[Studlock]

Coco with marshmallows, on 15 September 2014 - 11:33 PM, said:

Saitama, on 15 September 2014 - 08:10 PM, said:

That he out-punches stronger oponnents is one issue I have a problem with.

I have to admit that I smiled at this line due to your avatar.

Also Studlock, Matthew Swift merely wishes he was Harry Dresden

Sorry for the double post, to lazy to go back and edit my post.

But really the physical embodiment of London > Butcher's best impression of a hardboiled detective (it's a bad impression).

[Abyss]

Studlock, on 16 September 2014 - 12:19 AM, said:

...Even someone like Patrica Briggs within in the same weight class...

Stop it, please, just stop ... my last shreds of respect for you can only take so much abuse before they fray beyond recovery.... what next... Charlaine Harris....?

[Studlock]

Abyss, on 16 September 2014 - 12:59 AM, said:

Studlock, on 16 September 2014 - 12:19 AM, said:

...Even someone like Patrica Briggs within in the same weight class...

Stop it, please, just stop ... my last shreds of respect for you can only take so much abuse before they fray beyond recovery.... what next... Charlaine Harris....?

I don't know what to tell you, they're both spawns of a fast and fun pulp traditions and sadly nothing more. Again like I said I enjoy the Dresden books the same way I enjoy superhero stories, they're fun and easy to fall into but that doesn't excuse the fact they're mostly about impossible people punching other impossible people in the face, and Dresden certainly, to drag the comparison into the ground, the Watchman of Urban Fantasy. Both the Mercy Thompson and Dresden Files series provided the same kind of easy fun but one though has a Native American (which I'm a bit biased toward as far as decidedly non-complex characters go) woman who is also a shapeshifter whereas the other has the same hero I've seen across hundreds of books, games, movies and comic books. There's nothing particular unique, brilliant, or amazing about either series. It's not Griffin's setting (which by-the-way Butcher's Chicago by all accounts it just as boring as Dresden), or the horror-tinged mood of Carey. Or grizzled-assistance of Hellblazer, or the incredible dream-like stories of the Sandman. Hell, it doesn't even have the emotional heart (or the deconstruction of macho-male identity) of Supernatural. Dresden, and Thompson are literally baseline Urban Fantasy that do nothing to set it apart. Honestly I view it quiet absurd that you can look at Dresden and say anything different.

[Slow Ben]

Studlock said:

1410830693[/url]' post='1149072']

Abyss said:

1410829174[/url]' post='1149069']

Studlock said:

1410826784[/url]' post='1149065']
...Even someone like Patrica Briggs within in the same weight class...

Stop it, please, just stop ... my last shreds of respect for you can only take so much abuse before they fray beyond recovery.... what next... Charlaine Harris....?

I don't know what to tell you, they're both spawns of a fast and fun pulp traditions and sadly nothing more. Again like I said I enjoy the Dresden books the same way I enjoy superhero stories, they're fun and easy to fall into but that doesn't excuse the fact they're mostly about impossible people punching other impossible people in the face, and Dresden certainly, to drag the comparison into the ground, the Watchman of Urban Fantasy. Both the Mercy Thompson and Dresden Files series provided the same kind of easy fun but one though has a Native American (which I'm a bit biased toward as far as decidedly non-complex characters go) woman who is also a shapeshifter whereas the other has the same hero I've seen across hundreds of books, games, movies and comic books. There's nothing particular unique, brilliant, or amazing about either series. It's not Griffin's setting (which by-the-way Butcher's Chicago by all accounts it just as boring as Dresden), or the horror-tinged mood of Carey. Or grizzled-assistance of Hellblazer, or the incredible dream-like stories of the Sandman. Hell, it doesn't even have the emotional heart (or the deconstruction of macho-male identity) of Supernatural. Dresden, and Thompson are literally baseline Urban Fantasy that do nothing to set it apart. Honestly I view it quiet absurd that you can look at Dresden and say anything different.

I don't even......


I have no words.

[worry]

Let's just scrap the urban fantasy subgenre all together and do something new. I have a few ideas for some rural fantasy that involves some pretty serious conflict between wolves, cows, werewolves, werecows, wolfcows, cowcows, and wolfducks.

[Andorion]

I am actually glad somebody brought up Kate Griffin's Matthew Swift, and Ilona Andrews' Kate Daniels here.

I read all of the Matthew Swift books before I had heard of Jim Butcher. I found London rich and exciting and the protagonist somebody I could root for. In many ways the books were a bit like Perdido Street Station. After reading these I came to Dresden. And after reading Dresden I went to Ilona Andrews and read all of the Daniels books. I loved those as well. A totally different story from Kate Griffin, a different protagonist, kickass action. But at no point did reading these books make Dresden Files look poor by comparison.

But that is exactly my point.Each author chooses his or her field, method, protagonist and this creates a different tone and flavour to each series.
This appeals differntly to different readers. Studlock for example like Mercedes Thompson. I couldn't get past the first book of that series.
When I was reading Griffin, about halfway into the first book I understood what type of story this was going to be and I liked it. Same for the other series I have mentioned.

Questions have been raised as to why Butcher did not do more with his protagonist. Why for example did he not take this opportunity to take a critical look at the masculine hero character etc. The answer is pretty simple. These are not that type of books. If Butcher wanted to write that type of book, just think the hundreds of pages he could have spent on Justine and Thomas' relationship and the ethical dimensions of that. But he didn't. Because what Butcher clearly wants to do is write a fast-moving, fun series which can be read and liked by a broad group.
At this point I would like to point out that some of the biggest fans of Dresden on this site (including me) are also diehard fans of Steven Erikson. And Erikson does all of the things Butcher doesn't. There philosophical debate, there inverting of fantasy tropes etc. Half of Deadhouse Gates is a musing on human suffering and the role of history, written in a way mature enough that when I emailed excerpts to my thesis supervisor (I am doing a Phd in History) she thought these were academic references. Yet these same people who like Erikson also like Butcher. Which tells you another important thing. Not all books have to be the same genre-defining, trope challenging revolutionary books. I consider the most basic qualification of any fictional work is that it should be fun. I found Butcher to be fun. Why the hell should it try to be different? In an example away from fantasy, Matthew Reilly's thrillers have absurd unbelievable actions sequences. But I love reading them, because just reading them you understand how much fun the author had writing that, and in fact wit h a little suspension of disbelief the books get to be pretty enjoyable. Frankly if a book doesn't have some primal appeal, only intellectual ideas, I find I forget about it pretty soon.
Also, bringing Gaiman's Sandman into this? Why? Do we talk about Rolls Royce Ghosts and sports bikes in the same breath?

[amphibian]

Studlock, on 16 September 2014 - 12:29 AM, said:

But really the physical embodiment of London > Butcher's best impression of a hardboiled detective (it's a bad impression).

Swift isn't the physical embodiment of London. The dragon is. He's the Blue Angels and the last gatekeeper between the London dragon and whatever threatens the city. I quite like Kate Griffin/Catherine Webb too, but she's not on Butcher's level yet.

Plus, the hardboiled wizard detective thing comes with certain tropes attached to it - which Butcher knows and readily foils with the actions/thoughts of the other characters encountering Dresden.

[Studlock]

@Worry I don't understand, it's pretty clear I heavily enjoy urban fantasy, in basically all mediums. I don't think we should get rid of urban fantasy, I just think we should stop worshiping Harry Dresden and Butcher as the God-Kings of Urban Fantasy Who Do No Wrong. I understand your thing is adding in relevant comments via cutting irrelevant remarks but this one I'm genuinely confused.

@Andorion I understand that people enjoy both complex and non-complex works, and that the Dresden Files isn't really trying to be revolutionary. Like I said I enjoy Dresden Files quiet a bit (just a friendly reminder we can be critical of things we enjoy) but what I don't agree with is the idea that is the very best urban fantasy has to offer, for me it's obviously not. I have yet to see a convincing argument as why it so highly valued among the ranks of urban fantasy as seen as the cream of the crop other than 'it's dresdencrack so the answer is obvs'. I view Sandman as a urban fantasy great but if you aren't in agreement you could as easily sub in American Gods and it leave a similar effect (for me at least)--a piece of the urban fantasy canon that doesn't deserve to be called the 'greatest'.

@amphibian I'd argue that (because of course I would, I'm honestly sorry) Butchers use of hardboiled detective tropes isn't actually all that imaginative and fundamentally ignores the value of them. For instance lets take the archetypal noir/hardboiled story basic elements: a mystery, a detective, a antagonist. and a femme fatale. Generally while solving the mystery and attempting to stop the 'bad guy' the detective (who usually has addictive habits--that's a important part) attempts to have relations with the femme fatale (who may or may be involved with the antagonist) which almost always backfires on the detective.

If we look at the basic themes of hardboiled story we start to see certain things: a underlining nihilism that informs all the characters to act in only selfish ways, the inability for the characters to control there appetites which usually leads to grief, the detective's refusal to see the femme fatale as a person...obviously this only a basic template but I fail to see how Dresden pertains to these in anyway than window dressing (the prime example is the causal sexism, that while a reflection of the time the first movies came became something more as the genre wrestled with its past, Dresden's attitude which you can argue comes from loosing people, but that's a weak argument because he isn't running to open the door for Michael). These things don't play out in a typical Dresden story, which I'd say has much more in-common with 80 action movies or superhero comics, than the original 1940 movies with birthed the genre or the literature or neo-noir films that came after (think of Chinatown...and compare that to Dresden, in the context of the hardboiled tradition it's clear one is lacking).

[Andorion]

Studlock, on 16 September 2014 - 06:51 AM, said:

@Worry I don't understand, it's pretty clear I heavily enjoy urban fantasy, in basically all mediums. I don't think we should get rid of urban fantasy, I just think we should stop worshiping Harry Dresden and Butcher as the God-Kings of Urban Fantasy Who Do No Wrong. I understand your thing is adding in relevant comments via cutting irrelevant remarks but this one I'm genuinely confused.

@Andorion I understand that people enjoy both complex and non-complex works, and that the Dresden Files isn't really trying to be revolutionary. Like I said I enjoy Dresden Files quiet a bit (just a friendly reminder we can be critical of things we enjoy) but what I don't agree with is the idea that is the very best urban fantasy has to offer, for me it's obviously not. I have yet to see a convincing argument as why it so highly valued among the ranks of urban fantasy as seen as the cream of the crop other than 'it's dresdencrack so the answer is obvs'. I view Sandman as a urban fantasy great but if you aren't in agreement you could as easily sub in American Gods and it leave a similar effect (for me at least)--a piece of the urban fantasy canon that doesn't deserve to be called the 'greatest'.

@amphibian I'd argue that (because of course I would, I'm honestly sorry) Butchers use of hardboiled detective tropes isn't actually all that imaginative and fundamentally ignores the value of them. For instance lets take the archetypal noir/hardboiled story basic elements: a mystery, a detective, a antagonist. and a femme fatale. Generally while solving the mystery and attempting to stop the 'bad guy' the detective (who usually has addictive habits--that's a important part) attempts to have relations with the femme fatale (who may or may be involved with the antagonist) which almost always backfires on the detective.

If we look at the basic themes of hardboiled story we start to see certain things: a underlining nihilism that informs all the characters to act in only selfish ways, the inability for the characters to control there appetites which usually leads to grief, the detective's refusal to see the femme fatale as a person...obviously this only a basic template but I fail to see how Dresden pertains to these in anyway than window dressing (the prime example is the causal sexism, that while a reflection of the time the first movies came became something more as the genre wrestled with its past, Dresden's attitude which you can argue comes from loosing people, but that's a weak argument because he isn't running to open the door for Michael). These things don't play out in a typical Dresden story, which I'd say has much more in-common with 80 action movies or superhero comics, than the original 1940 movies with birthed the genre or the literature or neo-noir films that came after (think of Chinatown...and compare that to Dresden, in the context of the hardboiled tradition it's clear one is lacking).

My point about Sandman was that defining it as Urban Fantasy puts it in two narrow a class. I found it to be a genre transcending work, in some ways epic, some ways a bit surreal. To me what Gaiman did, with all his takes on culture is to write something that stands by itself. Hellblazer on the other hand comes closer to Urban Fantasy for me. I haven't read American Gods, though it is in my TBR pile, so I will have to get back to you on that.
Regarding the status of Dresdenfiles in UF, I agree with you, that its not the pinnacle of the heap. For me its Andrews' Kate Daniels, for finally producing a female protagonist who genuinely kicks ass. But what I do say is that its too easy to label Dresdenfiles as vanilla crowdpleasing thrills. I think Dresden's bluntness, his tendency to rush into things and smash stuff, is a deliberate device used by Butcher to set him off against antagonists who are invariably more cerebral.
Regarding the sexism, it put my back up a bit first, but then I considered it from the chivalric angle. I can't offhand recall any incident where Dresden is sexist in the sense he disparages the ability of women. He is a bit protective of Murphy, but frankly I agree that Murphy with her standard set of beliefs and weapons at the beginning of the series would have been immensely vulnerable. It is a notable fact that he does not hesitate to incorporate her fully in the later books when her understanding of the supernatural increased. A good contrast would be the female warden Luccio for whom Harry never exhibited any protective instincts as it was quite evident she could take care of herself.
Of course you could argue that chivalry in any form is sexism, but I maintain that it is certainly not pervasive in the books. If you want blatant sexism try some of the books of John Ringo or David Drake. I had to drop two books totally because I just could not go on reading.

[Grief]

Andorion, on 16 September 2014 - 01:41 PM, said:

But what I do say is that its too easy to label Dresdenfiles as vanilla crowdpleasing thrills. I think Dresden's bluntness, his tendency to rush into things and smash stuff, is a deliberate device used by Butcher to set him off against antagonists who are invariably more cerebral.

You don't think that a blunt protagonist being set of against more cerebral antagonists is textbook vanilla crowdpleasing thrills? Deliberate or not (and I'm not sure it makes a difference)?

amphibian, on 16 September 2014 - 03:01 AM, said:

Plus, the hardboiled wizard detective thing comes with certain tropes attached to it - which Butcher knows and readily foils with the actions/thoughts of the other characters encountering Dresden.

Likewise, I feel like you're giving Butcher too much credit. Butcher's other characters rarely inform Dresden in a way that contradicts the tropes surrounding him, as opposed to emphasizing them ("Oh Harry, underneath your harsh exterior you really are a sensitive/good person" or "Hey Harry, you're not as badass/clever as you think you are" which is inevitably built up just to be shot down). Likewise, they very rarely influence his characterisation in a different direction in a manner that is more than fleeting. I think Harry's character development is rather poorly done really. It rarely changes at all, but rather hovers around a "base state", and then occasionally we'll get flashes of some supposedly important aspect of him which seem erratic to the degree that it's like Butcher has just remembered them, and then these are quickly forgotten about again. This also ties in to the sense of time around the books. There's what, a decade between Storm front and Small favour? You would think in that time, we'd see some development that didn't occur in the few weeks we collectively see him for over that time.

I've argued about it here before, and probably will again but really, Butcher must be one of the most over rated authors raved about on this forum ("one of" mostly because of Abercrombie's inexplicable popularity). He's fun, he's enjoyable, and he's solid, easily digestible entertainment to unwind with. I don't want to knock that in itself, but other people do it better - Pratchett comes to mind as similarly readable as well as more entertaining, varied, insightful. Some Iain Banks might be another. And as for Urban Fantasy, Carey is a far better storyteller. In part, this is subjective, but there are also non-subjective qualities involved (cohesive narrative arc and thematic content, character development that isn't in the form of a power up, a more internally consistent universe that it doesn't feel like he's constantly adding new rules to, to go along with a story that feels like he actually had an idea where it was going to begin with, and a secondary cast that isn't starved of development to the extent that the author then falls back upon cliches to fill in the gaps...etc etc).

I enjoy Butcher, I'm just not sure I get the hype.

Also you guys should read Carey if you haven't, if you didn't get that from the above.

[Abyss]

worry, on 16 September 2014 - 01:52 AM, said:

Let's just scrap the urban fantasy subgenre all together and do something new. I have a few ideas for some rural fantasy that involves some pretty serious conflict between wolves, cows, werewolves, werecows, wolfcows, cowcows, and wolfducks.

I'd read your series.

[amphibian]

I quite like Carey, but the man should realize that his time would be best spent actually writing the Tommy books. They would sell like hotcakes.

The Felix Castor series is much smaller in scope, size and depth than what Butcher is trying to do with Dresden Files. They're more directly comparable to the Swift books, which I think outdo the Castor books.

There isn't much of a parallel to the Dresden books beyond the Jason Bourne books or the like and Butcher does a better job with characters than the older writers do.

[HiddenOne]

Abyss, on 16 September 2014 - 05:03 PM, said:

worry, on 16 September 2014 - 01:52 AM, said:

Let's just scrap the urban fantasy subgenre all together and do something new. I have a few ideas for some rural fantasy that involves some pretty serious conflict between wolves, cows, werewolves, werecows, wolfcows, cowcows, and wolfducks.

I'd read your series.

At least the first book, anyway

You left out crows & rats, those guys are heavy players in the Rural Jungle

And I saw a werecow at Walmart this weekend, but I was lucky to escape notice by ducking into the beer cooler for a quick nap


You guys are super nerds, by the way. S-U-P-E-R

[worry]

Studlock what you may need to consider is that my posts, on rare occasions, exist independently of your posts.

[QuickTidal]

worry, on 16 September 2014 - 06:40 PM, said:

Studlock what you may need to consider is that my posts, on rare occasions, exist independently of your posts.

I pretty much treat your posts like the Peanut Gallery, or those two old dudes in the balcony on the Muppets. Always funny and well-timed!

WW is our comic relief!

[polishgenius]

Abyss, on 15 September 2014 - 11:44 PM, said:

So basically you think Kate Griffin and IIona Andrews are better authors than Jim Butcher.

I dunno about Andrews, but Kate Griffin isn't worse... Butcher's much better at over-arching plots, mind, but Griffin it equals up with the prose and inventiveness.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 16 September 2014 - 07:17 PM, said:

Abyss, on 15 September 2014 - 11:44 PM, said:

So basically you think Kate Griffin and IIona Andrews are better authors than Jim Butcher.

I dunno about Andrews, but Kate Griffin isn't worse... Butcher's much better at over-arching plots, mind, but Griffin it equals up with the prose and inventiveness.

I'll chime in that Andrews may not be quite on Butcher's level...but her/their series is entertaining me more than any other UF series I read that isn't Dresden. So that's something.

But yeah, no one touches Butcher in my eyes.

[Studlock]

worry, on 16 September 2014 - 06:40 PM, said:

Studlock what you may need to consider is that my posts, on rare occasions, exist independently of your posts.

Yes but you might also consider that I am in fact the center of all existence and thus all posts from all times and place pertain to whether or not I believe if Dresden is the best example of Urban Fantasy. I am the Alpha and Omega.

Or I got confused but either way I'm sure it's your fault and definitely not mine.

[worry]

[Malaclypse]

I bought a load of the Dresden books for a holiday in Turkey and was ultimately disappointed - formulaic much? Dresden just barely survives, just baaaarely coaxes that extra little bit of power or gets an extremely timely helping hand from whoever he's hanging out with at the time? And if worse comes to worst, he just gets angry and all of a sudden wins!

Weaksauce, sorry but that's my opinion.