When I first read Dune and sequels in my teens, I too thought that the later books were kind of boring. I have re-read it in my late 30s and now I actually fav

When I first read Dune and sequels in my teens, I too thought that the later books were kind of boring. I have re-read it in my late 30s and now I actually favor the later novels. I consider all 6 novels as one work. The deconstruction of a hero (Paul) was in my opinon necessary and logical progression of the story arc. I think Herbert wanted to say that heroes inevitably end up being harmful to the society. My opinion is that if the sequels were written in the same manner as the first book, we'd end up with an excellent but still run-of-the mill epic saga like Star Wars, LoTR etc. In my view, Herbert's Dune stands above all precisely because it's not just another (great) SF novel. Herbert said he set out to write a book on philosophy and religion, but didn't want to approach the subject academically since it would probably be only read by scholars. He wanted to reach a broader audience and so he wrapped his ideas into science fiction so it's more easy to swallow for the average bookworm.