> the fact that Paul is basically infallible irks me.
It's supposed to.
> I did read a critique of Dune recently that suggested that Herbert initially wanted to show how dangerous superheros are. This explains a bit about why Paul is a superhero: he has to be to make Herbert's thesis. However, then I'd be rooting for him to fail and I don't like the stories where the protagonist is evil in some subtle way and you are supposed to root for them to fail.
Paul isn't evil and you aren't supposed to root for Paul to fail; insofar as the critique that Herbert is trying to illustrate that superheroes are dangerous is correct, it is correct in the traditional sense of "superhero" where "evil" is very much not part of the mix.
An evil "superhero" is a supervillain, and illustrating that supervillains are dangerous wouldn't be particularly interesting. Supervillains are useful dramatic tools because their danger is blatantly obvious.
It's supposed to.
> I did read a critique of Dune recently that suggested that Herbert initially wanted to show how dangerous superheros are. This explains a bit about why Paul is a superhero: he has to be to make Herbert's thesis. However, then I'd be rooting for him to fail and I don't like the stories where the protagonist is evil in some subtle way and you are supposed to root for them to fail.
Paul isn't evil and you aren't supposed to root for Paul to fail; insofar as the critique that Herbert is trying to illustrate that superheroes are dangerous is correct, it is correct in the traditional sense of "superhero" where "evil" is very much not part of the mix.
An evil "superhero" is a supervillain, and illustrating that supervillains are dangerous wouldn't be particularly interesting. Supervillains are useful dramatic tools because their danger is blatantly obvious.