire. For example, if somebody desired a diamond, and stole that diamond, killing people in the process, then I would definitely not consider that reasonable. This, as Matthew said, it is difficult to answer this question. Evaluating moral dilemmas depends on a variety of factors; there is no simple yes or no answer, and there is no correct answer. For the situation of Dr. Yueh specifically, I would not consider him a villain. He was justified in trying to find his wife, and he did intend to kill the Baron, who is unarguably evil. Granted, he knew Leto would die in the process, and perhaps this was a questionable decision, but that is a gray area. Looking from a utilitarian perspective, Dr. Yueh made the right decision, as the net result would be positive.
Reply
Albert Chen
8/24/2015 09:40:18 am
1.The main antagonist in Dune, Baron Vladimir Harkonnen has many characteristics that explains him as a three dimensional character. Herbert did a good job in portraying the villain in the novel. He is selfish, horrendous, and contains all the aspects of a villain. His motivations are always self-centered, and he intentionally set up the failure of his own nephew. This is no different than life where there are always people who only care about themselves. This allows the Baron to be viewed as a complex villain in Dune.
Reply
Elaine Wood
8/25/2015 09:02:22 am
The Baron is definitely an interesting specimen to behold -- giant fat rolls held up by suspensors, "spider-black" eyes. His appearance is almost laughable. He is actually described as having "protruding lips", "a beringed hand", and "fat-enfolded eyes" (33). He is deceitful to everyone with few exceptions and definitely not my ideal role model. In my opinion, his gluttonous appearance, while emphasizing his character, detracts from the fear that villains such as Bellatrix Lestrange impose on the reader. However, the Baron is not entirely without a twist in his character that shocks the reader. The Baron exposes himself as gay and interested in a boy that resembled the appearance of the young Paul Atreides. Yet despite this last twist, the Baron lacks the alluring character given that is described in Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov.
Reply
Sheila Patel
8/25/2015 10:41:11 am
Frank Herbert certainly knows how to make his villains evil. The Baron Harkonnen is easy to hate because of his cruel actions. However, the villains of Dune are still pretty shallow. All we know about them is that they are abhorrent people. The Baron Harkonnen is a corrupt politician, as well as a rapist, murderer, and slave owner. What’s not to hate? But Herbert never explains his backstory. He never displays the Baron when he isn’t being evil Herbert never displays the Baron’s nicer side. We are never charmed by him because of his complete lack of charisma and humor. The reader never has even a millisecond of understanding for him. He exists only as an antagonist and as a foil to Duke Leto.
Reply
Noah Lee
8/28/2015 09:01:36 am
. Yueh definitely falls into the “bad guy” category, but he's not the most interesting character in the world. An excerpt from the books written by princess Irulan even reads “Yueh! Yueh! Yueh!' goes the refrain. 'A million deaths were not enough for Yueh!”. But while he falls into that category, he does not fit the stereotypical traitor of modern literature. Traitors of great epics, however, fit the bill far better, and I find them often a lot more compelling and interesting. Brutus from Julius Caesar ends up being one of the most famous traitors of all time, but just like Dr. Yueh, finds an outlet in which to be noble at the very end. Dr. Yueh not only equips the Duke with a concealed tooth containing poison for the Baron, but also takes measures to ensure the safety of Paul and his mother Jessica. Another comparable figure from an epic would be Anakin Skywalker of Star Wars, aka Darth Vader. While he does move to the dark side and become an undeniably disliked character, elements of his story cause the audience to sympathize with him, for example the loss he experienced when he thought that his lover had died. This is an emotion the audience can connect with, similar to Dr. Yueh's concerns over his wife, whether she is dead or in a prison suffering remains unknown to him, but either way the outcome will cause grief. An evil character in the form of Dr. Yueh serves another purpose to the novel, not just as an attraction for reader interest. Paul's character becomes far more defined as the novel continues, and he assumes an authoritative position, reaching greater and greater heights and gathering more and more support and authority as a leader. These changes start not as he tries to seize power, but as others around him work towards his well being. Dr. Yueh is one of the first to offer such sacrifice to the young Paul, with Idaho following shortly after. These tragic events signify the power shift from the Duke Leto to Paul, even more so than the death of the old Duke. While the death of Leto results in the title being passed on to Paul, it is in the actions of characters around the young boy that mark the passage into his adulthood and the power that he amasses. The mark of leadership is shown in the followers, not the leader. Additionally, this reinforces the difference between the Atreides stlye of leadership and the Harkonnen's. So while a character like Yueh is not particularly interesting, I appreciate his contributions to the story as a character.
Reply
Pranidhi Dadhaniya
8/25/2015 11:35:24 am
1. Unfortunately, I did not find the Baron to be a compelling and thrilling villain in this novel. Although the Baron displays despicable acts of evil such as desiring his own nephew to miserably fail as well as greed and murder, he lacks complexity. Personally, I like to be able to understand why a villain is the way he is. Because the Baron lacks this path of development into a villain, he lacks realism to me. It simply does not make sense that a person wakes up and just decides to be evil for no reason. Thus, I wish that Herbert had provided us with a backstory about the Baron and had explained the aspects of his life that have shaped him into the person he is. Moreover, in my opinion, the Baron acted too much as a puppeteer. For the most part, other Harkonnens usually committed the acts of evil while he remained backstage. For this reason, he did not drive a strong sense of fear or hatred within me.
Reply
Nithin Kakulavaram
8/27/2015 09:08:43 am
First and foremost, great post Pranidhi, in regards to your opinions on the Baron, my outlooks are mixed. Yes, I would have also liked a backstory, concerning the Baron, to show the upbringing to his evil being, as this is a very critical aspect of the novel that is lacking. However, the novel is written in a third person omniscient narrative, and focuses mostly on Paul. Therefore, at the end of the day, Baron Harkonnen is just another antagonist in the novel who happens to serve the purpose of being the primary obstacle to the protagonist, Paul Atreides. In this situation, it is irrelevant as to where the Baron has come from and what has shaped him into the character he is. What matters is that, the reader realizes who the leader of the Harkonnens is, the antagonist, and what his intentions are against Paul. Once again, outstanding post, I just wanted to state my opinion.
Reply
Vibhav Joopelli
8/25/2015 11:39:15 am
How well do you feel that Herbert handles this crucial aspect of the story in Dune? Does he give his antagonists the shading and complexity they deserve, or do you feel that they lack nuance? Beyond that, who's your all-time favorite villain of film, literature, etc., and why? What makes them unique, and why do you find them particularly compelling? Discuss amongst yourselves.
Reply
Jason Tran
8/27/2015 10:58:32 am
I like your view of the antagonists being Paul at one point in the novel which is interesting. However, I disagree with the statement that Herbert gives the antagonist depth and complexity. I felt as though Herbert did not make the antagonist's’ motives convincing and compelling enough. If the background of the antagonist's’ motives were more complex and had greater depth and connection to the story, that would make the antagonist more memorable.
Reply
Brittany Xiao
8/25/2015 11:46:47 am
Dune is a fantastic novel in almost all fronts, so the author's failure to create a well-rounded main villain is surprising though not very detracting from the reader's enjoyment of the novel. The major bad guy, Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, has no clear good him and nothing to sympathize with. He is greedy, power-hungry, cruel, manipulative, dishonest, and a molester. He does not even have a back story that can somewhat "explain" his terrible actions and personality. I appreciate a villain that commits definite evil crimes, but still makes the reader feel a bit bad for them when they receive the punishment they deserve. But the Baron is not this type of villain, eliminating the potential richness and complexity Herbert could have added to the novel.
Reply
Kelly Fan
8/25/2015 12:23:09 pm
In Dune, the most obvious antagonist or "villain" has to be the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen. He fears the popularity of Duke Leto and thirsts for immense power and fortune. Furthermore, his greed is even reflected through his appearance-extreme obesity. From his intentions to aesthetic, the Baron seems to simply be an all-around evil character. Though Herbert never gives him any specific positive traits, readers are still able to empathize with the Baron. The reason behind this is simple. Just like how Paul is on his journey to avenge his father and family for a better future, the Baron seeks a superior lifestyle for himself as well. Sure, his method of doing so takes form as a malicious scheme, but the idea is still the same. In this sense, I feel like Herbert did just enough for this character as the role of a villain. Without even having to create any type of sympathy for the Baron, readers are able to understand why he is the way he is, just as Foster stated in How to Read Novels Like a Professor. When it comes down to it, villains are about gaining the readers' acceptance rather than sympathy or dread.
Reply
Maher Rahman
8/25/2015 12:25:41 pm
Herbert handles the antagonist portion in a different way than I expected and hoped for. Though some say he handles it well, it doesnt sit right with me, as the Baron Harkonnen and the Emperor, dont feel very "powerful" if you will near the end. They are powerful in the beginning, terrorizing paul, Killing his father and basically wiping out the entire House Atreides. The baron's intentions are tied around his thirst for power, and that he will stop at nothing to get what he wants. The only problem that I have, is that in a story that is war based, and combat based with many fights, where paul has to prove himself through combat, The main enemy being the baron, who can barely walk doesnt seem right. Perhaps if the bad guy was someone like Duncan Idaho, a sword master who would offer a worthy final fight for Paul, Like Luke Vs. Darth Vader did. all in all however, the Baron is evil and a fitting villain, as though he wasnt powerful physically, his power lie in his policital schemes.
Reply
Gabrielle Humphrey
8/25/2015 01:06:30 pm
1. Herbert effectively made the Baron Harkonnen an active participant in the story itself, enabling the readers a closer look at his actions. Rather than being a distant and mysterious threat, he helps to develop the plot. With this being said though, I think he does lack dimension and extensive characterizations which allow us a look at who he truly is. There is a lot of focus on his plot to take over Arrakis and his overall pursuit of control, but we learn little about why he does this beyond the desire for power. Overall this results in the Baron existing solely for the sake of antagonism that provides conflict to move the story forward. His entire existence rests not on the need for a developed character, but rather, solely upon the fact that without conflict there is no extensive plot or action that makes Dune so intriguing. Ultimately, I felt that the story would have been able to form a greater emotional connection with it’s audience if it focused more on the characterization of both sides of the dichotomy of good and evil it presents. I continually found myself wanting to know the drive behind his own motivation, because no one kills and manipulates so malevolently without a reason. With Arrakis being such an intricately designed world, with a history and tradition of its own, additional characterization truly would have contributed to the development of the idea that the Harkonnen house is a true threat - not simply due to the dark actions of its present, but the dark past behind it.
Reply
Carter Heard
8/25/2015 01:13:44 pm
We never really find out the true story around the baron's past and what led him to become the person he is in the book. All the reader can tell about him is that he is a power hungry leader of the Harkonnens. Although the baron is not a true three dimensional character, I believe that Herbert succeeded in creating an antagonist that advances the plot and fits well in the story. Throughout the book the baron is working ruthlessly to become the emperor and the reader knows that he and the Harkonnens are working against the House Atreides, who the book is mainly about. I feel like Herbert did a good job in that the baron is filled with greed and wants all of the power but in the end it is Paul who ends up with it. The baron provides an appropriate motive for Paul to become an favorable protagonist and adds to the pace of the story.
Reply
Viren Joopelli
8/25/2015 01:17:55 pm
1. Personally, I don’t think that the Baron is a very three-dimensional character. The inherent flaw that results in this is that the Baron has no ultimate reason for being evil. Of course, he is greedy and hungry for power, but why? We are never told this, and thus it is difficult to argue that the Baron is a character with depth. As Thomas Foster even argues in HTRNLAP, to truly understand and develop a character, we must look into their deepest desires and motives. Some villains had troubled childhoods, some villains seek revenge; all good villains have some reason, some type of justification for being the way they are. The Baron, however, was simply someone born into excess and one who only seeks excess. There is no ultimate justification for him being the greedy, power-hungry, ugly soul that he is, and thus, I do not believe he was a very well constructed villain.
Reply
Sahiti Rudravajhala
8/25/2015 02:00:50 pm
1.In Dune, the villain, Baron Harkonnen, is not a villain a typical antagonist. I do not believe that Herbert was able to do justice to the character. The character he had developed was less than three-dimensional. He is constantly portrayed as a character with a need for power and bloodshed. Although this may seem to pique some interest, this is not even a fraction of what a fully developed villain would look like. While the rift between the Harkonnens and the Atreides is very much alive, there was not a full development of the villain’s perspective. In my opinion, every villain has some sort of back story or pity story that leads us to somehow connect with him despite his antagonistic qualities. In Dune, Herbert is not able to give us that connection and just portrays the villain without giving us a whole lot to go on.
Reply
Brandon Pham
8/25/2015 02:10:51 pm
In Dune, I feel that Herbert made the main villains actually pretty flat. First example, Baron Harkonnen. He is probably the most three dimensional of all the villains of the book. He is the father of Jessica and grandfather of Paul. He is as cunning as he is fat. He is a master of deception, tricking men into doing his bidding. He requires suspensors to support his weight. His sexual appetite consists of young men. Nextm his nephew, Beast Rabban is a cruel and violent man and rules through fear and terror. The other nephew, Feyd-Rautha is a more sadistic but has more charisma, preferring cruelty in a more subtle manner. All these traits are to establish them as the nastiest human beings alive, but there is not much else the reader can feel towards them. A rounded and three-dimensional character is complex and undergoes development. The Harkonnens do not change at all and there is no sympathy to be felt for them in their death.
Reply
Vivan Kothari
8/26/2015 08:46:35 am
The concept of villains keeps any novel more interesting and surprising. They can add "spice" to a novel that makes the plot intense and "on the edge of your seat". Similarly, Frank Herbert accomplished this quite efficiently in Dune with his addition of the main antagonist, Baron Harkonnen, into the novel. Herbert does a splendid job giving the Baron the complexity of a villain by making the plot more intense through his actions. His unique "villainous" personality kept readers dialed in to the novel and his doings kept everyone in awe. Every time the Baron entered in a scene in the novel, the intensity of the events happening in the novel increased, like when the Sardaukar and him wipe out the army on Arrakis according to his orders. The way he presented himself every time he entered the novel took everyone by storm and the actions he committed after that were what made the novel more interesting. Another example can be seen when Thufir Hawat was suddenly assassinated by Baron Harkonnen, which made Herbert's readers skeptical about any and every move of his after doing such a shocking thing. His selfish, greedy, and bloated personality also made him unique to read about, keeping the readers glued to the novel.
Reply
Kartik Talwar
8/27/2015 12:42:36 pm
I think that all memorable villains from literature and movies all are like that because of past events in their lives. Two prime examples are Raoul Silva from James Bond: Sky Fall and Voldemort/ Tom Riddle from Harry Potter. Silva has been considered one of the greatest James Bond villains of all times, and he wanted to destroy the MI6 because of how they left him for dead when he was an agent. This is what caused the anger and resentment to grow inside him. Voldemort is a bit different because he was broken from when he was a child and his hunger for power and dominance over the wizard world grew as he got older and stronger.
Reply
Hussain Azeem
8/26/2015 10:47:23 am
1. I believe that the baron is not a three diminutional character because of the lack of knowledge on his background but he docent have to be because he fits perfectly as the antagonist of this story. He is power hungry and greedy and will do anything to become the emperor meaning he will kill anyone in his way. And by killing the Duke the author gives Paul a great motive in restoring peace to his house and becoming emperor to stop this war.
Reply
Hannah Fasching
8/26/2015 11:07:08 am
Personally, I wish Herbert had given more insight into his life and backstory. It suffices the story's needs but for me I like to know just why antagonists are the way they are. That being said, Voldemort is my all time favorite villain because there's so much content on his past life and rise to power. We might not sympathize with him but at least we can see why he is the way he is and I feel like that gives readers good closure.
Reply
David Hartman
8/26/2015 11:23:27 am
1.) I believe that Herbert developed an antagonist who was capable of malice. However, the antagonist I speak of, Baron Harkonnen, was not in my mind a proper villain. The Baron was a quite complex individual, no doubt about that. The traits that are generally regarded as ‘villainous qualities’ were indeed present in this character’s persona. To characterize the baron in a few words, I regard him as a jaded, inhuman individual who seemed to feel animosity towards nearly everything and everyone around him. It is this intense hatred and disgust for those surrounding him that makes me say he is not a proper villain. His motivation was primarily for monetary gain, or to attain some sort of power. His hoarding of the spice shows humanistic quality such as greed and his obesity, gluttony. However, the Baron is inhumane for Herbert failed to provide something which would retrain his ruthlessness. The malice goes unchecked throughout the novel and there is not much that the Harkonnen wouldn’t give to satisfy his own selfish desires.
Reply
David Hartman
8/26/2015 11:25:30 am
*restrain his ruthlessness
Reply
Nikki
8/26/2015 11:45:42 am
First, I personally love that you mentioned Humbert Humbert from Lolita because its important to realize Humbert is a character we sympathize with due to the fact that the novel is written from his perspective. This crazy man with beautiful, eloquent, flowing words chooses what he wants us readers to hear which makes him the full fleshed, mad evil pervert of a villain he is. The enemies from Dune? Much less. First, lets talk about Kynes. Oh Kynes, you could have been so great. From the beginning of the book we know Kynes is the traitor and theres no doubting that but as the book goes on we see that he changes and risks his life (and dies) for Paul and Jessica albeit he still kills the Duke. However he had his redemption and the little we know of him, from his perspective on Arrakis to him imagining his father towards his death all leads to him being probably the best "antihero" of Dune. Semi fleshed. Now the Baron? C'mon. What do we know of him. Hes fat, hes corrupted, he only cares about himself and he wants to kill the Atredies. So what? When Alia finally killed him, we were MORE than revealed. Ding Dong the witch is dead. Which of course, is great, considering the author succeeded in making us hate a character, but thats it. How did he gain control of Arrakis in the first place? Why did the emperor, the strongest man, choose him? Whats his backstory at ALL? All I ask is for a little more on this burly man. The one interesting fact I LOVED learning was that he was Jessicas father. Whoa. Plot twist girl, the Harkonnens you hate so much? You got that blood in you. Hes a good flat villain, and he gives the tension the book wants, but not what the book needs.
Reply
Elaine Messiha
8/27/2015 07:03:21 am
In Dune, I felt that Herbert handles the villains he makes with a lot of intensity. The one we think of first is of course the Baron, but he seems the most underdeveloped to me. We know he's malicious and devious and fat beyond belief but to me that is all he is. Nothing really interests me about the Baron and I felt that Herbert could've really have the Baron a little more of a back story or a better motive. He was a great villain and a crucial aspect to the story but I think that Herbert did great with describing Dr. Yueh. He is not a villain in a sense that he wants to destroy everything and everyone but he betrayed his house, and to me that's good enough to make it on any villain list. He was malicious, yet sincere when it came time to chose between kill or spare the lives of Jessica and Paul. He was complicated, his I guess is what I loved most about his character in the novel. He isn't your typical bad guy, blood crazy villain but he had a personality that made you think twice about what category to set him in. In one of my favorite Disney movies, Snow White, the Evil Queen would have to be my favorite villain of all time. Her hate for Snow White led her to do despicable things that are malicious but not shocking. Her name is the Evil Queen, it was no surprise she was evil, but the actions she took to become the fairest in the land showed desire and jealousy, two characteristics that leave her looking human.
Reply
Albert Chen
8/27/2015 07:31:13 am
1.The main antagonist in Dune, Baron Vladimir Harkonnen has many characteristics that explains him as a three dimensional character. Herbert did a good job in portraying the villain in the novel. He is selfish, horrendous, and contains all the aspects of a villain. His motivations are always self-centered, and he intentionally set up the failure of his own nephew. This is no different than life where there are always people who only care about themselves. This allows the Baron to be viewed as a complex villain in Dune.
Reply
Albert Chen
8/27/2015 07:31:48 am
1.The main antagonist in Dune, Baron Vladimir Harkonnen has many characteristics that explains him as a three dimensional character. Herbert did a good job in portraying the villain in the novel. He is selfish, horrendous, and contains all the aspects of a villain. His motivations are always self-centered, and he intentionally set up the failure of his own nephew. This is no different than life where there are always people who only care about themselves. This allows the Baron to be viewed as a complex villain in Dune.
Reply
Quyn Westfall
8/27/2015 08:44:53 am
I disagree with your claim that the villains are three dimensional because they lack any sort of internal conflict. They are the classic Victorian villain without any redeeming qualities. As Foster put it in How to Read Novels Like a Professor, the villains are just villains, nothing more. Although Herbert does show great depth in Paul, the Harkonenns fail to exhibit anything other than malice and greed.
Reply
Quyn Westfall
8/27/2015 08:43:15 am
1. I think Herbert makes his villains very two - dimensional. They are portrayed as evil without any redeeming qualities. The Baron actually molests young boys and cast off the Atreides for his own personal gain. He doesn't have some sort of internal struggle throughout the novel, he simply does the evil acts and finds joy in it. Not only this but he harbors evil in others, for example his new general of his army. the baron chose him because the baron knew that he had a drug addiction and coulf gain from that. The other villain, Feyd - Rautha, who rapes women and finds joy in killing people. None of them ever have any sort of internal struggle to enhance their character.
Reply
Geo Aickareth
8/27/2015 09:17:23 am
Because Dune was set in such an immense setting I don’t believe Frank Herbert played up to expectations. The science fiction future that Paul lives in clearly asks for a complex villain who must be able to have different characteristics that allow him to be a formidable foe. In my opinion, Herbert gave the readers a villain that was repulsive, but didn’t provide the readers with a great reason to resent him. The author used the physical properties of the Baron (his fatness) to make readers look down upon him, which worked to a sense, but didn’t anger the readers enough.
Reply
Sarah Thomas
8/27/2015 10:23:32 am
I partly disagree with you. He is presented as repulsive, yes, but there is more to it. If you read carefully, you can see that he is pretty much a pedophile. He purchases sex slaves. That makes me resent him. He also kills of people at his own pleasure. I understand where you are coming from, but I still believe that Baron was a vastly immoral villain. The reader is not given a solid reason as to why he acts the way he does, but either way, it is more than his physical appearance, in my opinion.
Reply
Robin Dimaunahan
8/27/2015 09:18:13 am
With the division into two houses, I think Herbert offered a simplistic way to characterize the good and the bad throughout the novel. Furthermore he described the Baron as gluttonous in appearance suggesting a greedy and insatiable nature.
Reply
Hannah Fasching
8/28/2015 10:56:03 am
Robin, to answer your question I would have to say what makes a villain is their "personal touch". For example, Heath Ledger's Joker is known for his facial movements, as well as facial paint, and his particular voice. The Joker is nothing without these things, for they make him the great villain he is. Any other guy doing what he does is just a thug; yet with these certain trademark touches he becomes a great villain to be remembered.
Reply
Alex Wong
8/27/2015 09:37:20 am
1). The Baron is the main antagonist in Dune yet he is a fairly simple, stereotypical villain who is vile, greedy, selfish, and filled with malice. He is a easy to understand because he lacks complexity in his actions. Throughout the novel, the Baron is motivated by personal gains and is willing to do anything to ensure that he succeeds in his conquest of self-fulfillment in avarice and power. The fact that we know very little about the Baron’s past in the novel also adds to his simplicity. However, the Baron suits the novel and serves his purpose as the main antagonist well, he sets up the counteracting force that Paul must fight against through the novel. Overall, Herbert’s choice in the development of the Baron gives the novel an antagonist without adding too much detail that distracts from the novel’s progression.
Reply
Chi Phu
8/27/2015 09:39:56 am
I think Frank Herbert didn't really develop the villain as three-dimensional as the character should be. The villain of this book is clearly stated in the very beginning of the book. Throughout the book Baron is only described as greedy, self-centered and careless of what other people wants. But that's all the description Baron is going to get through out the story. For me I like the antagonist to be developed more throughout the story rather than laying everything out front and letting the character stays the same from the beginning to the end.
Reply
Seamus Gildea
8/27/2015 09:46:46 am
1. The Baron Harkonnen is a relatively vague antagonist in the novel Dune, but Paul is fighting against more than just the Baron. If the Baron would have been set up as his primary adversary, he would have killed him, not Alia. Paul is fighting against fate and a world that is determined to fight each other to extinction, the Baron just happens to be leading that movement and have targeted the Atreides family.
Reply
Sarah Thomas
8/27/2015 10:07:55 am
In Dune, the separation of good and evil is pretty obvious, since there are houses representing each. In result of this, the villains are given more attention than some in other books. For example, we have an explanation of the Harkonnen house, as well as the Atreides, allowing the reader to have a better understanding of them both. Herbert does a good job at fulfilling this essential part in the base of a story. On the other hand, Herbert does not actually go into depth on the reasoning behind Baron Vladimir Harkonnen’s hatred towards Duke Leto. He simply tells the audience that the Harkonnens abhor the Atreides, and will do anything and everything in order to get rid of them. Herbert should have revealed to the reader how their past encounters may have affected their present problems. Overall, believe that the villains lack the depth that they deserve.
Reply
Hoorain Momin
8/27/2015 10:32:14 am
1) I think that Frank Herbert did an alright job in developing our main antagonist, Harkonnen. Herbert did not really give him an extra three dimension that I expected. Usually when I read a book, which has an antagonist, at some point the book I start to feel for their character. As for this book, it would have been nice to actually feel for him. The only thing we knew about him was that he was our villain, and got his "minions" to do his dirty work for him. We were introduced to him from the very beginning and i feel that that was what made him an ordinary character.
Reply
Shaheen Khimani
8/27/2015 10:36:31 am
1. Given that there is more than one villain portrayed in the novel, I think Herbert lacks to add the certain depth and complexity that is needed to create a well-developed antagonist. Herbert characterizes the entire house of Harkonnen as the dark side, seeking to overtake the house of Atreides and cause destruction. The Baron, however, is portrayed as the head of the house of Harkonnen and the central villain. However, he too isn’t given the proper characterization that his role demands. In order to fit the role of an antagonist and execute it well, the Baron’s character requires more intensity. Instead, his character is adequate. There’s nothing too particularly special about him and holds no special talent that differentiates him from the rest of the countless villains out there in the world of literature. In fact, he fits into your average image of a power-thirsty villain, preventing him from being a character that is memorable for the audience. If Herbert had chosen to include Baron Harkonnen in an increasingly amount of chapters and added the insight into his emotions and perspectives, perhaps he would’ve had a more lasting effect on the book and its readers as the “bad guy”.
Reply
Jullianne Lee
8/27/2015 10:40:02 am
1. When not following the Baron’s perspective, he seems despicable and vile. However, when his perspective is shown, we are able to see both sides of the story. Baron may be evil, but he’s not crazy. Everything the Baron did to satisfy his power hunger would make perfect sense to another power crazed person. He seemed like a very basic villain to me. Nothing about him really stood out. However, the way Herbert wrote the indirect interaction between Paul and the Baron was very interesting. Although he wasn’t a really great character, he did drive the story forward.
Reply
Farah Hashmi
8/27/2015 10:49:22 am
I believe that Herbert approaches his villainous characters in a typical, if not lackluster, manner. Traditionally, the purpose of a villain in literature is to act as an opposing force to the protagonist- someone who offers a challenge and a story for the hero, but also someone meant to be ultimately defeated in the end. Herbert fulfilled these generalizations rather concisely, yet in doing so he allowed his antagonists to fall a flat. They become every inch the stereotypical idea of a villain- vying for power for power's sake, compressed into the little box of what a villain should be and left with no real breathing room for character development or a satisfying back story. Everything is so black and white with them that they make no move towards the grey lining that make villains so interesting. They lack humanity, a reason behind their sadistic ambition, and ultimately any depth in personality. Baron was the 'no-good Harkonnen overlord', but had little depth as a character. He was an overweight, deceptive tyrant and a pedophile in his downtime. That's...basically it. How he came to power, what motivated him to come as far as he did, and the background that could have defined him were all nonexistent. His nephew faired a bit better, but remained rather linear and just as obscure throughout the course of the story; Piter was probably the most entertaining villain in the novel for me (that sassy backtalk was amusing) but he was killed off before his story was really told. Ultimately, the villains Herbert created are not fleshed out to their true capabilities, and while they are memorable to a certain degree, they lack the definition that truly creates a 'villain'.
Reply
Asma Virani
8/27/2015 10:51:51 am
The Baron has all the traits of a villain. He is cruel, selfish, greedy, and inhumane. I think Herbert did an okay job at handling this aspect of the story in Dune. The Baron is not an interesting villain because the most memorable villains do things that a reader would never imagine. Everything that The Baron did in the story was ordinary such as murder and attempts to kill the protagonist. Also, in most stories, the author explains why and how a villain became villainous. Herbert never really explains the motivation behind The Baron’s actions and the reason why the feud between the two houses exists. Unlike the other characters in Dune, The Baron is not a three-dimensional character because the reader do not know much about him besides the fact that he is the antagonist of the story. I feel like Herbert could have done a better job at giving the antagonists some complexity.
Reply
Jason Tran
8/27/2015 10:58:07 am
I believe Herbert didn’t succeed in creating a complex and interesting villain in Dune. Herbert makes it clear who the villains and heroes are. Much background wasn’t given to the Harkonnens and I felt that the reasons for Harkonnens being the villains were not compelling enough. If depth and complexity were added to the Harkonnens motives for their actions that would make me more interest in the villain.
Reply
Ayo Shonowo
8/27/2015 10:59:54 am
Herbert meant for Paul to face more than just one antagonist. He chose not to have only a one-on-one standoff between the protagonist and antagonist. The baron is the face of evil in Dune, though there is not much insight to his motives or emotions. what we know of him is only surface-deep. By splitting up the roles of Paul's main problems, he is able to move the story in many directions without straying off the purpose of the novel.
Reply
Kartik Talwar
8/27/2015 12:33:28 pm
1. In Dune, the entire Harkonnens family is seen as the enemy, but the Baron is the prime antagonist of the story. In this sector of the novel, Herbert does not do a great job, he leaves the Baron as a flat character and a villain who is not very memorable. The Baron does everything that he does just because he is power- hungry and personally, I feel that that makes him more greedy rather than evil.
Reply
Nithin Kakulavaram
8/27/2015 12:39:03 pm
In any novel, the purpose of the villain, or antagonist, is to obstruct the path of the hero, or antagonist. With most novels, it is the case that the protagonist eventually reaches his goals and reaches his ultimate height by defeating the antagonist of the story though many trails and tribulations. However, it comes to the point where the author must construct a story in which the antagonist causes much harm to the protagonist without fully defeating them, to completely appease the audience and entice the readers. In the situation of Dune, Herbert does an excellent job in creating and developing Baron Harkonnen, the antagonist, and the House of Harkonnens as the villains of the story. As they prove to cause many tribulations to Paul
Reply
Jenny Lang
8/27/2015 12:41:05 pm
Reply
Melanie Lo
8/27/2015 01:08:04 pm
I agree with your opinion of the villains being quite generic, but most of all, I love how you chose Voldemort for his back story. He is what I would call a complex, three-dimensional villain since he experiences many things in the past to allow the readers to relate as to why he became "hardened and cruel".
Reply
Paige Awodu
8/27/2015 01:02:48 pm
For me, I believe that the villains were two-dimensional. The author's purpose of a villain is to create obstacles in its path that turns their life into complex, mysterious, or any other characteristics. We want to see every side of this character whether they are psychotic, lost their way, driven by desire, ect. and we feel the character In Dune, all we saw was the Duke as an ordinary character. He did the actions just because he wanted to, and i felt that was too ordinary for this complex book.
Reply
Melanie Lo
8/27/2015 01:04:25 pm
The villain, Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, was not that interesting or three-dimensional probably due to the emphasis of the battle between two households. His character is completely predictable as he represents all the characteristics of a normal villain: greedy and heartless. There is nothing that makes him special or surprising. This is science-fiction; he can use a bit of evil powers that make him sort of unstoppable.
Reply
Kenji Chong
8/27/2015 01:13:45 pm
I feel that as a villain, there should be a little bit of good within the vat of evil. I may be misinterpreting the character Baron, but I believe that he wasn't 3 dimensional. The reason why I say this is when Herbert is telling us about Baron, I feel no sympathy to him due to the fact that he is cruel in various different ways. My all-time villain would be Elphaba. What I find compelling is that she is not actually a villain but she is a villain in the eyes of everyone else in the "Wicked" universe. What I find compelling about her is that even through she is persecuted by almost everyone, she remains true to her best friend Glinda and does not wish to tarnish her good name with her presence.
Reply
Ching Liuhuang
8/27/2015 01:20:18 pm
Herbert handles the Villain aspect of Dune remarkably well with the existence of Baron Valdimir Harkonnen. He possesses the darkness and cunning mind of a well-calculated villain, and serves as a great marathon for which Paul has to overcome and finish. The Baron’s well-strategized plans can be compared to that of the Star Wars villain, Darth Sidious, or otherwise known as the Chancellor. Both these villains readily sacrifice their own men for the sake of their agenda, which only adds to the excitement of the plot. On the other hand, my favorite villain of all time is Darth Vader, for which he exemplifies power and authority with his dark suit and mask. However, his life long journey to save those he loved by joining the dark side ultimately gives him the insight and inner courage on what it takes become a worthy and wise Jedi (in the end of course… after he saved Luke by throwing the Emperor off the edge).
Reply
Ching Liuhuang
8/27/2015 01:20:53 pm
Herbert handles the Villain aspect of Dune remarkably well with the existence of Baron Valdimir Harkonnen. He possesses the darkness and cunning mind of a well-calculated villain, and serves as a great marathon for which Paul has to overcome and finish. The Baron’s well-strategized plans can be compared to that of the Star Wars villain, Darth Sidious, or otherwise known as the Chancellor. Both these villains readily sacrifice their own men for the sake of their agenda, which only adds to the excitement of the plot. On the other hand, my favorite villain of all time is Darth Vader, for which he exemplifies power and authority with his dark suit and mask. However, his life long journey to save those he loved by joining the dark side ultimately gives him the insight and inner courage on what it takes become a worthy and wise Jedi (in the end of course… after he saved Luke by throwing the Emperor off the edge).
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Blog Rules1. Keep it relevant; try not to go off-topic. Archives
August 2015
Categories |