georgiedenbro wrote:
The appendix isn't clear on that point. It says the KH was meant to be a 'super mentat', which doesn't exactly imply he was meant to receive standard mentat training. My best guess is that they did not intend the KH to be a mentat, because without the ability to categorize all of the visions the KH would be much easier to control and use as a BG puppet. I don't think they ever intended to cede their power over to some male; rather I think they intended to use a male of a certain type to their ends, as they later did with Teg. If the KH was a mentat he'd have too much power at his disposal.
"They were breeding for a super-mentat, a human computer with some of the prescient abilities found in Guild navigators."
It pretty clear exactly what they wanted. As for the KH being a tool, I agree that is what the BG were expecting, but we (the audience) are told it would never happen. The KH would always break away. Even the Tleilaxu made a KH and it chose to kill itself rather than bend to others. And I'd argue that Teg
allowed himself to be used as a tool. Look at the way he treated Taraza... like an equal. He wasn't cowed by her presence like other Sisters were; he was very comfortable around her. And he was enough of a mentat to certainly be aware of their design for him. His mother likely knew this as well and so gave him the deep training, bolstering him against Voice and other BG wiles (there's a memory-scene were 9yo Teg deflects the probing questions of a acolyte).
This is, of course, possible, but even so to refer to a human being by his job title is still a belittling of the person, one way or the other. Consider if there was a painter working in your house, and you referred to him in his presence as "the painter." "Does the painter want a drink?" It would be pretty insulting. I don't think there's any way around the fact that calling a person by his job in this way is a disparaging thing, especially when the person in question has the reputation for having a great mind. Can you imagine Stephen Hawking being next to you, and you referring to him obliquely as "the scientist"? It would be pretty damn condescending as far as I can tell.
Of course... except that she isn't in Thufir's presence or directly addressing him. It's like if you were having work done to your house and you asked your significant other, "Did you call the contractor today?" It's a direct question and cuts to the chase without much room for confusion. In one word it describes who and in what context the call would have been about. "Have you studied the mentat..." or "Have you studied Thufir as he performs as a mentat?" are the same question, one is simply more succinct.
And this is off the point, but some professions bestow honorifics and it would be "disrespectful" to refer to such a person as anything but. Calling a doctor by "Mr." for example. And emphasis has a lot to do with meaning as well. Sure, calling someone "the painter" might be rude, but calling them "
the painter" carries praise. Nearly everyone called Teg "Bashar," even to his face.
Well, that's an assumption on your part. I can think of why it's impossible, but likewise nothing in the text indicates the mentats came much later than BG. Appendix II seems to say that all kinds of mental advances began at around that time, so I think it's a bit of a leap to suggest that mentats weren't one of them. Consider that without mentats and without computers certain kinds of tasks would literally be impossible to do. Cross-checking large quantities of data, for instance, even for business, would be totally unfeasible without mentats. If we think of the ecology of an empire suddenly without computers, I don't think much time would pass before at least something like a mentat would be developed.
True. But that's just an assumption on your part now. There is no textual evidence that mentat training
did in fact start from the very onset. Without computers and calculaters people may have went back to crunching the numbers on pen-and-paper using complicated arithmetic before eventually saying "there has to be an easier way."
I agree with your assessment that the BG using computers indicates they are not totally against using machines as mere tools. My contention is that they think mentats are borderline in this category. That wouldn't mean the BG have any problem using them, per se, but it would mean they think of them as tools.
Yes, but the question is are they
merely tools? Mentats serve a function in the same way a bus driver or electrician does. It's what they are good at. Thufir was obviously a dear friend to Leto, not just a tool kept because it was useful. Which is how the Baron treated Piter ("He has almost outlived his usefulness."), but that is also how the Baron treated everyone. Even his own family: Feyd was meant to be the "savior" of Arrakis just so the Baron can milk the populace more easily. It wasnt so that Feyd could advance politically (a fringe benefit) but so the Baron could rest easy without worrying about the Spice quota being met everyday.
As for Bellonda, I don't think her flaw was being a mentat, it was relying too much on absolutes. Odrade seemed to have it in for all Archivists. Thinking dynamically, pushing the envelope, taking risks... that was what Odrade appreciated in a person, why she liked Duncan and admired Teg, even though both were also mentats.