Malazan Empire: Dresden Files - Malazan Empire

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Dresden Files Incoming, unpopular opinion on the horizon.

#41 User is offline   QuickTidal 

  • General Kenobi
  • Group: Team Quick Ben
  • Posts: 17,895
  • Joined: 05-November 05
  • Location:Winden
  • Interests:Sith Beatdowns

Posted 18 September 2012 - 04:30 PM

View PostVengeance, on 18 September 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

View PostQuickTidal, on 18 September 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:


My gf liked/oggled Justin Hartmann on SMALLVILLE. When you ask her why, she says it's his sexy arms.


Makes you go to the gym and work on yours doesn't it. :p


LOL, yep. It's actually the sole reason I go to the gym. I like staying in shape for my gf.
"When the last tree has fallen, and the rivers are poisoned, you cannot eat money, oh no." ~Aurora
1

#42 User is offline   Vengeance 

  • High Priest of Shinrei Love and Worship
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 3,644
  • Joined: 27-June 07
  • Location:Chicago
  • very good...;)

Posted 18 September 2012 - 04:33 PM

View PostStudlock, on 18 September 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

@Vengeance There is nothing wrong with thinking them in a sexual way but the POV goes to the point where there are not longer just sexual but objectified.

@QuickTidal It kind of does. Like really, really does. In the animal kingdom (mammals more so) sex has more to do with dominance than courtship. Basically you just compared us to so Lions which, of course, don't have social mores as we know them. Again I have to problem with people wanting sex, and even admiring someone sexual what I am arguing is in the Dresden Files it is down in that is for the benefit of POV while objectifying the women in question. It is not the characters desires that are at fault but the way they are presented via the narrative that I have a problem with.


There is certain justification for that when ever Thomas walks into a room. Women become objects to be devoured. One would imagine having a white vamp as a brother might make you objectify women a little more then the normal guy.

Of course if a guy hasn't been laid in a long while then sexual thoughts tend to ramp up. Which dresden goes through a lot of not getting any time.
How many fucking people do I have to hammer in order to get that across.
Hinter - Vengy - DIE. I trusted you you bastard!!!!!!!

Steven Erikson made drowning in alien cum possible - Obdigore
0

#43 User is offline   QuickTidal 

  • General Kenobi
  • Group: Team Quick Ben
  • Posts: 17,895
  • Joined: 05-November 05
  • Location:Winden
  • Interests:Sith Beatdowns

Posted 18 September 2012 - 04:36 PM

View PostStudlock, on 18 September 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

@Vengeance There is nothing wrong with thinking them in a sexual way but the POV goes to the point where there are not longer just sexual but objectified.

@QuickTidal It kind of does. Like really, really does. In the animal kingdom (mammals more so) sex has more to do with dominance than courtship. Basically you just compared us to so Lions which, of course, don't have social mores as we know them. Again I have to problem with people wanting sex, and even admiring someone sexual what I am arguing is in the Dresden Files it is down in that is for the benefit of POV while objectifying the women in question. It is not the characters desires that are at fault but the way they are presented via the narrative that I have a problem with.


A. I was simply implying that animals work off pheremones, and we do to an extent as well. Not that we should behave like animals.


B. You're asking for a male character POV to be written in a paragon-ical, pure and unrealistic way then. That's unnatural and is actually harmful to fiction.

Here is a serious question: Have you ever read a female fronted Urban fantasy book? Find one in a book store (any one really, it doesn't matter) and tell me how most of the men are described by the female POV in the first few pages. I'm totally serious about this. Do it. It will quickly become apparent that this feature of books is not the domain of male fronted fantasy alone, but is actually represented in female fronted fantasy (of which the genre is dominated by) as well, across the board.
"When the last tree has fallen, and the rivers are poisoned, you cannot eat money, oh no." ~Aurora
1

#44 User is offline   Studlock 

  • First Sword
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 629
  • Joined: 04-May 10

Posted 18 September 2012 - 04:37 PM

View PostVengeance, on 18 September 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

View PostStudlock, on 18 September 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

@Vengeance There is nothing wrong with thinking them in a sexual way but the POV goes to the point where there are not longer just sexual but objectified.

@QuickTidal It kind of does. Like really, really does. In the animal kingdom (mammals more so) sex has more to do with dominance than courtship. Basically you just compared us to so Lions which, of course, don't have social mores as we know them. Again I have to problem with people wanting sex, and even admiring someone sexual what I am arguing is in the Dresden Files it is down in that is for the benefit of POV while objectifying the women in question. It is not the characters desires that are at fault but the way they are presented via the narrative that I have a problem with.


There is certain justification for that when ever Thomas walks into a room. Women become objects to be devoured. One would imagine having a white vamp as a brother might make you objectify women a little more then the normal guy.

Of course if a guy hasn't been laid in a long while then sexual thoughts tend to ramp up. Which dresden goes through a lot of not getting any time.


And it's just that a justification. Nothing else. It certainly doesn't excuse the very act of it.
0

#45 User is offline   QuickTidal 

  • General Kenobi
  • Group: Team Quick Ben
  • Posts: 17,895
  • Joined: 05-November 05
  • Location:Winden
  • Interests:Sith Beatdowns

Posted 18 September 2012 - 04:42 PM

View PostStudlock, on 18 September 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

And it's just that a justification. Nothing else. It certainly doesn't excuse the very act of it.


You are failing to see that he's a character in a book who has dimensions to him. So every character in a book has to be the perfect example of balance and restraint in their own heads?

What?
"When the last tree has fallen, and the rivers are poisoned, you cannot eat money, oh no." ~Aurora
0

#46 User is offline   Studlock 

  • First Sword
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 629
  • Joined: 04-May 10

Posted 18 September 2012 - 04:42 PM

View PostQuickTidal, on 18 September 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

View PostStudlock, on 18 September 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

@Vengeance There is nothing wrong with thinking them in a sexual way but the POV goes to the point where there are not longer just sexual but objectified.

@QuickTidal It kind of does. Like really, really does. In the animal kingdom (mammals more so) sex has more to do with dominance than courtship. Basically you just compared us to so Lions which, of course, don't have social mores as we know them. Again I have to problem with people wanting sex, and even admiring someone sexual what I am arguing is in the Dresden Files it is down in that is for the benefit of POV while objectifying the women in question. It is not the characters desires that are at fault but the way they are presented via the narrative that I have a problem with.


A. I was simply implying that animals work off pheremones, and we do to an extent as well. Not that we should behave like animals.


B. You're asking for a male character POV to be written in a paragon-ical, pure and unrealistic way then. That's unnatural and is actually harmful to fiction.

Here is a serious question: Have you ever read a female fronted Urban fantasy book? Find one in a book store (any one really, it doesn't matter) and tell me how most of the men are described by the female POV in the first few pages. I'm totally serious about this. Do it. It will quickly become apparent that this feature of books is not the domain of male fronted fantasy alone, but is actually represented in female fronted fantasy (of which the genre is dominated by) as well, across the board.


A. ah, sorry.

B. Again I am not, it's not that he's doing it; it's how it is presented in the narrative. And I have said that I don't think this is a only Dresden Files problem in both genre and society at large. I'd argue what's actually harmful for fiction is the continued presentation of women, including those written by women, as sexual objects rather than people who have sexual desires. I am sure we can agree on that. Though I doubt we aren't, as we are now, going to agree that the Dresden Files contribute to that kind of culture.
0

#47 User is offline   D'rek 

  • Consort of High House Mafia
  • Group: Super Moderators
  • Posts: 12,252
  • Joined: 08-August 07
  • Location::

Posted 18 September 2012 - 04:46 PM

View PostQuickTidal, on 18 September 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

As for sexualization, Dresden is sexualized as well, he's the tall, dark and handsome stereotype. So is Michael. It always bugs me that people immediately see the sexuality of women in a book and assume that it's on purpose and meant to put women in their place or something....but they conveniently have no trouble with the fact that Dresden and Michael are both the female-desire versions of men...you know, the kind you see in women's magazines. Neither one of them is out of shape, both are unremittingly charming, and both are decidedly heroic and sought after by women.


Don't forget Thomas! (Oh God Thomas)

Personally, I don't have a problem with the descriptions or behaviours of the main female characters in the series (I also don't get how Molly can ever be considered hot with fluorescent pink and cyan hair).

What I do find somewhat off-putting, is that the female characters tend to end up in more sexualized situations than the men. Molly having to tear her clothes off from spilling acid? When Elaine is psychic-attacked she is of course naked in the bathtub (and then naked in the parking lot)? Susan drinking the lust potion? Anything with Andi, ever? Molly psychic-reading the dead person and getting an orgasm? These sorts of things just happen a lot more to the women in these stories than the men, which is a bit off-putting because it seems deliberately unbalanced in order to favour a sub-set of the audience that doesn't include me. And it's not simply a matter of these things being better suited to the female characters, because Dresden messing his pants in the morgue or Butters drinking a lust potion and throwing himself at Thomas (Oh God Thomas) would be absolutely hilarious.

It's a fairly minor quibble, one I can look past easily enough to enjoy the rest of the novels, and I don't feel that it reflects so much on any sort of deliberate (or not) objectification of the women, so much as that the author is writing more towards the male audience than the female one (like plenty of other authors do, or vice versa). That's fine, that's his choice to make and if I had a big problem with it I just wouldn't read the books.











and that unicorn-hair scene with Susan was steamy :p


edit: holy cross-posts batman! This was supposed to be like 10 posts ago!

This post has been edited by D'rek: 18 September 2012 - 04:52 PM

View Postworrywort, on 14 September 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

I kinda love it when D'rek unleashes her nerd wrath, as I knew she would here. Sorry innocent bystanders, but someone's gotta be the kindling.
4

#48 User is offline   QuickTidal 

  • General Kenobi
  • Group: Team Quick Ben
  • Posts: 17,895
  • Joined: 05-November 05
  • Location:Winden
  • Interests:Sith Beatdowns

Posted 18 September 2012 - 04:48 PM

View PostStudlock, on 18 September 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:


B. Again I am not, it's not that he's doing it; it's how it is presented in the narrative. And I have said that I don't think this is a only Dresden Files problem in both genre and society at large. I'd argue what's actually harmful for fiction is the continued presentation of women, including those written by women, as sexual objects rather than people who have sexual desires. I am sure we can agree on that. Though I doubt we aren't, as we are now, going to agree that the Dresden Files contribute to that kind of culture.


It's presented in the narrative as a POV. AKA we are in his head. In a guys head, this is how a lot of men think. You are defeating your own argument here.

"as sexual objects rather than people who have sexual desires" <----this statement makes no sense. These two things are one and the same. Changing the wording doesn't make it not true.

Tell you what, the next time you go up to a women in a bar tell her that "her looks mean nothing to you, you aren't sexually attracted to her, and in your head the first thing you thought about was her name" and see what kind of response you get...because I guarantee you the first thing she thought as she looked you up and down as you approached her was whether or not she found you attractive in a sexual way.
"When the last tree has fallen, and the rivers are poisoned, you cannot eat money, oh no." ~Aurora
0

#49 User is offline   Studlock 

  • First Sword
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 629
  • Joined: 04-May 10

Posted 18 September 2012 - 04:50 PM

View PostQuickTidal, on 18 September 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

View PostStudlock, on 18 September 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

And it's just that a justification. Nothing else. It certainly doesn't excuse the very act of it.


You are failing to see that he's a character in a book who has dimensions to him. So every character in a book has to be the perfect example of balance and restraint in their own heads?

What?



I see we are at an impasse here. I say one thing you hear another, you say another and I hear a different thing.

Again. Dimensions are fine, what isn't fine is how these characteristics are not handle in a manner that are really acceptable. His condescending attitude toward women is never anything but a quirk, shown even humorous. It is now out of the characters hands and the hands of the narrative. I have not seen this come back to bit him one bit (it still might and if it does I'll eat my hat). It has been shown not to be damaging at all. That is what I have a problem with. Real problems that affect real life being brushed off as humour.
0

#50 User is offline   QuickTidal 

  • General Kenobi
  • Group: Team Quick Ben
  • Posts: 17,895
  • Joined: 05-November 05
  • Location:Winden
  • Interests:Sith Beatdowns

Posted 18 September 2012 - 04:50 PM

View PostD, on 18 September 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

What I do find somewhat off-putting, is that the female characters tend to end up in more sexualized situations than the men. Molly having to tear her clothes off from spilling acid? When Elaine is psychic-attacked she is of course naked in the bathtub (and then naked in the parking lot)? Susan drinking the lust potion? Anything with Andi, ever? Molly psychic-reading the dead person and getting an orgasm? These sorts of things just happen a lot more to the women in these stories than the men, which is a bit off-putting because it seems deliberately unbalanced in order to favour a sub-set of the audience that doesn't include me. And it's not simply a matter of these things being better suited to the female characters, because Dresden messing his pants in the morgue or Butters drinking a lust potion and throwing himself at Thomas (Oh God Thomas) would be absolutely hilarious.

It's a fairly minor quibble, one I can look past easily enough to enjoy the rest of the novels, and I don't feel that it reflects so much on any sort of deliberate (or not) objectification of the women, so much as that the author is writing more towards the male audience than the female one (like plenty of other authors do, or vice versa). That's fine, that's his choice to make and if I had a big problem with it I just wouldn't read the books.


All very well said, especially the last bit.
"When the last tree has fallen, and the rivers are poisoned, you cannot eat money, oh no." ~Aurora
0

#51 User is offline   Studlock 

  • First Sword
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 629
  • Joined: 04-May 10

Posted 18 September 2012 - 04:56 PM

View PostQuickTidal, on 18 September 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

View PostStudlock, on 18 September 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

B. Again I am not, it's not that he's doing it; it's how it is presented in the narrative. And I have said that I don't think this is a only Dresden Files problem in both genre and society at large. I'd argue what's actually harmful for fiction is the continued presentation of women, including those written by women, as sexual objects rather than people who have sexual desires. I am sure we can agree on that. Though I doubt we aren't, as we are now, going to agree that the Dresden Files contribute to that kind of culture.


It's presented in the narrative as a POV. AKA we are in his head. In a guys head, this is how a lot of men think. You are defeating your own argument here.

"as sexual objects rather than people who have sexual desires" <----this statement makes no sense. These two things are one and the same. Changing the wording doesn't make it not true.

Tell you what, the next time you go up to a women in a bar tell her that "her looks mean nothing to you, you aren't sexually attracted to her, and in your head the first thing you thought about was her name" and see what kind of response you get...because I guarantee you the first thing she thought as she looked you up and down as you approached her was whether or not she found you attractive in a sexual way.


Really that statement makes no sense? You do know the difference between say a wooden box and a child yes? BETWEEN AN OBJECT AND HUMAN BEING? Again I am not complaining about Harry's desire. It's his (really Jim Butcher's) need to endlessly describe women as objects first and humans second. That alone with his need to keep his 'old values'.

Its fine to have sex, indeed I would say sex is great and some humans are beautiful but when women are treated in such way that is all-kinds of ways damaging to them (proven by many scientific studies) it isn't just 'human nature'. That's called biological determinism and it's horseshit.

Edit* I got uh, bit snarky shall we say in this one and for that I am sorry. Not very Canadian of me I suppose.

This post has been edited by Studlock: 18 September 2012 - 05:00 PM

0

#52 User is offline   Vengeance 

  • High Priest of Shinrei Love and Worship
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 3,644
  • Joined: 27-June 07
  • Location:Chicago
  • very good...;)

Posted 18 September 2012 - 04:57 PM

View PostStudlock, on 18 September 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

View PostVengeance, on 18 September 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

View PostStudlock, on 18 September 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

@Vengeance There is nothing wrong with thinking them in a sexual way but the POV goes to the point where there are not longer just sexual but objectified.

@QuickTidal It kind of does. Like really, really does. In the animal kingdom (mammals more so) sex has more to do with dominance than courtship. Basically you just compared us to so Lions which, of course, don't have social mores as we know them. Again I have to problem with people wanting sex, and even admiring someone sexual what I am arguing is in the Dresden Files it is down in that is for the benefit of POV while objectifying the women in question. It is not the characters desires that are at fault but the way they are presented via the narrative that I have a problem with.


There is certain justification for that when ever Thomas walks into a room. Women become objects to be devoured. One would imagine having a white vamp as a brother might make you objectify women a little more then the normal guy.

Of course if a guy hasn't been laid in a long while then sexual thoughts tend to ramp up. Which dresden goes through a lot of not getting any time.


And it's just that a justification. Nothing else. It certainly doesn't excuse the very act of it.


WTF are you expecting? For everyone in the book to go around and say excuse me but I know that I know that you are very attractive with your boobs hanging out and your dress slit up to the top of your thigh but I just want you to know that I am not thinking of you in a sexual way because I don't want you to feel objectified. I know that you are a very intelligent person who has feelings....Please.

Dresden is written for adults who think sexually and it reflects the way the world works not the way that extreme feminists think that the world should work. To say that women are objectified to a extreme extent is ridiculous. I don't go around thinking that I need to excuse my own personal objectification of women. Normal people don't. It would be retarded to try. If a attractive girl bends over in your office do you look away from her ass. No you take a quick peek. It is the nature of the beast. I am not really sure what your issue is any more. That the objectification of women happens at all or that when it does that there is some kind of justification. The book in its relations seems to reflect the real word more then anything else. If you wish that there was no objectification in the world then great. Won't ever happen unless we are all drugged out of our minds. It is a pretty basic concept to human nature find a good mate and breed. Objectification allows for people to quickly sort mate material. God I love objectifying college coeds. :p
How many fucking people do I have to hammer in order to get that across.
Hinter - Vengy - DIE. I trusted you you bastard!!!!!!!

Steven Erikson made drowning in alien cum possible - Obdigore
3

#53 User is offline   QuickTidal 

  • General Kenobi
  • Group: Team Quick Ben
  • Posts: 17,895
  • Joined: 05-November 05
  • Location:Winden
  • Interests:Sith Beatdowns

Posted 18 September 2012 - 05:02 PM

View PostVengeance, on 18 September 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

WTF are you expecting? For everyone in the book to go around and say excuse me but I know that I know that you are very attractive with your boobs hanging out and your dress slit up to the top of your thigh but I just want you to know that I am not thinking of you in a sexual way because I don't want you to feel objectified. I know that you are a very intelligent person who has feelings....Please.

Dresden is written for adults who think sexually and it reflects the way the world works not the way that extreme feminists think that the world should work. To say that women are objectified to a extreme extent is ridiculous. I don't go around thinking that I need to excuse my own personal objectification of women. Normal people don't. It would be retarded to try. If a attractive girl bends over in your office do you look away from her ass. No you take a quick peek. It is the nature of the beast. I am not really sure what your issue is any more. That the objectification of women happens at all or that when it does that there is some kind of justification. The book in its relations seems to reflect the real word more then anything else. If you wish that there was no objectification in the world then great. Won't ever happen unless we are all drugged out of our minds. It is a pretty basic concept to human nature find a good mate and breed. Objectification allows for people to quickly sort mate material. God I love objectifying college coeds. :p


^^this is worded perfectly. What you (Studlock) are looking for is a fallacy of a fictional piece that pretends the world isn't the way it is and humans don't act the way they do. Why would you want to read something like that? It would be a pack of prettied up lies.
"When the last tree has fallen, and the rivers are poisoned, you cannot eat money, oh no." ~Aurora
0

#54 User is offline   Studlock 

  • First Sword
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 629
  • Joined: 04-May 10

Posted 18 September 2012 - 05:12 PM

Neither of you see a problem that how the world works is detrimental to both women and society at large? It doesn't bother you that something you enjoy might be, even in the slightest, be contributing to these conditions? For the last time, its not the depiction it's the tone. Malazan shows shitty people doing shitty things, but it's a tone of empathy whereas, to me at least (and most likely a very small portion of the readership) Dresden isn't 'realistic' rather it is pure escapism. It might get somethings in reality right like how apparently every single human being objectives each other, but others like say well rounded people, outside a few, wrong not to mention people from other cultures.

Haha this why I usually don't post, I generally get into heated debates rather quickly.
0

#55 User is offline   QuickTidal 

  • General Kenobi
  • Group: Team Quick Ben
  • Posts: 17,895
  • Joined: 05-November 05
  • Location:Winden
  • Interests:Sith Beatdowns

Posted 18 September 2012 - 05:19 PM

View PostStudlock, on 18 September 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Neither of you see a problem that how the world works is detrimental to both women and society at large? It doesn't bother you that something you enjoy might be, even in the slightest, be contributing to these conditions? For the last time, its not the depiction it's the tone. Malazan shows shitty people doing shitty things, but it's a tone of empathy whereas, to me at least (and most likely a very small portion of the readership) Dresden isn't 'realistic' rather it is pure escapism. It might get somethings in reality right like how apparently every single human being objectives each other, but others like say well rounded people, outside a few, wrong not to mention people from other cultures.

Haha this why I usually don't post, I generally get into heated debates rather quickly.


This is the way the world has always worked (as far as the gender's objectifying and sexualizing each other based on their urges and such), and is how it will always continue to work.

Thinking that our biological make-up (AKA the attraction quotient of it) is ever going to change is kind of swimming against the tide of that which makes us human.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 18 September 2012 - 05:25 PM

"When the last tree has fallen, and the rivers are poisoned, you cannot eat money, oh no." ~Aurora
0

#56 User is offline   amphibian 

  • Ribbit
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 7,162
  • Joined: 28-September 06
  • Location:Upstate NY
  • Interests:Hopping around

Posted 18 September 2012 - 05:20 PM

View PostD, on 18 September 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

What I do find somewhat off-putting, is that the female characters tend to end up in more sexualized situations than the men. Molly having to tear her clothes off from spilling acid? When Elaine is psychic-attacked she is of course naked in the bathtub (and then naked in the parking lot)? Susan drinking the lust potion? Anything with Andi, ever? Molly psychic-reading the dead person and getting an orgasm? These sorts of things just happen a lot more to the women in these stories than the men, which is a bit off-putting because it seems deliberately unbalanced in order to favour a sub-set of the audience that doesn't include me. And it's not simply a matter of these things being better suited to the female characters, because Dresden messing his pants in the morgue or Butters drinking a lust potion and throwing himself at Thomas (Oh God Thomas) would be absolutely hilarious.

It's a fairly minor quibble, one I can look past easily enough to enjoy the rest of the novels, and I don't feel that it reflects so much on any sort of deliberate (or not) objectification of the women, so much as that the author is writing more towards the male audience than the female one (like plenty of other authors do, or vice versa). That's fine, that's his choice to make and if I had a big problem with it I just wouldn't read the books.

The Molly thing was a lab accident that happened one time in the several years that she was Dresden's apprentice. It's noteworthy because Bob, who is an outright perv, witnessed the whole thing (and Dresden may have too). The other several hundred days when Molly kept her clothes on and did her usual lab work are referred to, but not exactly described in detail.

Elaine got attacked when she was most relaxed - which was in the bathroom. And we people do often tend to be nekkid in the bathroom. I didn't mind that. It's a horror staple too.

As for Molly having an orgasm during the lust-killed dead body reading, Dresden's been seduced by female vampires and experienced something similar. He even used one of those to escape the cave-splosion at the end of White Night.

Andi was mentioned in particular for her transformation from chubby to really fit in the early books (1 through 5). That was alright with me. I think Dresden's descriptions of her became kinda standard and not sexualized in a bad way after that.

A few men went through similar transitions - the Summer Queen's companion being one, Dresden himself started running much more often, Daniel grew up to be a "looks like a superhero" dude by Ghost Story.

I think there are far more attractive women than men in the Dresden Files as a whole. Some of this is because a great deal of them are supernatural and able to control their physical appearance to a non-realistic degree (the fairies, vampires, werewolves, Corpsetaker etc.). However, there have been non-superhot women. The original body of Corpsetaker, the original body of Anastasia, Elaine, the Summer Queen's companions (one of whom was a half-troll), Ancient Mai and a few more.

As for Injun Joe, it's both a play on stereotypes and that in the wizardly world, true names have considerable power. Injun Joe is protected by nobody knowing his true name and the usage of two nicknames - Injun Joe and Listens-to-Wind. Ancient Mai is similar and we've seen her short appearances in several books without anything getting into ethnic stereotypes.

Arianna and Ortega (and the Red Court) weren't stereotypes of anything other than "bad guys who happened to be South American/Spanish".

I'm willing to take a look at Butcher's flaws and shortcomings, but I don't think he's writing objectifications of women at all. If he's an objectivizer, then so is Joss Whedon. And I don't think this group wants to go that way, do they?
I survived the Permian and all I got was this t-shirt.
3

#57 User is offline   Studlock 

  • First Sword
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 629
  • Joined: 04-May 10

Posted 18 September 2012 - 05:31 PM

View PostQuickTidal, on 18 September 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

View PostStudlock, on 18 September 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Neither of you see a problem that how the world works is detrimental to both women and society at large? It doesn't bother you that something you enjoy might be, even in the slightest, be contributing to these conditions? For the last time, its not the depiction it's the tone. Malazan shows shitty people doing shitty things, but it's a tone of empathy whereas, to me at least (and most likely a very small portion of the readership) Dresden isn't 'realistic' rather it is pure escapism. It might get somethings in reality right like how apparently every single human being objectives each other, but others like say well rounded people, outside a few, wrong not to mention people from other cultures.

Haha this why I usually don't post, I generally get into heated debates rather quickly.


This is the way the world has always worked (as far as the gender's objectifying and sexualizing each other based on their urges and such), and is how it will always continue to work.

Thinking that our biological make-up (AKA the attraction quotient of it) is ever going to change is kind of swimming against the tide of that which makes us human.



And to top it off a great sweeping generalization for all of humanity like societal factors doesn't matter. I am sorry of this post because it doesn't concern the books at all. But so far up to this point in humanity, objectifying and sexualizing other humans beings has actually been widely different across time, space and cultures. Take for example some native americans, the Iroquois for example, had a much healthier view of gender roles and sexuality. To add on top of that our view of sexuality nowadays is more informed by society rather than biology. It simply isn't as simple as you make it out to be but I digress. Sometimes sex has nothing to do with urges but Rites or other duties.
0

#58 User is offline   Studlock 

  • First Sword
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 629
  • Joined: 04-May 10

Posted 18 September 2012 - 05:36 PM

View Postamphibian, on 18 September 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

View PostD, on 18 September 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

What I do find somewhat off-putting, is that the female characters tend to end up in more sexualized situations than the men. Molly having to tear her clothes off from spilling acid? When Elaine is psychic-attacked she is of course naked in the bathtub (and then naked in the parking lot)? Susan drinking the lust potion? Anything with Andi, ever? Molly psychic-reading the dead person and getting an orgasm? These sorts of things just happen a lot more to the women in these stories than the men, which is a bit off-putting because it seems deliberately unbalanced in order to favour a sub-set of the audience that doesn't include me. And it's not simply a matter of these things being better suited to the female characters, because Dresden messing his pants in the morgue or Butters drinking a lust potion and throwing himself at Thomas (Oh God Thomas) would be absolutely hilarious.

It's a fairly minor quibble, one I can look past easily enough to enjoy the rest of the novels, and I don't feel that it reflects so much on any sort of deliberate (or not) objectification of the women, so much as that the author is writing more towards the male audience than the female one (like plenty of other authors do, or vice versa). That's fine, that's his choice to make and if I had a big problem with it I just wouldn't read the books.

The Molly thing was a lab accident that happened one time in the several years that she was Dresden's apprentice. It's noteworthy because Bob, who is an outright perv, witnessed the whole thing (and Dresden may have too). The other several hundred days when Molly kept her clothes on and did her usual lab work are referred to, but not exactly described in detail.

Elaine got attacked when she was most relaxed - which was in the bathroom. And we people do often tend to be nekkid in the bathroom. I didn't mind that. It's a horror staple too.

As for Molly having an orgasm during the lust-killed dead body reading, Dresden's been seduced by female vampires and experienced something similar. He even used one of those to escape the cave-splosion at the end of White Night.

Andi was mentioned in particular for her transformation from chubby to really fit in the early books (1 through 5). That was alright with me. I think Dresden's descriptions of her became kinda standard and not sexualized in a bad way after that.

A few men went through similar transitions - the Summer Queen's companion being one, Dresden himself started running much more often, Daniel grew up to be a "looks like a superhero" dude by Ghost Story.

I think there are far more attractive women than men in the Dresden Files as a whole. Some of this is because a great deal of them are supernatural and able to control their physical appearance to a non-realistic degree (the fairies, vampires, werewolves, Corpsetaker etc.). However, there have been non-superhot women. The original body of Corpsetaker, the original body of Anastasia, Elaine, the Summer Queen's companions (one of whom was a half-troll), Ancient Mai and a few more.

As for Injun Joe, it's both a play on stereotypes and that in the wizardly world, true names have considerable power. Injun Joe is protected by nobody knowing his true name and the usage of two nicknames - Injun Joe and Listens-to-Wind. Ancient Mai is similar and we've seen her short appearances in several books without anything getting into ethnic stereotypes.

Arianna and Ortega (and the Red Court) weren't stereotypes of anything other than "bad guys who happened to be South American/Spanish".

I'm willing to take a look at Butcher's flaws and shortcomings, but I don't think he's writing objectifications of women at all. If he's an objectivizer, then so is Joss Whedon. And I don't think this group wants to go that way, do they?


I'd argue that most male 'creators' (in the north america at least) as it were are objectivizer and is a bigger reflection of the society and not because they are deliberately writing their characters as such. I'd actual think it essay worthy. But alas that is not an argument I am in any shape to get into.
0

#59 User is offline   QuickTidal 

  • General Kenobi
  • Group: Team Quick Ben
  • Posts: 17,895
  • Joined: 05-November 05
  • Location:Winden
  • Interests:Sith Beatdowns

Posted 18 September 2012 - 05:47 PM

View PostStudlock, on 18 September 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

View PostQuickTidal, on 18 September 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

View PostStudlock, on 18 September 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Neither of you see a problem that how the world works is detrimental to both women and society at large? It doesn't bother you that something you enjoy might be, even in the slightest, be contributing to these conditions? For the last time, its not the depiction it's the tone. Malazan shows shitty people doing shitty things, but it's a tone of empathy whereas, to me at least (and most likely a very small portion of the readership) Dresden isn't 'realistic' rather it is pure escapism. It might get somethings in reality right like how apparently every single human being objectives each other, but others like say well rounded people, outside a few, wrong not to mention people from other cultures.

Haha this why I usually don't post, I generally get into heated debates rather quickly.


This is the way the world has always worked (as far as the gender's objectifying and sexualizing each other based on their urges and such), and is how it will always continue to work.

Thinking that our biological make-up (AKA the attraction quotient of it) is ever going to change is kind of swimming against the tide of that which makes us human.



And to top it off a great sweeping generalization for all of humanity like societal factors doesn't matter. I am sorry of this post because it doesn't concern the books at all. But so far up to this point in humanity, objectifying and sexualizing other humans beings has actually been widely different across time, space and cultures. Take for example some native americans, the Iroquois for example, had a much healthier view of gender roles and sexuality. To add on top of that our view of sexuality nowadays is more informed by society rather than biology. It simply isn't as simple as you make it out to be but I digress. Sometimes sex has nothing to do with urges but Rites or other duties.


You are attempting to remove your base argument to win something. The base argument is that men and women objectify each other sexually. You seem to think they shouldn't, in real life and in books. You bring up "gender roles" when we aren't speaking of that at all. I don't care who they are, or what they thought of women and roles in their society... Native American men almost certainly looked at women sexually.

You can't change what your argument is.

You imply men shouldn't objectify women in their heads. I'm saying, good luck with that. It's never going to happen.
"When the last tree has fallen, and the rivers are poisoned, you cannot eat money, oh no." ~Aurora
0

#60 User is offline   Studlock 

  • First Sword
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 629
  • Joined: 04-May 10

Posted 18 September 2012 - 06:00 PM

Gender roles have a shit load to do with sex and sexuality but that's for another time. You seem to equal objectify with sex. Objectify is striping a persons identity away and view them as a tool for sexual gratification thus it's damaging to women because it takes away their personhood which you seem to be okay with for some reason (perhaps because that's 'the way it's always been'). I have said many time before I have no problem with characters and their sex drives, desires or fetishes. But objectification is something different. Then you make sweeping generalizations of of human sexuality of via biological determinism. So I pointed out the fact that cultures have had sex and (apparently surprisingly) did not end objectifying women, or men for the matter. I am sure some individuals did, and that I do agree with we will never get rid of people who want to own rather than co-exist but it DOESN'T need to be the fucking norm.
0

Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users