|
Mortanis posted:The end of Dead Beat is still probably my favorite moment in the series. There are better books - just barely. There are more amazing moments. There are some phenomenal endings in other books. But the last stretch of Dead Beat really sums up Dresden Files in a perfect package and serves it up neatly for you on a silver platter. It shows you what type of stakes the series can have, the type of humor the book can carry, and the batshit "haha, what? YES!" moments that I live for. I wish I could use it as a scene to describe to people to get them hooked because I know a few I could draw in that way, but it's just too good to spoil early. It's peak Harry Dresden and for the longest time I thought nothing would ever beat it. It's one of my favorite moments I've ever read in print. Maybe I'm just riding high on having just read it. But it's soooooo goooood!
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:29 |
|
|
There is so much to love about Dead Beat. Like Sue being the payoff of the otherwise regular window dressing conversation between Harry and Butters. "Why make your zombie human and not like zombie hornets? Because the power of a zombie is from how old it is and how big it is, and the oldest biggest corpses one is likely to find are preserved buried remains" unless you get creative and realize a 65 million year old 42 foot long skeleton tops that. Or the massive world building of explaining how the white council operates and how it is fighting the war with simultaneously dramatically upping the stakes with the battle of Greece. Or Ramirez cutting a guys throat to stop him from spellcasting, and then executing him with hollow points because Wardens don't gently caress around. Or the first wizard duel we see, where an opening move is to hurl an SUV at the other bastard because again, they don't gently caress around. Or Harry taking his paycheck and slamming the door in Morgan's face as he starts another sanctimonious lecture. Man, really a great book.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
It's also where it stops being Harry versus The White Council as much. It's a turning point for Harry and the readers. He's finally pay off the universe Butcher created instead of an observer of it. The only thing missing to me was Michael, but you get that the next book (at least a little).
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Watching new readers hit Dead Beat is the best thing about this thread. It's enough to tempt me to wonder if I should rethink the spoiler rules for the forum.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Dead Beat is the point after which I stopped getting this series from the library and started buying them all. Also, the death curse thing is a pretty direct homage to Roger Zelazny's Amber series, in which the main characters also possess this ability. Butcher wrote the first book, in which the curse is established, while he was still playing several characters on AmberMUSH, so it's not surprising he included a reference or two.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
And it is helpful to think of the curse as a superspell rather than just an earthshattering kaboom. I mean sure, Harry's would probably be a boom, but Harry's regular spells are too. But along with Die Alone, look what (blood rites)Harry's mom did to the White King.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Dead Beat was the point where I stopped reading actually. It was where Harry refused to hit Kumori with his staff, despite the fact that she practically had a fireball ready to chuck at his face, because "she's a girl and I don't hit girls": Jim Butcher posted:Unless she proved herself to be some kind of monsterous thing that just looked like a girl, I wasn't going to hit her. On some rational level, I knew my attitude was dangerously illogical, but that didnt change anything. I don't hit girls. That would all be well and good. Except this happened earlier: Jim Butcher posted:She was young, mid-twienties at most. She was dressed in a long wool skirt, a turtleneck, and a cardiagan sweater, all in colors of grey. She had ahair of medium brown, held up into a bun with a pair of pencils , wore glasses, and had a heart-shaped face that was more attractive than beautiful, her features soft and appealing. She had a smudge of ink on her chin and on the fingers of her right hand, and she wore a name tag that had the store logo at the top and HI, MY NAME IS SHIELA below it. Shiela turns out to be the manifestation of Harry's desires, his waifu for all intents and purposes, which Lasciel created to be his helper, which he just made out with before he confronted Kumori earlier. And that's where everything stopped for me. See, Dresden's rather lavicious description of Sheila is the same thing I'd expect Philip Marlowe to say about some random dame. But here's a big difference between Marlowe and Dresden--at the end of "The Big Sleep", Marlowe's right back where he started at his shithole office just barely making ends meet. Harry on the other hand is riding a zombie dinosaur by the end of "Dead Beat" and there's also this little chestnut: Jim Butcher posted:"This never happens again," I said quietly. You try to get me through other mortals again and I'll kill you. Harry's politics towards women, sexual and romantic, is straight-up congnative dissonance. Women are girls to him, yet he has no problem leering at them and he has no more than two gorgeous supernatural entities who want him. He infantalizes women and objectifies them at the same time and that's rather repugnant. But what's worse is that there's no sense of judgement, either--Harry's our hero, and any sort of unfortunate implications or legitimate grievances that may arise from all this is all forgiven because he's the hero, the chosen one, and thus blameless. Philup Marlowe was an rear end in a top hat and Raymond Chandler made no excuses--Harry Dresden is a giant Manchild and Jim Butcher celebrates him. I had a lot of problems with this series, but it was here where I reached my breaking point. I finished this book, but I have yet to pick up another Dresden book. I understand that The Dresden Files is escapist fantasy, but it's the urban fantasy equivilant of Love Hina, and Harry's our Keitaro. Yeah, I said it. 
Benny the Snake fucked around with this message at 01:50 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
He gets better about that.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:Dead Beat was the point where I stopped reading actually. It was where Harry refused to hit Kumori with his staff, despite the fact that she practically had a fireball ready to chuck at his face, because "she's a girl and I don't hit girls": Yeah, you can stop reading wherever you like and no one's gonna blame you for it. Some of that stuff is pretty cringeworthy and hard to read. But Harry's issues with women aren't excused as the series goes on, and there is a good portion where he gets his soul flayed for it. I see where you're coming from, Harry's got some hosed up issues, but I don't agree that the text is supporting him. While he ends fine in Dead Beat, the central conflict and issue of two previous books (Fool Moon and Grave Peril) entirely revolves around his character flaw of infantalizing women. Its how he gets his part-time apprentice killed, Susan vampirized and leads to a ton of people dying to a werewolf and vampires. Like, Harry gets hosed over by his thing with women a lot until he's forced to actually confront it and deal with it. Its one of the reasons the Turn Coat/Changes/Ghost Story trilogy is great because every aspect of Harry's life gets absolutely shattered, and it happens because of his flaws and hubris. And then he's stuck, dead, trying to figure out how to change Zore fucked around with this message at 03:06 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Zore posted:Yeah, you can stop reading wherever you like and no one's gonna blame you for it. Some of that stuff is pretty cringeworthy and hard to read. But Harry's issues with women aren't excused as the series goes on, and there is a good portion where he gets his soul flayed for it. Another big reason why I'm so disappointed with this series is the lack of character development and maturity. The main thrust of "Blood Rites" is supposed to be Harry investigating a death curse upon an independent pornography director in the middle of his latest production and Harry's unease in being at the production in the first place, not to mention how the White Court was portrayed as a group of succubi and incubi, came off as incredibly cliche and rather uncomfortable to read. It was clear to me that Jim Butcher wanted to tackle certain themes within the vampire mythos, the sexual predator aspect, but it just came off as incredibly ignorant, not to mention exploitative and judgmental. I don't want to go too much into detail, since the sexual politics of the White Court in the Dresden Files has been discussed on and I really don't want to derail this thread. Let's compare that to "Moon over Soho", a novel of the Rivers of London Series by Ben Aaronovitch. Peter Grant, London constable and apprentice wizard, investigates the mysterious and magical deaths of local jazz musicians and becomes involved with the paramour of one of the deceased. Every time they consummate, there's a sense of foreboding, and Peter goes into this relationship with a sense of fatalism, taking his previous history with women into account. It turns out his lover was a sort of succubus, unknowingly draining life force from her lovers, but there's no exploitation or judgement to be found. Peter Grant is a more mature protagonist whose hangups and relationship issues result in direct consequences within the books, especially in his relationship with his partner Leslie May. Reading both series, I get a sense that Butcher is much more focused on set-pieces and action scenes, like the aforementioned climax with the zombie T-Rex. Sure, that's awesome, but somebody in this thread got it right when they described the series as an offshoot of someone's tabletop RPG sessions. I got the feeling that Butcher isn't a proper writer but more of a game master, more preoccupied preparing set-pieces and climaxes but forgetting that he's supposed to, you know, develop the characters himself. I read books primarily for characters and everything else comes secondary, including escapism and action. The Dresden Files drew me in because of the great action but it took me seven books to finally realize that the protagonist was inherently unlikable-a manchild-and should've been properly developed from the get-go. When I jumped into "Midnight Riot" and was introduced to Peter Grant, I liked him because he was a well-rounded character whose flaws and shortcomings were of his own making and whose hangups had dire consequences down the road. Aaronovitch is a proper writer and I enjoy the series better for it. I appreciate The Dresden Files and Jim Butcher for introducing me to the wonderful genre of Urban Fantasy but now that I've broadened by horizons and read much better stuff (Rivers of London, The Rook, Daniel Faust Series, Gaiman) I never want to read another Dresden Files book again and I'm sorry for getting on this long-winded rant. On the other hand, anybody interested in a buncha Dresden Files hardback books? Got a bunch of them used in a used book sale but they're in pretty good condition 
Benny the Snake fucked around with this message at 06:22 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:Harry's politics towards women, sexual and romantic, is straight-up congnative dissonance. Women are girls to him, yet he has no problem leering at them and he has no more than two gorgeous supernatural entities who want him. He infantalizes women and objectifies them at the same time and that's rather repugnant. But what's worse is that there's no sense of judgement, either--Harry's our hero, and any sort of unfortunate implications or legitimate grievances that may arise from all this is all forgiven because he's the hero, the chosen one, and thus blameless Most of what you're saying isn't wrong but this is. You're right, Harry's politics are lovely but intentionally so. He is straight-up a manchild with a caveman's view of women and part of the plot is him getting away from that. Harry is basically anything but blameless and a huge chunk of his problems are because he is a giant manchild. This does have actual consequences for him that he has to deal with. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 06:41 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Most of what you're saying isn't wrong but this is. You're right, Harry's politics are lovely but intentionally so. He is straight-up a manchild with a caveman's view of women and part of the plot is him getting away from that. Harry is basically anything but blameless and a huge chunk of his problems are because he is a giant manchild.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:Yeah, I remember Susan Rodriguez, how she was turned by the Red Court because Harry hosed up. Thing is, Susan to me feels less like Harry's legitimate partner and the love of his life and more like like his action-movie girlfriend--I found much more wish-fulfillment than actual character development in her. And I know what happens to her in "Changes", but given how Harry has Mab, Lasciel, and I'm betting even Murphy fawning over him, it comes across to me like this quasi-Betty and Veronica situation--if Harry/Archie loses one, he'll have another, there's no real consequence because none of these characters have any real depth or development to me. You're not really right about this. I mean, I'm not arguing that Dresden is High Art or anything but there is very specifically development and change in characters. I think some of it (everything involving the White Court) is still pretty drat bad but by and large there is an actual push towards changes. Mab in particular is pretty much the opposite of fawning over Dresden. A big part of the books (especially post-changes) is that Dresden has to grow up and become a goddamn adult. That said, I also really really disagree with you on Peter Grant so we may just not be able to see eye to eye. Peter is in a better-written book series but he is every inch the smug self-satisfied arrogant manchild who eclipses a more interesting supporting cast. I'm aware that is the author's intention but it doesn't make it any more likable to read. He lacks Dresden's absurd sexism but makes up for it by utterly overriding more interesting characters and he certainly has his fare share of Beautiful Supernatural Creatures Lust After Him so he isn't much better on that front either. Hell, that's probably somewhere that Dresden's worse writing works in its favor. Rivers of London is a better book series but that makes its awful protagonist all the worse. Edit: That said, Butcher even at his best is still a significantly worse writer, and no matter what the White Court remains utterly abhorrent writing every time they show up. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 07:19 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:You're not really right about this. I mean, I'm not arguing that Dresden is High Art or anything but there is very specifically development and change in characters. I think some of it (everything involving the White Court) is still pretty drat bad but by and large there is an actual push towards changes. Mab in particular is pretty much the opposite of fawning over Dresden. A big part of the books (especially post-changes) is that Dresden has to grow up and become a goddamn adult. ImpAtom, I'm pretty sure we're gonna have to agree to disagree because I really wanna avoid any sort of pissing contest over which character is better or the bigger manchild. Benny the Snake fucked around with this message at 07:20 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:ImpAtom, I'm pretty sure we're gonna have to agree to disagree because I really wanna avoid any sort of pissing contest over who's the bigger manchild. Well, that's fair, I'm just saying that there's a similar case of "everything comes crashing down on him" for Dresden as well. I wasn't really trying to get in a pissing match over which characters is better/worse, just that there is actually a point where Dresden faces a reckoning for his actions and is forced to change how he acts. You absolutely don't have to read that far if you're not enjoying the books (and frankly I doubt you'd enjoy it if you did read that far.) I was just saying that one point was either intentional, or more likely, Butcher realized what kind of character he was writing and developed it so that the writing became a character point the character had to grow out of.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Well, that's fair, I'm just saying that there's a similar case of "everything comes crashing down on him" for Dresden as well. I wasn't really trying to get in a pissing match over which characters is better/worse, just that there is actually a point where Dresden faces a reckoning for his actions and is forced to change how he acts. You absolutely don't have to read that far if you're not enjoying the books (and frankly I doubt you'd enjoy it if you did read that far.) I was just saying that one point was either intentional, or more likely, Butcher realized what kind of character he was writing and developed it so that the writing became a character point the character had to grow out of. I agree with this. Especially that last sentence. Harry was hosed up and outgrew it--minus some unfortunate backsliding in Cold Days.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
I've actually had more than a little trouble empathizing with Grant just based on how much myopic man-baby he can be. I know that's meant to be deliberate to some extent, but it does start to grate, and even strains credibility when he's spacing out on stuff that I feel like a five year-old would pick up on. On the other hand, there's no real question that Dresden is a paternalistic misogynist and while that's also be deliberate, it is often less than endearing and the books play it was too hard at times. Either way, I think you're both not wrong. Urban Fantasy still has a lot of growing up to do, even by the standards of genre fiction. Hell, remember that one of Butcher's primary influences was Laurell K. Hamilton's Anita Blake series. When he started writing that was what people considered to be the pinnacle of the sub-genre! Baby steps, baby steps.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Well, that's fair, I'm just saying that there's a similar case of "everything comes crashing down on him" for Dresden as well. I wasn't really trying to get in a pissing match over which characters is better/worse, just that there is actually a point where Dresden faces a reckoning for his actions and is forced to change how he acts. You absolutely don't have to read that far if you're not enjoying the books (and frankly I doubt you'd enjoy it if you did read that far.) I was just saying that one point was either intentional, or more likely, Butcher realized what kind of character he was writing and developed it so that the writing became a character point the character had to grow out of. Skippy McPants posted:On the other hand, there's no real question that Dresden is a paternalistic misogynist and while that's also be deliberate, it is often less than endearing and the books play it was too hard at times. Dude, you articulated my main issue with Harry Dresden better than I could. Compared to that, I'll gladly forgive Peter's idioacy. Benny the Snake fucked around with this message at 08:17 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
Dresden is a strange one. He reaps the consequences yet never learns the lessons. I always wondered if some of the problem with analysing him and the Dresden files as a whole is the fact that we are firmly in Dresden's head-space, and Harry Dresden makes for a poor hero, and is a bad person as a whole. On the other hand, Butters feels like the kind of person who IS heroic material. He's grown in a number of ways, never entirely loosing who he was in the process but not becoming someone radically different either. I'd love a short story in his head-space to see the comparison between him and Harry. We've also had time in Molly and Murphy's headspace, and they aren't the same as Dresden. They aren't perfect stories, but by comparison we do see a marked difference in perspectives and opinions. I just wonder if some of the flaws are deliberate, and others are Jim riding on a perfect excuse that fell into his lap. Maybe I'm giving the man too much credit. Skippy McPants posted:Dresden is a paternalistic misogynist and while that's also be deliberate, it is often less than endearing and the books play it was too hard at times. There's a certain thing that happens between Him and Molly in Cold Days(?) that perfectly, uncomfortably captures this. Brrr. I get that Harry isn't very subtle, the front row seat can be deeply uncomfortable because of that. Thyrork fucked around with this message at 09:21 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
Personally I find Harry gets too much undeserved crap. Like Susan, he tells her not to go to a vampire party, she fakes his invitation and goes anyway, that's entirely on her. Changes: And taking out the red court - a monster cult pretty much enslaving parts of the world - was a good thing, he shouldn't be held responsible for there being other evil beings out there who'll take their place. Harry doesn't gently caress up as much as he's doing the best he can in a messed up world, which is pretty much what Michael tells him in Skin Games. I'm hoping he'll become less guild ridden and critical of himself, not more. Avalerion fucked around with this message at 09:40 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
Thyrork posted:Dresden is a strange one. He reaps the consequences yet never learns the lessons. I always wondered if some of the problem with analysing him and the Dresden files as a whole is the fact that we are firmly in Dresden's head-space, and Harry Dresden makes for a poor hero, and is a bad person as a whole. quote:On the other hand, Butters feels like the kind of person who IS heroic material. He's grown in a number of ways, never entirely loosing who he was in the process but not becoming someone radically different either. I'd love a short story in his head-space to see the comparison between him and Harry. quote:We've also had time in Molly and Murphy's headspace, and they aren't the same as Dresden. They aren't perfect stories, but by comparison we do see a marked difference in perspectives and opinions.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:well that's directed rather head on in grave peril, and to a lesser extent in latter books isn't it? Harry is a "hero" who climbs to victory on a mountain of corpses. He isn't a hero; he is the consequences of others actions. It's an interesting reading, but it doesn't seem very tenable to me. Many of the books have sections where someone goes on about how noble and great he is. Harry is at his core a conservative hero. He's a middle aged white guy who feels strongly about protecting women, but also has really lovely attitudes towards women. He feels very strongly about fatherhood. He loves his guns. He distrusts and dislikes the government (White Council). His best friends are a hardcore conservative Catholic dude and a somewhat lapsed Catholic cop. He hates change. His thoughts on how the people of the world are sheeple who refuse to see the truth (of magic) could easily be written by a college libertarian. He's deeply uncomfortable with sex (though he's obsessed by it) and gay people. I think these arguments that the books are actually critiquing Dresden's personality and actions don't hold much water. If you are more liberal and reading, there is a cognitive dissonance between enjoying them as superlative popcorn novels and having problems with all the lovely stuff in the books. I think Butcher himself experiences this dissonance to some degree, but saying the books are actually critiquing the values they present seems like wishful thinking to me.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
You can look at the background authors are coming from - I don't know what Butcher's current beliefs are, but I'm given to understand he grew up with this sort of evangelical background, which would obviously influence how he writes, even if he no longer identified with those convictions. Based on his writing in Dresden, I suspect that Butcher's thoughts on religion, for example, probably align with Harry's "the Almighty and I don't always see eye-to-eye, but He's fine in my book" attitude; he doesn't seem extremely devout but he doesn't wish to forswear the faith of his parents (though I quite readily admit that this may be a bit of projection on my part, since I find myself in the same boat a lot of the time). Conversely, Aaronovitch's late father (Sam Aaronovitch) was a Marxist academic who, unlike most prominent Marxist academics, actually came from a working class background (which makes him a bit of a novelty by the standards of leftist intellectuals ) and entered Balliol to study economics when he was nearly 50, after Aaronovitch was born, so that's where he comes from as a writer.(I could be talking a lot of hot air, though, since I'm going by what I've heard rather than what I know for a fact.)
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:
Overall, Harry's handling with women is a huge drawback of the series and harder to get through on re-reads when it's worse in the early books, so I agree in general, but I have to ask about this. I'm guessing you mean "lascivious", which means lewd, but nothing in that description of Lash's manifestation strikes me as lewd - especially considering how many times Harry notices "the tips of her breasts". Unless it's the use of the word "appealing", but he's not at all describing her in a deconstructed, hyper sexualized way. Dresden Files is kinda like a Cult Classic B-Movie perfected. It revels in its cheese, and that makes it endearing. There's better written stuff out there, better characters out there, but Dresden Files hits the spot because it pulls together all those little absurd bits together into magic. I originally gave up on Peter Grant during Moon over Soho. It was just a little too bland for me. I liked that Peter is a cop so the narration has this detail-oriented description without actually describing every brick and tree, more of an awareness vibe, but Moon over Soho dragged around the 40% mark. After binging through the Alex Verus novels I decide that audiobooks would probably be better, and I'm currently back on Moon over Soho and it's much better narrated, even though I generally prefer written word. A little bummed that the plot was just spoiled for me upthread though, but I'd kinda already sussed it out.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Wittgen posted:I think these arguments that the books are actually critiquing Dresden's personality and actions don't hold much water. If you are more liberal and reading, there is a cognitive dissonance between enjoying them as superlative popcorn novels and having problems with all the lovely stuff in the books. I think Butcher himself experiences this dissonance to some degree, but saying the books are actually critiquing the values they present seems like wishful thinking to me. They absolutely are to some degree. It isn't a case of all-or-none. Harry's actions are not presented as right which is something I think people tend to get tripped on. (It's also what leads to a lot of the "Murphy is such a bitch" stuff from certain segments of the fandom.) Harry thinking something is not the same Harry being right and a lot of things Harry has taken for granted as him being accurate or right tend to end up wrong. Harry distrusts the White Council for example but once he actually encounters their worldview as a Warden he starts ending up defending it to other people and admitting that some of his previous thoughts were wrong. I don't even need to explain why his dislike of change is absolutely a character point and not considered a laudable one. Harry's manchildness and selfishness is absolutely critiqued (though in some cases it is lauded too.) The stuff about him having an extremely paternalistic view of the world and the world backing that up however is accurate and unlikely to change. Butcher clearly feels very strongly about that. It's basically Michael in a nutshell and Michael is pretty clearly Butcher's Ideal Fantasy Father to some degree. A lot of the conservative values attached to the book result from his view of fatherhood more than anything else and even the heavily religious elements boil back to that. A lot of the genuinely uncomfortable elements of the book boil down to Harry and Butcher having Serious Thoughts About Fatherhood. The other big element is that Butcher's got some, uh, weird views on sexuality and consent. Not the worst I've seen (or by far the worst in Urban Fantasy) but he still rides the rape/pseudo-rape-but-its-okay-because-they-sort-of-consented train way too hard. Avalerion posted:Personally I find Harry gets too much undeserved crap. Like Susan, he tells her not to go to a vampire party, she fakes his invitation and goes anyway, that's entirely on her. Changes: And taking out the red court - a monster cult pretty much enslaving parts of the world - was a good thing, he shouldn't be held responsible for there being other evil beings out there who'll take their place. Nah, Harry is absolutely responsible for the former. The reason she went is because Harry never actually gave anyone serious real information. He pulled he "you don't want to know and I know better" thing and whoops, turns out he was goddamn wrong. It makes him start playing straight with people in later books. though he still pulls it from time to time. Thyrork posted:I just wonder if some of the flaws are deliberate, and others are Jim riding on a perfect excuse that fell into his lap. Maybe I'm giving the man too much credit. I think it's both. The early books are very clearly not written with that entirely in mind. There's some element of him being cavemanish but it's clearly supposed to be charming. Butcher however was also a young man when he wrote them and it's pretty clear that he's at least rethought some of that as he got older. The later Dresden books have a lot of emphasis to how people change over the years and I think that is the author talking. So I think he realized that he had to change as he got older and took the excuse there, rather than it being intentionally planned and entirely accidental.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Mortanis posted:Overall, Harry's handling with women is a huge drawback of the series and harder to get through on re-reads when it's worse in the early books, so I agree in general, but I have to ask about this. I'm guessing you mean "lascivious", which means lewd, but nothing in that description of Lash's manifestation strikes me as lewd - especially considering how many times Harry notices "the tips of her breasts". Unless it's the use of the word "appealing", but he's not at all describing her in a deconstructed, hyper sexualized way. It's all in how the author presents said characters. Chandler's minimalist tone through Marlowe lets us make our own conlcusions on his protagonist. I really enjoyed Brian Wood's comic book adaptatiion of "Queen of the Black Coast" because how Belit was an excellent character and Conan's equal. Of course, both of these writers are or were unplesant persons (accusations against Wood of sexual harrassment, etc.). But I can still enjoy what these two authors have created because of how they present their characters--either for us to judge or in a more egalitarian light. And because of that I'm more willing to be forgiving and go "death of the author". Butcher's books are straight-up (no pun intended) conservative straight white male fantasy and as someone who's male and straight, but who's decidedly not conservative (progressive, even) and defintely not white, his books make me cringe for very obvious reasons. To be fair, I stopped reading "Half-Ressurection Blues" because the protagonist is a douche in that male millenial egotistical "swag" type. So yeah, I'm not entirely blinded by my sense of politics--if a character's a bad character, I stop reading, end of story. And I apologize to Mortanis and everyone else for blabbing the plot to "Moon over Soho", I felt that it was key though to prove my point if I did spoil it, especially in comparing it with a Dresden book. EDIT: I am in no way judging Jim Butcher's character based on his writing. I can't say what he's like because I don't know him. However, I can say that I very much dislike his writing. Benny the Snake fucked around with this message at 18:02 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:Butcher's books are straight-up (no pun intended) conservative straight white male fantasy and as someone who's male and straight, but who's decidedly not conservative (progressive, even) and defintely not white, his books make me cringe for very obvious reasons. Well, the honest truth here is that you don't how Dresden is written and so you're more critical of it while giving other authors a pass on the same or worse behavior. That's fine but it's why there isn't much else to say about it. You're absolutely not obligated to like Dresden at all (and it is a franchise with a lot of problems) but at the end of the day your problem is just that you didn't like the writing and nothing can overcome that. Edit: And I don't mean that to sound like a dick thing, I'm sorry and I realize it came across that way after I posted it. It's just that... well, that's what it boils down to. Butcher isn't a very good writer on any level beyond the cheesy b-movie action. If you haven't enjoyed the books it won't change just because Harry does because the writing doesn't significantly improve. I certainly wasn't trying to argue you should read more if you've disliked what you read, just that I disagreed with the one point that Dresden never faces consequences and is always proven right. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 18:10 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:Butcher's books are straight-up (no pun intended) conservative straight white male fantasy and as someone who's male and straight, but who's decidedly not conservative (progressive, even) and defintely not white, his books make me cringe for very obvious reasons. Luckily there is tons of leftist sci-fi, and even some fantasy, out there for you to enjoy.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:And I apologize to Mortanis and everyone else for blabbing the plot to "Moon over Soho", I felt that it was key though to prove my point if I did spoil it, especially in comparing it with a Dresden book. It's the de facto thread for discussing urban fantasy. It's a mine field for anyone reading the genre and I know it. I've had a hard time dodging the Foxglove Summer stuff. No worries.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Wittgen posted:I think these arguments that the books are actually critiquing Dresden's personality and actions don't hold much water. If you are more liberal and reading, there is a cognitive dissonance between enjoying them as superlative popcorn novels and having problems with all the lovely stuff in the books. I think Butcher himself experiences this dissonance to some degree, but saying the books are actually critiquing the values they present seems like wishful thinking to me. ImpAtom posted:
I'm not sure it's valid to label Butcher's writing as "conservative" in the sense that, say, John Ringo or David Weber are "conservative" writers. Butcher's just an awkward goon with a flair for writing high-quality pulp.The later books have lots of (painfully awkward) sections where he probably is honestly trying to be "progressive," but he's not very good at being progressive. The best description of Butcher's writing about gender and other progressive issues (gay rights, etc.) is that he makes a clear effort to improve from book to book. That's not the same as saying he's "good", or socially aware, or progressive, but I think he's at least cognizant that his writing has some issues in that regard and is on some level at least trying to work on them. That said you're of course under no obligation to like them, and I agree that other writers (Aaronovitch especially) are just doing a better job these days in the same genre. But fortunately I have time to read more than one book a year.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm not sure it's valid to label Butcher's writing as "conservative" in the sense that, say, John Ringo or David Weber are "conservative" writers. He's conservative as in he's not an American internet liberal, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
What's everyone's opinion of the Dresden TV show? I watched the pilot on YouTube and, while I really like Paul Blackthorne...I was not impressed. I know it only ran one season, but does it get better than the pilot and worth a watch as a mini series?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:What's everyone's opinion of the Dresden TV show? I watched the pilot on YouTube and, while I really like Paul Blackthorne...I was not impressed. It does not and is not.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
apostateCourier posted:It does not and is not. Even Butcher gently disavows the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
If you watch it as an adaptation of the books, you'll be tremendously disappointed. If you watch it as its own thing, you might not be. I watched about five episodes, enjoyed those five episodes, and never really felt the need to watch more.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Blackthorne is charming in it, but SyFy didn't have the desire to really do anything worthwhile with it
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:What's everyone's opinion of the Dresden TV show? I watched the pilot on YouTube and, while I really like Paul Blackthorne...I was not impressed. They had a good thing going, with cohesive character arcs and ongoing stories scripted and ready to film. Then the network put the guy from Charmed in charge at the last moment, he decided that continuity was stupid, and rewrote the scripts to deliberately remove any references to preivous episodes, changed ongoing characters to be separate, and generally hosed everything up.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Megazver posted:He's conservative as in he's not an American internet liberal, I suppose. This. The only people that can classify the Dresden Files as "conservative straight white male fantasy" and keep a straight face are people that have never actually read any conservative straight white male fantasy.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Blackthorne is charming in it, but SyFy didn't have the desire to really do anything worthwhile with it I gave it a go, but couldn't really get into it. Obviously, it wasn't a direct adaptation, but I think it was different enough they probably could've changed the names and just done it as an magic detective show independent of the Dresden franchise.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:29 |
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I gave it a go, but couldn't really get into it. Obviously, it wasn't a direct adaptation, but I think it was different enough they probably could've changed the names and just done it as an magic detective show independent of the Dresden franchise. I think this only works if the Dresden Files didn't exist, otherwise you get fans of the book series deriding the show as a complete ripoff of the books. And as the network was counting on fans of the books to provide a substantial portion of the ratings...
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:31
|
|