@vonxylofon @bitterkarella People often used to. That's shifted over time.Like, the first three books were originally one novel but were split up. The first book ends with Paul defeating the Emperor and House Harkonnen, and avenging his father, the hero triumphant. There are definite signs of what's to come -- particularly when Gurney Halleck notices that unlike his father, Paul doesn't care about the people fighting for him -- but superficially it's upbeat. It's in the second book and after that it becomes explicit how terrible it is what Paul's done.I haven't seen the most recent film adaptation, but the two I did see further simplified the first book to make Paul appear benignly heroic.There was a bit in a "making of" book, about the movie by De Laurentiis and Lynch, that they deliberately omitted a line from the novel, when Paul said, "He who can destroy a thing controls it", because it was disturbing in a world with nuclear weapons. But that was exactly Herbert's point.