Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I found the Imperium of Man itself more comparable to the status quo in Foundation, than to Dune.

Personally, I fist thought of the Empire of Man from The Mote in God’s Eye and Jerry Pournelle’s Codominiumverse. It’s a religious, monarchistic empire that rose from the ashes of a greater, more advanced human civilization, that mostly spreads by conquering technologically regressed human worlds. They have to be wary of the Sauron Supermen, though, the genetically engineered super soldiers who rebelled.

What have you got against D&D Goblins, Totalwar1402?

 Dysartes wrote:
What have you got against D&D Goblins, Totalwar1402?

It’s just a good analogy to the Fremen. Essentially they venerate the Worms and Paul because he’s powerful. Which ignores or dismisses the idea that there’s any kind of spiritual or moral underpinnings towards religion. So, yes it’s a satire, but it’s not insightful because it amounts to mud slinging.

@Voss

“You're arguing from ignorance. The entire arc of the books (and even the first book by its lonesome) is about upending the status quo and establishment. To use the Pandora's box metaphor, it is literally about chasing the hope inside the box and avoiding ruin. It can (and does) get very ugly along the way, but the 'Golden Path' is about getting out from under the thumb of conservative polemics. “

Yes and 40k is a story about the triumph of good over evil. Dune is a satire. The Golden Path is intended as a Stalinist nightmare and we aren’t meant to take any characters protestations that this is a good thing seriously. When they’re saying people are sheep that need the blessing of eugenics of social engineering maybe they actually are the bad guys. No different than Burkes criticism of the Terror at its core. Wanting change opens the door to something worse. The worry about charismatic leaders comes from this impulse. The idea everything would be perfect if left alone and not meddled with. That’s not saying the road is difficult, it’s advocating you shouldn’t look for another path.

I mean they venerate the worms for more than just because they are powerful. They were also fully willing to kill Paul - multiple times if I recall right.

Again the book makes far more of this than the films ever do. Pauls rise in the Fremen in the films is preordained and set in stone, in the books its more messy.




As for the Witches, they consider Paul an abomination and want him dead. It's something the new film kind of glosses over and even swings the other way to suggest that they are trying to protect him in secret whilst also trying to kill him.
Paul isn't a woman and he isn't someone they can control. They wanted a woman of their order who would be controlled and influenced and raised by them to their ideals, goals and power struggles.

Voss wrote:

Dune doesn't boil down to either of those things.

Dune, the book, comes along at about 180.000 words, while Dune, the epos, in the 6 books from the original author, clocks in at just over 800.000 - it's a sprawling epos full of original concepts and rightfully recognized as one of the foundational works of science fiction in the second half of the 20th century. It's literally a work that invented, or at least defined, its own subgenre. It inspired countless derivative works across all manner of media, serious amounts of academic and secondary literature, inspired a lot of authors and artist that came after it, and has maintained a cult following for close to three quarters of a century.

No, it does not easily boil down to the edgy hot-take of the day

That's not really the gist of the film, it is a deeply esoteric laden film' as the creator of the (atleast the original) script (read: the books) studied Islam and Kabbalah prior to making it and inserted a great deal of its ..narrative and symbol into the storyline.

For instance, Artreides are very messianic and the cult of his mother is quite judaic in its titles and here some Kabbalah seeps in where for instance the "voice" uses a word that is hebrew; Chakopsah coming from CHAI (like Chasmal being body of light), and the voice itself is practically the soul (kol, like bat kol being hebrew for voice of god)

The worm is called Shaitan, Sha meaning red' and itan can be read as both animal or simply creature'. The Harkonnen are gaelic like people' red haired with a druidic tonsir (hairdo) and portrayed as dirty, wild and evil'

The Artreides come to Dune to terraform it (with water) and Paul is literally called a messiah.

The esoterics to this are ..well.. very obscure and hard to grasp but it has to do with the most ancient mythologies of man where there were two brotherly people, one landing at the Eire/Arya/Erin and the other at Mesopotamia, these two peoples were once befriended, fell a Tree (or rather root of a great tree) to which its jewel so to speak came to earth, let's from now on call these druids and magi' (to simplify things from hereon); The druids took the remnants of the jewel and re-surrected (raised it) once again, and the magi feared that it would punish them for having brought it down in the first place, so they deviced rituals to appease it. The druids instead tended to it' nurtured it and the nature that it had caused.
The magi explained that the nature it had caused (as in the world, as in the wer-ald (age of man) was fallen, like the jewel' and that it had to be rectified by man's own means. The Druids diminished in this conflict, and though the Magi mourned them'.. they continued on the path against nature.
That which remained of the line of Druids, lost their knowledge. (druid means knowledge of the oak to begin with, referring to the tree that was cut)
Their tending to nature directly opposed the Magi's attempt to rectify (fallen) nature.. and so animosity has always existed between the two.

So how does this correlate with Dune's story?

The Harkonnen are Esau/Edom; the peoples that are red all over' they are considered part of the fallen world (for tending to it), they are the Gaelic Druids recreated in the universe of Dune.
The Artreides are the Magi; employing the original covenant and voice of god that come to terraform as in rectify the fallen nature, but to do so that means they have to rectify the Shaitan; the Worms that are described as "Dune itself". (Worms being a metaphor for the germ-based life of nature)

I don't know if this will confuse you more or less, but I couldn't help but explain.
Kind regards.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Voss wrote:

Dune doesn't boil down to either of those things.

Dune, the book, comes along at about 180.000 words, while Dune, the epos, in the 6 books from the original author, clocks in at just over 800.000 - it's a sprawling epos full of original concepts and rightfully recognized as one of the foundational works of science fiction in the second half of the 20th century. It's literally a work that invented, or at least defined, its own subgenre. It inspired countless derivative works across all manner of media, serious amounts of academic and secondary literature, inspired a lot of authors and artist that came after it, and has maintained a cult following for close to three quarters of a century.

No, it does not easily boil down to the edgy hot-take of the day

Of course it can be boiled down. Star Wars is about good triumphing over evil. Star Trek is about an optimistic view of the future.

Dune is about how changing things is so terrible that’s it’s the road to be avoided.

Dune is fundamentally a nihilist story and has that intense suspicion shown towards the idea of the hero being a positive agent for change. Instead of the hero being the Everyman with the implicit notion that anyone can make a difference and achieve anything. You’re instead coming down hard on that as an example of hubris, opening Pandora’s box, making things worse, saying most people are idiots who can’t be trusted with free will. If you say change is terrible and you should be afraid of yourself that is a deeply sinister message. It’s not nuanced or mature in any way because it’s a story and inherently metaphorical. Saying you shouldn’t strive for utopia is no different than saying you shouldn’t complain about things.

Dune is far from the only story that does this. But it’s very writ large in the story and I think that’s the ultimate subtext.

I am not going to like something because other people write about it.

 Overread wrote:
I mean they venerate the worms for more than just because they are powerful. They were also fully willing to kill Paul - multiple times if I recall right.

Again the book makes far more of this than the films ever do. Pauls rise in the Fremen in the films is preordained and set in stone, in the books its more messy.




As for the Witches, they consider Paul an abomination and want him dead. It's something the new film kind of glosses over and even swings the other way to suggest that they are trying to protect him in secret whilst also trying to kill him.
Paul isn't a woman and he isn't someone they can control. They wanted a woman of their order who would be controlled and influenced and raised by them to their ideals, goals and power struggles.

From memory, the Bene Gesserit have implanted legends, myths and prophesies across the galaxy through a specific wing of the organisation to enable Sisters to slot into a protected position in any society they happen to find themselves in. Jessica leverages this with the fremen to protect herself and Paul. So the fremen are not responding specifically to Paul’s arrival, it’s more that Paul and Jessica slot into the pre-set position, and then it all rather goes out of control and he snowballs into Jihad.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
What have you got against D&D Goblins, Totalwar1402?

It’s just a good analogy to the Fremen. Essentially they venerate the Worms and Paul because he’s powerful. Which ignores or dismisses the idea that there’s any kind of spiritual or moral underpinnings towards religion. So, yes it’s a satire, but it’s not insightful because it amounts to mud slinging.

@Voss

“You're arguing from ignorance. The entire arc of the books (and even the first book by its lonesome) is about upending the status quo and establishment. To use the Pandora's box metaphor, it is literally about chasing the hope inside the box and avoiding ruin. It can (and does) get very ugly along the way, but the 'Golden Path' is about getting out from under the thumb of conservative polemics. “

Yes and 40k is a story about the triumph of good over evil. Dune is a satire. The Golden Path is intended as a Stalinist nightmare and we aren’t meant to take any characters protestations that this is a good thing seriously. When they’re saying people are sheep that need the blessing of eugenics of social engineering maybe they actually are the bad guys. No different than Burkes criticism of the Terror at its core. Wanting change opens the door to something worse. The worry about charismatic leaders comes from this impulse. The idea everything would be perfect if left alone and not meddled with. That’s not saying the road is difficult, it’s advocating you shouldn’t look for another path.

What...? No, your lack of knowledge of the books is showing again. You're confusing the methodology of the character (who admits he's doing terrible things) with the meaning of the books.
The lesson of the god-emperor is that absolute rulers (tyrants, god kings, monarchs, the cult of personality) are absolutely and utterly a BAD thing, but human psychology, sociology and genetics are predisposed to them. The point of the long and terrible reign of the god emperor is to grind that badness of absolute rule into the collective consciousness of humanity so they will always avoid it, rather than accept it. The point is _entirely_ to find another path, free of rulers and the cage of conservative thinking.

You're free to dislike the methodology of the characters, and to argue that what's done won't work. But the point of the series is exactly the opposite of a 'conservative polemic upholding the status quo.' You're simply and entirely wrong, mostly because you're actively avoiding learning anything about it.

Voss wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
What have you got against D&D Goblins, Totalwar1402?

It’s just a good analogy to the Fremen. Essentially they venerate the Worms and Paul because he’s powerful. Which ignores or dismisses the idea that there’s any kind of spiritual or moral underpinnings towards religion. So, yes it’s a satire, but it’s not insightful because it amounts to mud slinging.

@Voss

“You're arguing from ignorance. The entire arc of the books (and even the first book by its lonesome) is about upending the status quo and establishment. To use the Pandora's box metaphor, it is literally about chasing the hope inside the box and avoiding ruin. It can (and does) get very ugly along the way, but the 'Golden Path' is about getting out from under the thumb of conservative polemics. “

Yes and 40k is a story about the triumph of good over evil. Dune is a satire. The Golden Path is intended as a Stalinist nightmare and we aren’t meant to take any characters protestations that this is a good thing seriously. When they’re saying people are sheep that need the blessing of eugenics of social engineering maybe they actually are the bad guys. No different than Burkes criticism of the Terror at its core. Wanting change opens the door to something worse. The worry about charismatic leaders comes from this impulse. The idea everything would be perfect if left alone and not meddled with. That’s not saying the road is difficult, it’s advocating you shouldn’t look for another path.

What...? No, your lack of knowledge of the books is showing again. You're confusing the methodology of the character (who admits he's doing terrible things) with the meaning of the books.
The lesson of the god-emperor is that absolute rulers (tyrants, god kings, monarchs, the cult of personality) are absolutely and utterly a BAD thing, but human psychology, sociology and genetics are predisposed to them. The point of the long and terrible reign of the god emperor is to grind that badness of absolute rule into the collective consciousness of humanity so they will always avoid it, rather than accept it. The point is _entirely_ to find another path, free of rulers and the cage of conservative thinking.

You're free to dislike the methodology of the characters, and to argue that what's done won't work. But the point of the series is exactly the opposite of a 'conservative polemic upholding the status quo.' You're simply and entirely wrong, mostly because you're actively avoiding learning anything about it.

Also, easy to forget, with the books being written in the sixties, this central point comes from a time when the cult of personality around hitler was barely 20 years past, the cult of personality around Stalin was just in the process of being dismanteled, Maoism and the cult around the 'Great Chairman' was at a peak and very en-vogue with western intellectuals and students, to the point people had their 'Mao Bibles' of collected sayings always with them, and even the US had some sort of celebrity culture going on with John F. Kennedy, ultimately ending in his death at an assassin's bullet of course. The dangers of charismatic leaders were certainly a 'hot topic' even at the time the first book was written, and by the time Children and God-Emperor appeared, the world had moved on and produced events like the revolution in Iran, the cambodian dictatorship or the presidency of Ronald Reagan. In Hindsight a lot of the cultish behaviour and the devastating consequences around the 'Great Men of History' of the late 20th century seems obvious, but at the time there was wideswept support even for the atrocities they eventuelly started among a lot of the western elites and intellectuals.

 Flinty wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I mean they venerate the worms for more than just because they are powerful. They were also fully willing to kill Paul - multiple times if I recall right.

Again the book makes far more of this than the films ever do. Pauls rise in the Fremen in the films is preordained and set in stone, in the books its more messy.




As for the Witches, they consider Paul an abomination and want him dead. It's something the new film kind of glosses over and even swings the other way to suggest that they are trying to protect him in secret whilst also trying to kill him.
Paul isn't a woman and he isn't someone they can control. They wanted a woman of their order who would be controlled and influenced and raised by them to their ideals, goals and power struggles.

From memory, the Bene Gesserit have implanted legends, myths and prophesies across the galaxy through a specific wing of the organisation to enable Sisters to slot into a protected position in any society they happen to find themselves in. Jessica leverages this with the fremen to protect herself and Paul. So the fremen are not responding specifically to Paul’s arrival, it’s more that Paul and Jessica slot into the pre-set position, and then it all rather goes out of control and he snowballs into Jihad.

Yep, she even notes that the influence on the Fremen was likely a very long time ago and long forgotten even by the Order, and yet the Fremen had preserved it. So she slots herself, Paul and her unborn Daughter into the system.
I disliked how in the more recent film its made out that it was done for Paul and Jessica to survive with to protect Paul, when in actuality its simply a case that the slot was there and they took it when the Baron failed to simply kill them outright.

@Voss

“What...? No, your lack of knowledge of the books is showing again. You're confusing the methodology of the character (who admits he's doing terrible things) with the meaning of the books.
The lesson of the god-emperor is that absolute rulers (tyrants, god kings, monarchs, the cult of personality) are absolutely and utterly a BAD thing, but human psychology, sociology and genetics are predisposed to them. The point of the long and terrible reign of the god emperor is to grind that badness of absolute rule into the collective consciousness of humanity so they will always avoid it, rather than accept it. The point is _entirely_ to find another path, free of rulers and the cage of conservative thinking.

You're free to dislike the methodology of the characters, and to argue that what's done won't work. But the point of the series is exactly the opposite of a 'conservative polemic upholding the status quo.' You're simply and entirely wrong, mostly because you're actively avoiding learning anything about it.”

By making the transformation incredibly violent, genocidal, last thousand of years and explicitly informed by the perspective that humans are scum and weak?

Well, yes that’s clearly satirical. You aren’t supposed to see the Golden Path as a good thing. It’s the last line in a bad joke.

It’s so absurdly evil that, never mind that it wouldn’t work, it would be a horrible thing to believe and advocate. Because you’d actually be advocating Stalinism if you’re saying social engineering is required, however painful, to create the new Soviet Man.

Also plenty of state sanctioned violence occurred without autocratic governments or the cult of personality. Even Democratic or bureaucratic states with beautiful liberal constitutions that are explicitly antid-absolutism have done horrible things.

I think you’re under the impression that a conservative text is only going to say why the established order is good. Most pieces of conservatism advocate why change is bad. The risk, the danger and the violence. To me that is what Dune ultimately and implicitly advocates. That “utopia” is so absurd, horrific and nightmarish that it’s clearly worse than anything that came before. Oh I wanted to save the world but burnt it down. But in a million years people might learn something from this.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


I think you’re under the impression that a conservative text is only going to say why the established order is good. Most pieces of conservatism advocate why change is bad. The risk, the danger and the violence. To me that is what Dune ultimately and implicitly advocates. That “utopia” is so absurd, horrific and nightmarish that it’s clearly worse than anything that came before. Oh I wanted to save the world but burnt it down. But in a million years people might learn something from this and the survivors will have learnt something.

That's literally the polar opposite of what the core concept of the 'Golden Path' is. To quote a wiki:

Through prescience, Paul Atreides and Leto II foresaw that humanity would end if it stagnated and remained confined within the known universe and rigid class structure of the Imperium. Though the Imperium's population was many trillions, Leto II's rule proved that humanity was still confined within a space that could be controlled by a single interest. Although rarely addressed directly, it was often suggested that this lack of exploration and growth left humanity vulnerable to being endangered by a single threat, which would lead to the eventual destruction of humanity. The conflict between humanity's stated desire for peace and their actual need for volatility was the strong central theme of the entire Dune series, explored in every book after the first. God Emperor Leto II's stated goal was to "teach humanity a lesson that they will remember in their bones": that sheltered safety was tantamount to utter death, however long it would be delayed.

https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Golden_Path

~Surely at 3 pages long its easier to just read Dune

“Through prescience, Paul Atreides and Leto II foresaw that humanity would end if it stagnated and remained confined within the known universe and rigid class structure of the Imperium. Though the Imperium's population was many trillions, Leto II's rule proved that humanity was still confined within a space that could be controlled by a single interest. Although rarely addressed directly, it was often suggested that this lack of exploration and growth left humanity vulnerable to being endangered by a single threat, which would lead to the eventual destruction of humanity. The conflict between humanity's stated desire for peace and their actual need for volatility was the strong central theme of the entire Dune series, explored in every book after the first. God Emperor Leto II's stated goal was to "teach humanity a lesson that they will remember in their bones": that sheltered safety was tantamount to utter death, however long it would be delayed.“

Because it’s satirical. If the writer believes that autocracy is bad then you begin with saying that leaders vision is flawed. That they can make mistakes. Maybe deporting all the Kulaks isn’t a good idea. etc etc. You don’t say the plan is good but the methods are iffy. You say he’s a monster and that his plan is insane.

What you’re saying is that he spends the whole series criticising the facade of Stalinism but advocating social engineering to create the new soviet man.

I think it’s more likely he’s being satirical. That worm emperor is insane. They are imagining all of these issues and beginning these poorly thought out schemes because they think they know best. Which just makes everything worse. Oh poverty exists, let all have a centrally planned economy under our glorious leader. Just because he identifies a problem doesn’t mean he’s sincere about saying it’s a good thing to address it. I think the main concern is a reactionary view that you should be afraid of agents of change otherwise you’ll end up being chewed by a mad worm emperor.

Also the God Emperor is depicted as an agent of change not an agent of order and continuity. So the emphasis is on why that’s bad.

Totalwar, you said you haven't read the books.

So anything you say here beyond your thoughts on the two pieces of media you actually have engaged with (the films) can only be you repeating someone else's analysis of the text and passing it off as your own, yet having no actual knowledge of the work to back up that opinion since you haven't actually read it.

You are basically the guy from the book club in Peep Show

Yeah that don’t work if you ask for my opinion out of the blue. This thread was quiet since November.

You lot posted in this thread asking “how can this guy not like Dune?”

So I answered. What I’ve heard is bad and I am telling you why I am scornful of the books.

This ain’t a book club or a formal review. But you guys keep asking me why I don’t like the story so I assume you don’t just want a one liner that I think it’s stupid and sinister.

If I read or listened to the books that would imply I liked them enough to buy them and read the whole thing. I’ve already made my mind up and I think I know more than enough to say “no thanks mate”.

Plus, burden on proof is on you to say why I should like it.

Nobody is saying you have to like them. What they are saying is that your reasons for disliking them, again based entirely on not reading them, are not valid as they rely on a misunderstanding of the message of the work.

Like, you're allowed to like what you like. But when you give a reason for something, you open that reason up for critique and examination. It's fine to dislike Mein Kampf, but if someone says that they don't like it because it doesn't blame the jews then people are gonna question that persons understanding of the work.

The problem is if you go looking you will find and there is no book ever written that hasn't got complaints or problems with it.


Some of them are valid complaints; some are factual complaints. Some relate only to specific versions (eg badly done translations, poor editing etc); some are not actually complaints and just opinions which can still be right and wrong but are more hazy.

It's also possible for people to read books and interpret the work very differently. Life's experiences, reading other books, other influences can all combine to give very different impressions of the same work.



So sometimes you can use reviews to sort out what you do and don't like; what works for you and what doesn't.
At the same time sometimes the only best way is to experience the thing you are reading reviews on. To play a game; to watch a film; to read a book.
Otherwise you can't sift the fact from opinion in the reviews;

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Nobody is saying you have to like them. What they are saying is that your reasons for disliking them, again based entirely on not reading them, are not valid as they rely on a misunderstanding of the message of the work.

Like, you're allowed to like what you like. But when you give a reason for something, you open that reason up for critique and examination. It's fine to dislike Mein Kampf, but if someone says that they don't like it because it doesn't blame the jews then people are gonna question that persons understanding of the work.

No I think I know what Dune is all about. Enough to say no thanks mate.

What you’re saying is that this writer is putting out a book that is anti Stalinist. Fine, nothing wrong with that and almost nobody disagrees with that point. But, you then tell me it’s not a conservative piece of literature saying change is bad because that same villain, who is being condemned as a literal worm, is actually right. That we are meant to take his plan and vision seriously; the writer just happens to have a disgust for autocracy. That any change is worth any price and the sheer absurdities are just embellishments. I think it’s more likely that this is the other half of the satire. You put up extremes like this because you want to apply that logic to smaller matters.

Because if he was doing that he would be undercutting his own argument since it’s only that social engineering in the first instance that freed humanity from its state of ignorance. Which BtW is a metaphor for Marx’s stages of communism.

Plus, IMO, a story is metaphorical. When a protagonist achieves anything that is a positive statement affirming an individual agency and potential as an active citizen. Anyone can be President. That sort of thing. Which is a sentiment that can be applied to real life. Maybe I should volunteer or get involved in my local community to make a difference. Maybe I should advocate for that fence to be repaired so people don’t get ran over.

If your story is actually about how humans are ignorant, stupid, how power corrupts and is a veil for evil you aren’t really criticising autocracy or superheroes. What those books are saying is that you the reader are small, ignorant, stupid and should shut up. Leave the running of the world to folks who know best. Society will take care itself without meddlers. They’re not saying you can’t be President, they’re telling you shouldn’t have any say in the world. It’s actually, ironically because many of these stories insist otherwise, an intensely anti democratic and anti individualist world view.

I get the sense Dune is that type of story. Why else would he have things like Paul being a loon who gets billions killed?

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


Tolkien made a fully lived in world before Dune.

Tolkien is an unfair bar to reach to attain quality.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Also, Paul doesn't just take the name Muad'dib. He specifically chooses to be called Paul Muad'dib, retaining his original name which was not something seen in his visions.

Paul is constantly trying to walk a knife edge with regards to his prescience. Follow it just enough to get what he needs, but subvert it just enough to try and nudge the trajectory of the future from the mass bloodshed.

Yes and no. He is known as Paul Maud'dib to the Fremen, Usul to his sietch and Muad'dib to outsiders. Muad'dib is his prophesied name which is why he changes it up to a point, to gain a measure of freedom, perhaps he was supposed to be4 Paul Muad'dib everywhere, but fate dropped the 'Paul' in most iterations, which ties in with the greater narrative of Ijaz.
It also worked out for the best that way..
The Emperor and the Guild did not know who he was. 'Paul' might have been enough of a clue.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah, 40k owes frighteningly little to Tolkien, and just about everything to Moorcock (the original anti-Tolkien, move over GRRM) and Dune.

Martin is not the new Tolkien, just a hack who thinks he is, and it has gone to his little head.

chaos0xomega wrote:
WHFB isn't really indpired by Tolkien either. Sure it has the trappings of it - elves, orcs, dwarves, and dragons, but that doesn't automatically make something Tolkienesque. They no doubt borrowed elements of Tolkien, but in the whole Warhdmmer (in all its incarnations) isnot very Tolkien-like - theres more to Tolkien than ofcs, elves, dwarves, and dragons, after all. The underlying themes and messaging is wholly absent/often contrary to Tolkiens own.... but I digress

Warhammer is very clearly a Tolkien rip, with regards to the dwarfs and elves. Other races are taken from other common tropes. Remarkably little is original.

 Grey Templar wrote:
40k is much more inspired by Dune than Tolkien. .

The cultural iconography of 40k Imperium comes from the 1984 film version of Dune. The original book does not imply a space-Victorian gothic style, though it does fit very well. That plus arguably the God Emperor, but more-than-mortal space Emperors are not rare in pulp SF, we get them in Star Wars, Flash Gordon and John Carter universe, with some side nods to the Mekon too.

Didn't like it from the first time I watched i. Had to see it again