|
So afterr hearing a smuttering of prise for this series, and realising it's about urban fantasy (A gener I'm curious about exploring further) I got the first book and read it.
I thought it was fine. Like a 3.5 star review (out of 5). I had some fun moments with it, and it really picked up towards the end with some really great action scenes and a kind of dry humor which I appreciate.
Overall I'd say the book was rather mediocre. Nothing BAD, but nothing that really got my attention either. Also I don't appreciate the rather sexist approach it takes with it's female chracters.
So, given that these are my thoughts on the book, should I go ahead and get the next one? if the opening book was only O.K for me will I be interested in reading the next?
The Dresden Files series is one of the only ones I can genuinely say gets better as you go a long. So far I think every sequel has improved on the last. The first 3 are just okay, but after that they really pick up.
Though there already is a Dresden Files thread.
|
|
The Dresden Files series is one of the only ones I can genuinely say gets better as you go a long. So far I think every sequel has improved on the last. The first 3 are just okay, but after that they really pick up.
Though there already is a Dresden Files thread.
Thanks for the input.
I didn't want to look into the dresden files thread for fear of spoilers, that's why I started this one not to discuss the books but to hear if people think I should keep on reading if I thought the first was only "O.K".
Yeah, I have to agree with Rynjin. They certainly improve, the world becomes richer and slightly more epic.
I would certainly recommend borrowing the following few books at a minimum. The first few books were done as a writing project, but the later ones improve in style too.
I find that many folks tend to say books 1 and 2 are the weaker in the series and that once you reach book 3 he tends to get you hooked as a follower. I myself didnt get into it until book 2-3 myself. good luck to you, hope you give it a go!
|
It's been said multiple times that book 1 into were written while he was in college. they were his senior project or something... book 3 on it started after he was done with college and had actually had experience with a professional editor. Supposedly the only reason why he got the book deal for the first 2 was that he package them together and they were both already complete when he went for the deal... personally I think book 4 and 5 are my favorite and that book 10 and 12. He is also an active LARPer and RPG player, and used to fence in do martial arts - one of the short stories has harry and some of that characters you haven't met yet playing D&D.
I would suggest to give book 2 a try before you write off the series... it is much improoved over book . I have even seen threads where people reccommend starting with book 3-5 and then reading 1 and 2 as preqels
The first three lay the groundwork for the setting, after that Butcher begins to weave more complex threads and play with what he set up. The main character also substantially changes over time ( as do the other characters ).
I'm a bit surprised you found his female depictions as sexist. Karren Murphy is anything but a female damsel in distress and Susan Rodriguez also knows how to handle herself.
|
|
I'm a bit surprised you found his female depictions as sexist. Karren Murphy is anything but a female damsel in distress and Susan Rodriguez also knows how to handle herself.
Qoutes from the first book:
1) "I think that men ought to treat women like something other than just shorter, weaker men with breasts..."
2) [about Murphy when she is forced to bag for Harry's help]: "Classic lady in distress. For one of those liberated, proffesional women, she knew exactly how to jerk my old fashioned chains around.
3)"They say wizards are subtle. But believe you me, wev'e got nothing, nothing at all, on women.
These are just the three I rememberd because they were so in-your-face sexist, but the general attitude towards women in the book seemed to dictate that they are manipulative, attracted to Harry, and less capable than the men (Murphy is a good exception to that, and I'm happy she's part of the story).
Anyway, the feedback from this thread seems overwhelming - only one conclusion to draw. Sounds like I'm not done with Mr. Dresden quite yet :)
|
|
yeah... I can see how you *could* think that from just the first book (although I think the context of your first example is important, IIRC he's actually trying to fight the sexist sterotypes with that comment).. the series is about how Harry changes his views.. and his views on gender and age are a few (but not the only) major ones that change. By mid way through the series there are as many, maybe more strong female recurring characters than there are male ones.
Just a warning though, if you found these views sexist, the situation Harry finds himself in in book 6 may be a bit jarring for you
|
|
yeah... I can see how you *could* think that from just the first book (although I think the context of your first example is important, IIRC he's actually trying to fight the sexist sterotypes with that comment).. the series is about how Harry changes his views.. and his views on gender and age are a few (but not the only) major ones that change. By mid way through the series there are as many, maybe more strong female recurring characters than there are male ones.
Just a warning though, if you found these views sexist, the situation Harry finds himself in in book 6 may be a bit jarring for you
** spoiler omitted ** Again, its meant to show how many of the characters views can change through the encounters, it has some really interesting scenes, and introduces some major characters for later... but it can be a bit jarring for some readers
I am capable of seperating how a character thinks from how the author who wrote her thinks (or by gods, I wouldn't be reading Stephen King anymore), but frankly if the first qoute I gave is Dresden attempting to FIGHT sexist stereotypes then this is going to be an uphill battle for him to change. Also, it's not as if I'm reading books to find fair representation of women, I'm reading them because I want good stories. Meaning, really, I can handle it.
But when you read a book penned down by someone alive today, and his views of gender are less advanced than those of Shakespeare, there is room to be a trifle upset.
I agree, this is a great series that just keeps getting better (although I didn't care much for the Ghost book). The tension builds in each book and after a while the endings become simply epic. I still love the Billy Goats Gruff.
But when you read a book penned down by someone alive today, and his views of gender are less advanced than those of Shakespeare, there is room to be a trifle upset.
And now you are ascribing motives to the author, which he clearly doesn't have. And that makes me a trifle upset.
|
|
I have some small amount of doubt in me that Jim Butcher actualy was thinking far ahead enough when he wrote his first book to actualy include such a long arc of character development (having Drsden start as a sexist and slowely grow out of it) since the book was, as mentioned here, a college project. I think Mr. Butcher might have not been awere of the problem when he started writing the book.
Anyway, as you people say, I am not going to fault an author for how his characters behave, and I'll give the next book in the series the benefit of a doubt and reserve judgment for now.
And you would actually be wrong with that assumption.
Also planned from the start? Butcher has about 20 Dresden standalone books in mind for the series, to be capped off with an “epic trilogy.” “I was too dumb to know you're never gonna sell a 20-book series,” he said, laughing. ( This interview, page two )
Oh, heavy spoilers after the paragraph I quoted, so I'd avert your eyes from the rest. Here, another quote to the point:
Q. You've said for quite a while now that you have plans for about 20 standalone Dresden books, with an epic trilogy to cap it off. How long ago did you start planning for that?
Book one. In "Cold Days" it was fun because I got to go back and make references from the earliest things I was working on. I knew I wanted to do the 20 books and the big epic trilogy end when I got started. This was a project when I got started and I was outlining it to my professor. "You think about 20 books is OK?"
|
But when you read a book penned down by someone alive today, and his views of gender are less advanced than those of Shakespeare, there is room to be a trifle upset.
:)
I don't know that I'd go quite that far, but I can confirm that the moments you'll spend less time thinking "Dude! Stop telling about how you are compelled to Save The Day for women in danger", after the first book or two.I think it's partly because his writing style matured, he just plain got better at writing, and someone probably told him, "hey- you sound a bit sexist".
I wholeheartedly endorse the recommendations to keep going to at least the third book. The series really starts to take off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually book four was where I felt Butcher turned the blender of awesome to full speed and it has never slowed down since, only gotten better.
I enjoyed books 4-11. Only weirdness about the women characters I noticed is that they are all beautiful (except that black court vampire).
I always got the sense that Dreseden was written as a modern version of the 1930's PI (i.e. Marlow)..so its like he is trying to channel the mood of those novels, which were highly sexist
But when you read a book penned down by someone alive today, and his views of gender are less advanced than those of Shakespeare, there is room to be a trifle upset.Those are Harry's views of gender, not the author's. The anthology, Side Jobs, which should be read after Changes (book 12), includes a short story written from Karin's perspective, which has very little in common with Harry's perspective. The story also describes how Harry appears to outside observers when he's interacting with others, and doesn't paint an entirely flattering picture of him.
True, and at the same time, Karin is revealed as somewhat sexist as well, given her assessment of men communicating primarily in primitive grunts. Arguable as bad as any single thing Harry does.
I found that Murphy's description of Harry as normally moving around slowly and deliberately, as though he was going to break something accidentally, combined with her assessment of how he changes when there is danger, added a lot of dimension to the character. A dimension that is not really possible to achieve while writing in the character's point of view. I really want Butcher to do more short stories from other character's perspectives. In particular, I would like to see Harry Dresden from the perspectives of Michael, Charity, Molly, and Billy. Each has a very different view of Harry, and could provide a good amount of insight into an aspect of his character.
As for the sexism in general in the Dresden Files, I didn't really find Harry all that sexist in a demeaning way (aside from a couple moments in the early books), and he does grow out of it. It is more like he is clinging to the old chivalric ideal (which I find somewhat understandable given some of the stuff he went through as a kid). Yes, he has a glaring weakspot for the damsel in distress trope, which is a sexist character flaw, but it is one that is regularly exploited by all the strong female characters that are present in the series. And the presence of said female characters makes it apparent that Harry's sexism should in no way be attributed to Butcher. Also, a lot of the sexist comments/actions he makes in general throughout the series are directed at Murphy, and are primarily teasing in nature.
The interview I linked above enumerates some of his influences.
I bought the first 5 books, and can't get past the 2nd. It's not very good. I've had multiple people tell me to just skip ahead, but I can't find myself to do it.
The most annoying aspect of Dresden's personality, I find, is his martyr complex. Everything is always his fault. It's really frustrating to read his whiny rants about how he is always failing everybody. He's so damned patronizing.
Though, I rather enjoyed the 1st book. Burned through it pretty fast, but I've been stuck on the 2nd book for well over a year now. I dust it off every now-and-again, but never get very far.
I bought the first 5 books, and can't get past the 2nd. It's not very good. I've had multiple people tell me to just skip ahead, but I can't find myself to do it.
The most annoying aspect of Dresden's personality, I find, is his martyr complex. Everything is always his fault. It's really frustrating to read his whiny rants about how he is always failing everybody. He's so damned patronizing.
Though, I rather enjoyed the 1st book. Burned through it pretty fast, but I've been stuck on the 2nd book for well over a year now. I dust it off every now-and-again, but never get very far.
TBH if I were to say any of the books are bad it's the second one. It honestly serves no real purpose in the grand scheme of things either.
His martyr complex is never played as a good thing, which is why I'm okay with it. He's usually called out as being a patronizing a!@@$&! when he mentions something out of his control as being his fault.
The most annoying aspect of Dresden's personality, I find, is his martyr complex. Everything is always his fault. It's really frustrating to read his whiny rants about how he is always failing everybody. He's so damned patronizing.Though, I rather enjoyed the 1st book. Burned through it pretty fast, but I've been stuck on the 2nd book for well over a year now. I dust it off every now-and-again, but never get very far.
The martyr complex never gets better. The books do pick up a lot once the two or three most grating elements of the premise get tossed out and the secondary cast grows.
His martyr complex is never played as a good thing, which is why I'm okay with it. He's usually called out as being a patronizing a%*&+*+ when he mentions something out of his control as being his fault.
It's still annoying to read though, haha! Dresden's chivalry kinda bugs me, too--but I think of it more as a character flaw, and think it lends some depth to his character (and don't attribute this apparent sexism to Butcher himself). On the subject, though--I must say that I picked up on a certain anti-intellectual vibe from 2nd book, as well. That turned me off a bit, too. Not sure if that's just Dresden speaking, or Butcher's appeal to a supernatural world view in the real world. I'm left undecided, but still--a bad taste left in my mouth, nonetheless.
Oh, and while I'm ranting--Murphy! How the hell did she make it to the position she's in (as a lead detective, albeit of a less than reputable department) when she's always hitting people. Her immediate reaction is always to distrust Dresden and/or pummel him. I hope that gets better in the other books, because that's a huuuuuuge obstacle for me.
If I remember correctly, the hitting people is exactly WHY she's the head of that department (she hit the wrong person. Been a while since I read the early books).
Special Investigations is basically a punishment detail. It's where they send disgraced cops or ones that are too much trouble to handle in the hopes that they'll screw up monumentally (they get the "unsolvable" crimes) and get fired, get killed, or not make any more trouble since their word is pretty much mud anywhere else.
But yeah the trust issues get worked out in fairly short order once they reach a mutual agreement of how much Dresden can share without getting screwed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Harrys chivalry streak was always one of the most endearing character traits for me. His gradual loss of self-same is one of the few aspects I think is not so good with the books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's good to hear. My girlfriend has eluded to the fact that there's some character in the later books I may like (something about riding a dinosaur). She's very cryptic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's all remember we have to be a bit careful about spoilers. Not directed at anyone inparticular, but...
I think its fair to say Harry Dresden IS sexist. He has a very base view of the relationship between men and women, and he generalized it, strongly. That is his character, his views about life and relationships belong in the 50's. He is however not a bad person. He is a good person. He doesnt try to oppress women, trys to help everyone he sees in trouble, he is just more emotionally involved in the situation if the person in trouble is a woman.
He is polite, he is kind, he is generous, he is heroic AND he has strong prejudice around gender. He's sexist by definition. But I dont think that represent the Authors view on the subject. Women, (mortal women at least) have intersting and detailed characters that vary from character to character. Murphy, Charity, Molly, Susan, Georgia, and Anastasia are all interesting and strong characters in their own ways. All of them face down similar dangers and personal challenges that harry does (more so if you consider that only Anastasia has a toolset comparable to Harry for dealing with these situation). The story plays out were women are certainly not weak, frail creatures that need protection and saving from the monsters. Thats Harry's view, not butchers. And he is constantly informed he is an outdated neanderthal throught the series for it.
That said, there is a problem with the series. It does not contain a female perspective. Because the book is completely from Harry's point of view, it fails the test for a female perspective (that two women talk to eachother about something other then a man). The whole world literally revolves around Harry. That could easily put someone off, but I personally love the series, and eagerly away the next one.
On the subject, though--I must say that I picked up on a certain anti-intellectual vibe from 2nd book, as well. That turned me off a bit, too. Not sure if that's just Dresden speaking, or Butcher's appeal to a supernatural world view in the real world. I'm left undecided, but still--a bad taste left in my mouth, nonetheless.
I initially took Harry's anti-science broadsides in the early books as Butcher speaking through him, since unlike his sexism they don't get much counterpoint. (There's some, but it's really easy to miss.) But over the next few books, starting with the introduction of Injun Joe in Summer Knight and then really taking off with Butters in Dead Beat, it becomes pretty clear that Harry's just a jerk about it, albeit one who tacitly admits error later on when he finds out that Butters has a much better head for magical theory than he does.
That particular turn was a bit gratifying because most of our introduction to Butters was Harry and the rest of the supporting cast going on about how weak and cowardly he was because he acted like a normal human being instead of the protagonist of a fantasy novel.
I can dig it. Lookin' forward to "Butters".
I can dig it. Lookin' forward to "Butters".
Think he first shows up in Dead Beat.
Also known as the book that becomes the epitome of Cool vs Awesome.
|
|
Dead Beat.
Also known as the book that becomes the epitome of Cool vs Awesome.
I think Dead beat has some of the most memorable scenes, but Cowel just doesn't compare to Nic as far as awesome villins go.... Nic and Co are just the epitome of evil. I love some of the later reveals that make you reread sections of the earlier books going 'wait is that referencing...... Wow.... That's what that was?!'
Butters shows up earlier than Dead Beat (I can't specifically remember which book at the moment) but Dead Beat is where he officially joins the cast, so to speak.
He makes his very first appearance in Death Masks. His part is very minor, though.
You know, I noticed something yesterday. Harry doesnt like hats. He has never been described wearing a hat, and even willfully chooses not to wear a helmet in changes saying 'I dont do hats'. But in all the covers ive seen where he is depicted, he's wearing a hat. I know the hat works well with his duster, but if the character doesnt actually wear hats, shouldnt something have been done to correct this at some point?
You know, I noticed something yesterday. Harry doesnt like hats. He has never been described wearing a hat, and even willfully chooses not to wear a helmet in changes saying 'I dont do hats'. But in all the covers ive seen where he is depicted, he's wearing a hat. I know the hat works well with his duster, but if the character doesnt actually wear hats, shouldnt something have been done to correct this at some point?
Most authors have more control over the Earth's orbit than they do over what goes on the covers of their books. Butcher is no exception. I guess he finally met the cover artist some time after the motif got established and now takes it as a joke. Hence the stuff in later books where Harry muses on headgear.
I'll agree with everyone that the books certainly get better the further along you get.
My main problem with the earlier books was that the plot was awfully busy. Like he's trying to cram too much into narrow in-story timeline. It's like watching an episode of 24. :p
I found that fairly stressful, though Butcher get much better at the pacing later on (except for the newest one which was really bad at this).
As for the rampant sexism... it gets better. Granted, it doesn't get much better (Molly, I'm looking at you) but I found it less and less aggravating (read: creepy) as the series progress.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people seem to be really overly sensitive to male protagonists characters noticing that females can be attractive.
Grantedly, Molly is more than a little bit messed up. As it happens, that was to a point, which came to fruition in the last book.
Considering that the vast majority of "modern horror/fantasy" novel series seem to be written by women and with female main protagonists ( Anita Blake, Mercy Thompson, Rachel Morgan, whatever that series is called upon which True Blood is based ), I really appreciate that at least one author is male and using a male protagonist. If that includes the male character having some sexual thoughts towards females ( like, y'know, every one of those female protagonist characters from those other series towards male characters ), then that's perfectly normal.
And Dresden is not taking undue advantage of all the female attention which comes his way, so I don't really get what the problem is.
Sometimes I think many male readers have been so browbeaten by the modern "males are sexist and bad" stereotyping that even perfectly normal sexual male behaviour is seen as bad and wrong.
Now, saying that Butcher falls into tropes like "all female supporting cast characters are super attractive" is fair and quite noticeable.
Some people seem to be really overly sensitive to male protagonists characters noticing that females can be attractive.
Grantedly, Molly is more than a little bit messed up. As it happens, that was to a point, which came to fruition in the last book.
And some people get awfully defensive when it's pointed out that a particular male protagonist is being more than a little creepy. Like how Molly's defining characteristic (before going nuts, even) seems to be her pierced nipples or that Harry has, and I quote, "known her since she was still in her training bra." Not 'since she still wore braces' or 'since she was a kid'. No, it has to be a boob-reference.
I'm sure it's fine that you find Harry 'empowering'. I found him fairly creepy. But, as mentioned, it does get better throughout the series. I suspect Butcher was trying for that film noir femme fatale approach in his earlier work, didn't quite manage to nail it and decided to dial it down a bit. Which I think helped immensely.
I'm not even going to bring up Maeve because crazy sexy Sidhe fae are allowed to be crazy and (trying desperately to be) sexy.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I happen to agree with magnuskn on Harry. He is delightfully anachronistic, and he does get as good as he gives. His nobility in Proven Guilty is all that keeps him going, and I personally found the scene with the ice water touching. (In a large part because he wasn't, well, touching.)
Also felt in that context it makes sense. Seeing young nubile boobs would make him think of, well, young, in training bra boobs.
(Besides, having been in a, well, similar situation once, I have to appriciate his willpower.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, holding up Molly as an example of sexism is a bit silly in my mind, though I do agree that the ubiquitous use of the "training bra" reference to explain age difference was overdone. As Matthew Morris said, it makes sense at times, like when Molly was naked, or even when Thomas was telling Harry to go for her, but it was also used when there was no sexual context beforehand. But the underlying thing is, she is supposed to be really messed up.
I also didn't think the nipple-piercings were a defining characteristic of her. They were mentioned a couple of times, mostly in the context of "hey, there is a hot young thing near me, and she totally wants in my pants, and she is naked/wearing an insanely tight top with no bra, and it is cold/she is aroused". Can you honestly say if you were in that situation, you wouldn't notice the nipple-piercings? Maybe Molly is overly sexualized in the books, but she also is flaunting her sexuality in front of Harry in an attempt to seduce him a fair amount of the time. What I found more defining of her was her eagerness, both to please Harry (messed up psyche), and to help out and feel like she is contributing something; as well as her passion and inability to think things through properly.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd add one other thing re: Molly.
She's the flip side of Harry's family. We can be pretty sure his mom broke most (if not all) the laws of magic. His Grandfather's allowed to break 'em all. And Harry's broke a few already. They 'get away' with it, because they're right. It's not right for everyone to do it. And Molly's the example why it isn't.