J.R.R. Tolkien’sThe Lord of the RingsandFrank Herbert’sDuneare some of the most influential works of literature of all time.These stories are etched into the DNA of high fantasy and science fiction, their worlds—Middle-earth and Arrakis—shaping the industry for generations. On the surface, both authors are regarded as pillars of modern speculative fiction, rich in lore, history, and sociopolitical intricacy. YetTolkien himself once famously admitted to a fan, with uncharacteristic bluntness, “In fact I dislikeDunewith some intensity."
Why wouldthe legendary author ofThe Hobbitharbor such distaste for Herbert’sDune, a book celebrated as much as his own? Given that Tolkien had a reputation for being a gentleman, he never elaborated further. Over time, however, readers and scholars have pieced together the clues to uncover a fascinating ideological divide—not just between two books, but between two worldviews, two creative minds, and two fundamentally different views on morality and what storytelling should accomplish.
What would happen if two giants of science fiction and fantasy’s most revered minds sat across from each other, discussing their creative visions? Likely, J.R.R. Tolkien and Frank Herbert would have a mannered yet deeply debated talk on storytelling. Considering thatThe Lord of the Ringsnovels came out in 1954 and 1955, well beforeDunewas published in 1965, with the series continuing through 1985 with six books, Tolkien’s work is widely regarded as the foundation for all things in the fantasy realm. Though equally important, both golden standardnarratives stood at polar opposite ends of the ethical spectrum.
According to the bookTolkien’s Library: An Annotated Checklist, a fan named John Bush once sent a letter to J.R.R. Tolkien in 1966 along with a copy ofDune. Tolkien stated:
“Thank you for sending me a copy ofDune.I received one last year from Lanier and so already know something about the book. It is impossible for an author still writing to be fair to another author working along the same lines. At least I find it so. In fact I dislikeDUNEwith some intensity,and in that unfortunate case it is much the best and fairest to another author to keep silent and refuse to comment …”
To understand Tolkien’s distaste forDune, we need to consider their backgrounds.Tolkien was a deeply traditional academic—a philologist, mythographer, and devout Catholic. He had a strong moral compass rooted in ancient myth and Christian and Catholic theology.Herbert, on the contrary, was a journalist, a skeptic, and a product of the 20th-century American counterculture. Frank Herbert wroteDuneafter being inspired by his research for a magazine article about sand dunes in Oregon, which led him to explore themes of ecology, power, and the ways in which belief systems could be manipulated.
This foundational contrast meant that the two authors weren’t merely writing in different genres—they were crafting responses to different existential questions. Ironically, Herbert abandoned his Catholic upbringing due to having the religion “forced onto him” by his Irish aunts, according toDreamer of Dune: The Biography of Frank Herbertby Frank’s son,Brian Herbert.Since religion plays a central role inLOTRandDune,the writers' contrasting religious experiences are likely why Tolkien couldn’t relate.
‘Dune’ Uses Religion as a Weapon to Be Engineered, Whereas Tolkien Uses Religion as True Faith in LOTR
Tolkien once admitted thatThe HobbitandThe Lord of the Ringsare “a fundamentally religious and Catholic work.”His faith shaped everything from the metaphysics of Middle-earth to the virtues his characters embody.This is present in how Arda is created by the divine god Eru Ilúvatar, who brought Middle-earth and all its beings to life with the “Music of the Ainur”. The universe was perfect only until darkness was introduced to it bythe first dark lord Melkor—an evil figure that mirrors the fallen angel Lucifer in the Catholic Bible. More so, characters like Gandalf and Frodo operate with a quiet sense of providence guiding their steps.
10 Books To Read if You Love ‘Dune’
Arrakis isn’t the only planet in the universe.
Faith, in Tolkien’s legendarium, is humble, sacred, and often expressed through mercy.Dunetreats religion as a form of socio-political engineering.The Bene Gesserit, similar to ‘Jesuit’, and Lady Jessica were directly inspired by Herbert’s aunts, per Brian Herbert. The ancient order deliberately plants myths and prophecies among the Fremen to manipulate them in the book.Paul becomes the “Messiah” of Fremen, a parallel to Jesus, yet this plot is more about using faith as a weapon. Much later, Paul’s rise leads him to crown himself Emperor, challenging the reader to question the dangers of blind faith.
To Tolkien, who held deep respect for the power of true belief, Paul’s journey could have come off as offensive. Religion, for him, was not a system to be gamed, but a channel through which truth and goodness flowed.Herbert’s calculated approach turned religion into a medium for power, where heroes can be pawns and destiny is negotiable.This is starkly different from LOTR. Tolkien’s religion wasn’t a tool to control people, more so a system of meanings and beliefs, while Herbert fleshed out a warning of what these beliefs could do when pushed to extremes.Herbert famously said, “I wrote the Dune series because I had this idea that charismatic leaders ought to come with a warning label on their forehead: “May be dangerous to your health.”
J.R.R. Tolkien’s Moral Views on Good and Evil Opposed Frank Herbert’s Consequentialist Take in ‘Dune’
At first glance,The Lord of the RingsandDuneshare several similarities. Both stories explore the rise and fall of empires, the corrupting nature of power, and the burden of destiny placed upon a reluctant hero. Buttheir takes on morality diverges dramatically.The entire scope of Middle-earth is based on the scale of good versus evil, whereas Arrakis is built on a world where good and bad actions are defined by consequences.
According toThe Culturist,J.R.R.Tolkien’s moral framework was rooted in deontology—the idea that actions are morally right or wrong by nature, regardless of the outcome. Frodo Baggins’ journey to destroy the One Ring is not just about saving Middle-earth; it’s about doing the right thing, even when success isn’t certain: “I will take the Ring, though I do not know the way”, Frodo (Elijah Wood) says inThe Fellowship of the Ring. Tolkien also shaped his story around the belief that history is a “long defeat” with only a “glimpse of final victory”. The Ring’s demise is the best example of this brief fortune. Despite Frodo being the hero, he never actually destroys the Ring. Gollum, a corrupted and twisted antagonist, is the one who falls into the fires of Mount Doom with the Ring.
Frank Herbert leaned more into consequentialism—the belief that the morality of an action is defined by its results. Paul Atreides, the protagonist ofDune, makes ethically questionable choices. He willingly embraces a role that leads to violence, oppression, and fanaticism, because he believes it’s the best of many bad options. To some, he’s a tragic figure; to others, he’s the bad guy. For Tolkien, this was perhaps a deeply uncomfortable narrative stance.Dune’s moral ambiguity may have felt less like a complex meditation on leadership and more like an erosion of core virtues.
This is why Tolkien’s characters feel like heroes, because they are inherently good by nature and are bound by moral laws beyond their knowledge. Sam’s loyalty and Aragorn’s humility are seen as virtues independent of outcomes. Bilbo’s small act of kindness to spare Gollum’s life is because of his moral compass, solidifying what Gandalf says, “Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment”. This is also whyTolkien removed Valar Makar and Meássë fromThe Lord of the Rings,because they glorified war andwent against the values he set up in his lore.
In the end, Tolkien and Herbert were brilliant philosophers, theologians, and political thinkers in their own right. They saw the role of stories in human life very differently, and that’s okay. Fiction is always subjective. We may never know the exact reason Tolkien hatedDune, but he held an unpopular opinion compared to the majority. Where Tolkien saw stories as a light in the dark, Herbert saw them as a mirror reflecting our deepest flaws. And maybe that’s why both books have stood the test of time.
