Dune, a science fiction series by Frank Herbert, is described as “a magnum opus that stands as one of the most complex, multilayered novels ever written” (House Atreides 675), and has gained a cult status among millions of science fiction readers worldwide. In 1986, Frank Herbert died before he could complete the series, leaving fans to agonise over an unresolved ending set up in his last book, Dune: Chapterhouse. In 1999, his son, Brian Herbert, announced his intention to complete the Dune saga through a series of six prequels, followed by the long awaited finale of Dune. Since then, he has collaborated with Kevin J. Anderson, an established science fiction author, to complete five Dune prequels, with two more in the works. Fans are of split opinion on Brian Herbert’s authorship: some feel that his prequels can be taken to be part of the original Dune series, while some reject his claim for authenticity. While this scenario may on the surface be due to varying loyalties towards Frank Herbert, it is actually due to the complicated nature of authorship which arises when one writes on the behalf of someone else, which this essay seeks to discuss through Dune.

The production of the prequels is unique because Frank Herbert’s outlines were used to flesh out the stories’ plots and characters. An article on The Official Dune Website states that “Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson have exclusively used, and will continue to use, Frank Herbert's original notes” (Encyclopedia par.2). Furthermore, an estate lawyer is necessary for the management of these notes, and Brian Herbert has legal ownership of them (Atreides 678). Brian Herbert has legal inheritance of his father’s thoughts and plans for Dune, and this is the basis of his claim for “the production of a novel of integrity, one that would be faithful to the original series” (Atreides 677).

 “The author function is linked to the juridical and institutional system” (Foucault par. 33), and this system, or otherwise known as copyright laws, regards Brian Herbert as the author of the Dune prequels. Brian Herbert’s authorship is legitimately recognised by the law. Both his and his co-author’s name appear prominently on the front cover of their books, and on the top of every alternate page. By convention, this implies that they own the work. While the original series was copyrighted to Frank Herbert, copyright for the Dune prequels now belong to the Herbert Limited Partnership, a group of people comprising of Brian Herbert and a few members of the Herbert family. Furthermore, the back cover of Dune: The Butlerian Jihad writes: “Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson are the authors of Prelude to Dune”, and this is further emphasised in the copyright notice at the start of the same book: “the right of Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson to be identified as the Authors of the Work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988” (IV). However, these prequels have been made with Frank Herbert’s ideas as they were based on his notes, and Brian Herbert’s role was to materialise these thoughts, rather than to conjure them. The “Copyright, Designs and Patents Act” (Butlerian IV) only gives recognition to Brian Herbert’s role, as it “believes in metaphysical reality, a place of Idea that cannot be regulated” (366), as Lisa Samuels states in “Relinquish Intellectual Property”. She goes on to say that “Ideas are unprotected despite the fact that they must always be presented in the concrete forms […] which are protected by copyright” (366). To the law, authors are the producers of physical products, but it does not equate the production of an essential idea with authorship. Frank Herbert’s ideas, although undisputedly original, are not acknowledged by copyright laws, which instead give recognition to Brian Herbert’s Dune prequels - a physical product. In a strictly legal sense, Brian Herbert has authorship of the Dune prequels, but problems regarding the ownership of ideas are nevertheless present.

There is thus something lacking in the legal definition of an author, and Foucault offers an alternate explanation of authorship through the “author function” from a literary viewpoint. Foucault believes that “there are a certain number of discourses that are endowed with the "author function," while others are deprived of it” (par. 21). While both a piece of poetry and a shopping list have a writer, only the former has an author, and this is characterised by the author function. The author function is also seen as a separate entity from the physical author. Frank Herbert, as a person working on Dune by his desk, may have passed away, but his author function nevertheless remains as readers attribute the original Dune series to this imaginary entity, and not to the physical person. The narration found in Dune does not refer to Frank Herbert’s voice, “but rather to an alter ego whose distance from the author varies” (Foucault par. 31). Frank Herbert may have constructed the ideas for Dune, but since “[the author function] does not refer purely and simply to a real individual” (Foucault par. 33), it may be possible for Brian Herbert to give voice to this “alter ego” (Foucault par.31), and have an authentic authorship over the prequels.

Foucault believes that this can be done if there is a unity present between the original series and Brian Herbert’s prequels. He feels that the author function “performs a certain role with regard to narrative discourse, assuring a classificatory function” (par. 20), and “permits one to group together a certain number of texts, define them, differentiate them from and contrast them to others.” (par. 20). Frank Herbert’s Children of Dune is set on a desert planet, while Dune: Chapterhouse is written on an intergalactic scale, but these books would not found in the library under ‘Geography’ and ‘Astronomy’ respectively. Instead, these books are classified together under ‘Frank Herbert’, and this is due to the uniting role the author function has on texts. This unity is brought about due to the roles which authors play: that authors explain the presence of certain elements and changes in a work through their personal influences, provide consistency in a work’s writing style, and resolve contradictions in a work, regardless of whether he expresses himself “in works, sketches, letters, fragments, and so on” (par. 30). It would be necessary for Brian Herbert to fulfil these roles in his father’s footsteps to establish an authentic continuation of Dune.

An author’s work is united “through his biography, […] his individual perspective, […] his social position, and the revelation of his basic design” (par. 30), and attempts to unite the original and new Dune series would be threatened as Brian Herbert did not have the same experiences as his father. Frank Herbert’s experiences were instrumental in the conceptualising of Dune, and he conceived of the novel while researching on coastal sand dunes for the US Department of Agriculture. This experience filled Frank Herbert “with a concern that ecology might be the next banner for demagogues and […] power seekers and others ready to find an adrenaline high in the launching of a new crusade” (“Genesis” par. 11). Furthermore, Frank Herbert’s characters were based on the people around him, and his ideas were influenced by his experiences with drugs and the OPEC oil crisis (Rud, par. 3, 5, 7). Frank Herbert also states that “there are analogs in Dune of today's events-corruption and bribery in the highest places, whole police forces lost to organized crime, regulatory agencies taken over by the people they are supposed to regulate. The scarce water of Dune is an exact analog of oil scarcity” (“Genesis”, par. 11). Frank Herbert was concerned about world events of his time, and addressed these concerns in Dune. On the other hand, the concerns of the world today differ from that of the 1970s, and Brian Herbert, in being unable to share the same experiences, would thus be unable to depict the themes in Dune as vividly and passionately as his father did.

Brian Herbert’s authorship is further questioned when we consider the author’s role in providing “stylistic unity” (Foucault par. 29) to a work. Frank Herbert’s prose is littered with political, economical, philosophical, sociological, religious, and ecological comments, enabling Dune to become “a parable of human life” (Merritt par. 1). For example, Frank Herbert takes on a philosophical tone in commenting on the nature of time:

Because of the one-pointed Time awareness in which the conventional mind remains immersed, humans tend to think of everything in a sequential, word-oriented framework. This mental trap produces very short-term concepts of effectiveness and consequences, a condition of constant, unplanned response to crisis. (Children 188)

 On the other hand, Brian Herbert’s prequels consist of simple, and even clichéd storylines, and his nephew, Byron Merritt, believes that “it doesn't have the prose that Frank Herbert had” (Pavlovic par. 3). The Coventry Evening Telegraph also describes Brian Herbert’s novels as “just simple story-telling” (“Reviews” par. 2). Therefore, Brian Herbert has been unable to unite the two works stylistically.

In addition to possessing “the principle of a certain unity of writing” (Foucault par. 30), Foucault also believes that Brian Herbert has “to neutralize the contradictions that may emerge in a series of texts” (Foucault par. 30) to enable his text to be characterised by the author function. Dr McNelly, a friend of Frank Herbert and an English professor at the California State University, has spent eight years studying the Dune novels, the result of which is The Dune Encyclopedia, a book containing a detailed analysis and description of the characters and elements in Dune. The Official Dune Website admits that “some fans may have noticed apparent inconsistencies between Dune: House Atreides (1999) and The Dune Encyclopedia (1984)” (“Dune Encyclopedia” par. 1). However, there is no evidence to show that these inconsistencies pose a threat to the overall work, and it can be concluded that these errors are either insignificant ones, or that they would be resolved and explained in future Dune novels, as “Brian Herbert, writing with Kevin J. Anderson, IS continuing to establish the canon of the DUNE universe” (“Dune Encyclopedia” par. 1).

These stylistic differences and minor inconsistencies in Brian Herbert’s prequels may be attributed to an active interpretation of Frank Herbert outlines. Brian Herbert fits Michel de Certeau’s definition of a reader as he has displayed activeness in reading his father’s outlines. De Certeau challenges “the assimilation of reading to passivity” (169), and argues that “every reading modifies its object, that […] one literature differs from another less by its text than by the way in which it is read” (169). Because a text’s interpretation depends on a reader’s subjectivity, de Certeau then concludes that “[the reader] invents in texts something different from what [authors] ‘intended’” (169). He believes that readers display a large amount of activeness, and interpret texts differently from what the author intended, causing “the book [to be] a result (a construction) produced by the reader” (169). Likewise, although Brian Herbert possessed his father’s ideas, “new story ideas fairly exploded from [his, and his co-author’s] minds” (Atreides, 678). Although The Dune Encyclopedia was able to fit well into the original series, it was ignored as Brian Herbert and Anderson “didn't want the influence of The Dune Encyclopedia looming over them, impeding their ideas. […] They wrote the stories that they wanted” (emphasis added, Pavlovic par. 4). Furthermore, Brian Herbert did not have his father’s outlines when he first embarked on the project, and it was only much later that he managed to obtain the notes through the discovery of an obscure security box left behind by his father. Brian Herbert’s activeness is thus the result of both an unconscious, and a deliberate action.

Although such activeness and creativity on the part of Brian Herbert has caused the prequels to deviate from the original series, it is at the same time necessary for his authentic authorship. If Brian Herbert were to mindlessly flesh out his father’s ideas into a book, he would merely be labelled as a writer. It is necessary for Brian Herbert to display creativity and activeness in his work to demonstrate his authorship, but this also threatens the authentic continuation of Dune as it jeopardises the series’ unity and consistency. This is the challenge that authors face when they write on the behalf of another, and would be an interesting but difficult problem to overcome. Brian Herbert has recognised this, ending Dune: House Atreides with a quote from his father: “a requirement of creativity is that it contributes to change. Creativity keeps the creator alive” (683). Here, he reminds readers that while creativity is necessary for creators to exist, or authors in this case, it inevitably changes a work.

Establishing the authorship of one who appears to be writing on the behalf of another is a complicated issue. While the law may offer solutions, it is inadequate because it views texts as products, and disregards the contribution of ideas from authors. Foucault offers some criteria through the author function, which is characterised by the author’s role in uniting and categorising a set of works. This unifying role is threatened in Brian Herbert’s work, as major differences in the prequels’ style and influences exist, and may be attributed to creativity on the part of Brian Herbert. However, a paradox follows: creativeness would threaten the series’ unity and Brian Herbert’s compliance with the author function, but is at the same time necessary for his authorship. The law may have passed on Frank Herbert’s legacy to his son, clearly regarding him as an author, but his authorship remains a complicated and unresolved issue in a literary sense, and it is difficult to ascertain if he has provided an authentic continuation of his father’s literary legacy. However, establishing authorship is important for readers as they need to understand “from where does [a book] come, who wrote it, when, under what circumstances, or beginning with what design?” (Foucault par. 26), and “the meaning ascribed to [a book] and the status or value accorded it depends on the manner in which we answer these questions” (Foucault par. 26). The indeterminate nature of Brian Herbert’s authorship thus frustrates fans, and this is due to the complicated nature of writing on the behalf of another person.

Works Cited:

De Certeau, Michel. "Reading as Poaching." The Practice of Everyday Life. Trans. Steven Rendall. Berkeley: University of California, 1984. 165-176.

 “Dune Encyclopedia”. The Official Dune Website. The Herbert Limited Partnership. 22 Oct 03. <http://www.dunenovels.com/news/encyclopedia.html>.

“House Corrino Reviews”. The Official Dune Website. The Herbert Limited Partnership. 22 Oct 03. < http://www.dunenovels.com/news/corrino_reviews.html>.

Foucault, Michel. “What is an Author?”. (in The Foucault Reader. Ed. Paul Rainbow. New York: Pantheon, 1984). Literary History And Bibliography: English 4950 At Eastern Illinois University. Randall Beebe. Eastern Illinois University. 19 Oct. 2003. <http://www.eiu.edu/~literary/4950/foucault.htm>.

Herbert, Brian, and Kevin J. Anderson. Dune: House Atreides, United States and Canada: Batam Books, 2000.

Herbert, Brian, and Kevin J. Anderson. Dune: The Butlerian Jihad, Great Britain: Hodder and Stoughton, 2003.

Herbert, Frank. Children of Dune. Great Britain: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1984.

Herbert, Frank. “Dune Genesis”. (in Omni Magazine. July 1980) The Official Dune Website. The Herbert Limited Partnership. 22 Oct 03. <http://www.dunenovels.com /news/genesis.html>.

Merritt, Byron. “Dune versus Dune”. Scifidimensions. John C.Snider. 22 Oct 03. <http://www.scifidimensions.com/May02/dunevsdune.htm>.

Pavlovic, Dwight Stephen. “Interview With Byron Merritt”. The Official Dune Website. The Herbert Limited Partnership. 22 Oct 03. <http://www.dunenovels.com/news/merritt.html>.

Rud, Stephen. “Frank Herbert”. Cave Of Birds. 26 Oct. 2003 <http://www.caveofbirds.com/frankherbert.html>

Samuels, Lisa. "Relinquish¹ Intellectual Property^2" New Literary History 33.2 (2002) 357-374.