Science by Allusion

With the new Dune movie to be released later this year, and having thought more about the science in my last reading of Herbert’s novel six years ago, I serendipitously stumbled on a library book. The Science of Dune is a collection of essays edited by Kevin Grazier. It is subtitled “An Unauthorized Exploration into the Real Science Behind Frank Herbert’s Fictional Universe”. Doesn’t sound promising, does it?

 

It turns out that Herbert didn’t delve much into the scientific details in Dune. (He might have slipped more details in later novels, but I haven’t read any of them.) It’s really all about politics, economics, psychology, and anthropology. No surprise; that’s true of much science fiction. Grazier, the editor, even before the book’s publications relates a chatboard message asking: “Is there any science in Dune?” After getting over his initial apoplexy, Grazier has an interesting insight; I’ll quote from the first page of his introduction to the book: “… Frank Herbert, either by design or accident, mostly have hints about the technical underpinnings of the Dune Universe employing… science by allusion. Herbert avoided the pitfall into which many science writers wander: by omitting much in the way of technical details, the work never becomes dated, at least in this respect.”

 

That’s likely part of the reason Dune holds up well today even though it was published back in 1965. In contrast, Star Trek, which premiered that year looks extremely dated – Grazier and his co-authors provide some humorous examples which you can read for yourself in their book. Grazier makes another important point: “When a writer makes a technical gaffe, the increasingly technically literate reader of today is taken out of the novel, is no longer, seeing the depths of the writer’s universe through the eyes of one of its characters, and reverts instead to a person in the twenty-first century holding a book saying, Hang on a minute!”

 

So that we’re not unfair to Star Trek, I do think the job is harder with a visual medium. I haven’t read enough early science fiction to get a sense of how poorly many other authors hold up over time. Asimov’s Foundation series, which I read as a teenager and didn’t understand, meant I didn’t read much sci-fi until recently with my discovery of Rainbows End, which I think is excellent, but the question is how well it will hold up thirty years from now. I don’t remember much of the Dune movie from the ‘80s, and I don’t think I will re-watch it, although I’m very much looking forward to Villeneuve’s reboot. I’m likely to scrutinize it with a scientific eye – I can’t help myself – and it’ll be interesting to see how science by allusion gets interpreted on the screen.

 

Because Herbert provided few details, that gives scientists the opportunity to speculate. That’s what The Science of Dune is all about. The most interesting essays, in my biased opinion, have to do with the spice melange and its role in opening up the mind so that Guild navigators can traverse faster-than-light pathways or so that prophets can see the future. There’s chemistry (of psychoactive stuff) and physics (of time and seeing the future) and biology (of differential effects depending on your species). There’s also ecology – one might argue this is Dune’s most prominent scientific aspect.

 

Other questions considered: How do sandworms move through the desert and what is their life cycle? Do stillsuits really work and what would it take to make one? What are the evolutionary pressures on Arrakis and other planets? Where are all these planets anyway? How does the Reverend Mother’s pain-box work? Can you cheat gravity with suspensor technology? There’s even one essay that goes into detail of how and why sand dunes form, humorously titled “The Dunes of Dune”. An even better title perhaps is “The Real Stars of Dune”; the essay written by Grazier has science-y graphs of spectral class versus luminosity, but the best two lines in the chapter are: “Astronomers are like paparazzi to the stars of our galaxy. They take pictures of stars, always without their consent, and determine who is hot and who is not.”

 

The Science of Dune is a humorous little book with ideas that could win Ignoble prizes. There’s some science but lots of speculation too. I’m not sure the science of Dune holds up, after reading it, but the allusion – or maybe illusion – is what will make it a classic for years to come. I hope Villeneuve doesn’t mess up the movie – I’ve already seen large worms show up in the Battle of the Five Armies movie, which I re-watched last winter. No such worms are in Tolkien’s actual Hobbit book. Herbert’s influence can be felt even there. The Science of Dune covers not just the original novel, but the sequels and the Duniverse as a whole. And while I still have no interest in the sequels, the very first prequel has piqued my interest. I’d like to know why humans decided “thinking machines” couldn’t be trusted since I’m presently watching Person of Interest. Funny how these ideas come around.