The Dresden Files

In regards to the non-Raiths, No-Name Skavis managed to disguise himself as a woman fairly easily in WN.

Song of the Sirens

I think it's kind of interesting to look at how much of a part Lord Raith played in the 'verse. He's been around for a long-ass time, and has been dominant through... pretty much all of that. Dude's reshaped entire cultures, and he (personally) is probably the reason the Raiths were on top for so long.

Yes, but he was never really called out as attractive, and that might not be a compliment to what he looks like if he could do that.

And yes, most of that is due to Lord Raith. So how would perception of the Whites change over time f one of the other Houses took over?

Yes, but I'm talking Doylist here.

Dopants: He meant what he said and he said what he meant, a Ninety is faithful 100%.

Seraphem has a very fact and number based view of things. A "It say this so it means this," mentality. He has the backing of a small but impenetrable fortress of bald facts. Well, impenetrable as long as he doesn't get any facts wrong but in that case he might just write off that whole section of his fortress for lost.

We, for the most part, live in the much murkier but vast territory of interpretations. We wrap ourselves in whirling maelstroms to defend our positions, even if they are only as real as any opponent allows them to be. Our attacks vary in effect from person to person, are powered more by how well worded we can make an argument than anything concrete.

Seraphem is a frustrating proposition. Certainly, we cannot argue that what is is not and inside his fortress of fact he is untouchable. We can only try to tempt him outside this fortress by say what is is not all that there is. Perhaps he feels our territory is a savage wilderness and the solid walls of his home are all that matter. We certainly feel that the fortress is a useful waypoint, a centerpiece to our war, an anchor that keeps telling what we're fighting for, but it's limited in the ground it covers.

Something something that was rude something something immediately lose the argument once you make an attack of the person or something like that.

Anyone who assigns themselves loads of character tropes is someone to be worried about.

While the wording is condescending, I'd tl;dr it as "Seraphem prefers sticking to the literal facts present in the books rather than speculate or interpret".

Dopants: He meant what he said and he said what he meant, a Ninety is faithful 100%.

I have a fetish for metaphors.

You must have the most interesting dirty talk.

Well, yes, but not for the reason you think. My unquenchable lust for puns and alliterations are often easier to insert than long winded metaphors.

edited 18th Oct '14 9:44:39 PM by God_of_Awesome

Very patient lovers, too.

Dopants: He meant what he said and he said what he meant, a Ninety is faithful 100%.

Well, on the note of the Skavis and Malvoras, it's interesting that the Skavis agent is a very obvious reference to suicide victims and a bit of a nod to extreme depression tendencies. Another thing that seems like it's becoming a part of the public eye.

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.

Yes I prefer to stcik to the hard facts first, and to what the story is about, means, what things are from as strictly a Watsonian perspective as possible. And overall I agree with Tolkien about Applicability over Allegory.

What is in the story, that is fact, that forms a solid base to talk and debate over. With unknown parts fun to theorize about. But outside the bounds of the story, everything depends only on the person reading it. Everyone will see it differently, as being applicable to certain aspects of real life over others. It depends so much on each individuals point of view that, you're pretty much just arguing points that can never be properly defended nor attacked, and which tend to end up just leading to more and more heated arguments since rather then talking the objective facts of the story and what is and is not in the world inside the story. It's about each persons own subjective view on what it means.

Also, I was trying to go for neutral rather than condescending.

But also I was indulging myself with metaphors.

Very fair view.

Dopants: He meant what he said and he said what he meant, a Ninety is faithful 100%.

The issue with that kind of view is that it's contrary to the entire field of Literary Study's entire....well existence.

A purely Watsonian take on a story is novel, but it's to sharply limited and it ignores some of the most important depth to a work. Simply taking facts as presented in story without further looking at the story itself: it's underlying structures element and artistic choices and what those mean, as well as the broader context in which the story exists as an expression of the author's views and beliefs, and what message he is giving to the readers (intended or not)- it's contrary to the study of literature at it's core.

Also Allegory=/=Any Deeper Meaning. Allegory has issues since any sustained binary breaks down on a close enough reading, so using stand ins for real world concepts directly rarely works- but deeper meaning /does/ exist in a work, and work /does/ have a deeper message it's trying to communicate to the reader. The Dresden Files has a lot of major themes which are constantly hammered: the dangers of power, the responsibilities of those with power, moral self-reflection, the cycle of abuse- all these are things that undeniable come up through out the series, but you can't just take what is said in text on the subjects at face value: examining how they play out, what their role in the story is, and additional themes and elements that influence them and that they influence, are all extremely important to extracting meaning from text and examining the merits of a piece of work.

Just relying on the pure text isn't sufficient for building an argument about the text: It's a powerful tool for supporting arguments, but there is far more depth in a given story the can be found by just fallowing the letter of the book.

"You are never taller then when standing up for yourself"

The issue is, that 'deeper meaning' various from person to person. Everyone will have their own idea on just what something means. But then, for the most part, try to pass that off as "This is what the story is saying" which is false since, that story is just the story. Instead of "This is what the story is saying, to me." And that is where the arguments and the heated debate and everything come from, people trying to defend their own personal interpretation of the work against others views of it. Regardless of what the facts of the story say. The facts are what you can stand by, what can't be discounted. And everything has to stem from those facts of the story.

And, yeah I really believe in Death of the Author. Nothing about who wrote it matters beyond possibly explaining some thing. It matters as trivia or of you want to pick apart things. But, the story is the story. All that matters is what it DOES say, what is in it. The Story in and of itself.

Stories... to me, are not just, words on a page, not the book, not the words, those are just, a way to convey the grander idea of the story. The true form of it as something, transcendent. Stories are, they exist, they are, in their own way, not just real, but some of the most important things there are.

Yes they can be powerful, moving, touching, they can destroy empires, rouse hope in even the most defeated heart. Change the world. But all of that stems from what they are.

Picking apart "oh this is what the author was trying to say with this, or this is a metaphor for this" it cheapens the story, tries to rip it apart, remove the grandness of it. The story is the start of everything. It all should flow from the story itself. It does not matter, in the least, what the author meant, what matters is only what it means to you.

That's the point of discussion and debate though: If you hold a view about a text you have to be able to defend it and you can't do that if you rely on a purely Watsonian technique of reading a story. Because that facts in the story are disputable, they are arguable, they are not solid. All binaries break down upon a closer examination, you can't just separate a story into "facts and interpretation" because facts are interpretation and interpretations are often facts- when dealing with literature at least.

And simply saying "Well I get X from a story and that's all that matters" is an extremely narcissistic way of consuming a work. You can't dispute their are solid underlying themes of the Dresden Files that are non-textual. You can dispute what they are, and how they interact, and what their ultimate meaning is but they do exist and no extent of denial changes that.

You are also misapplying Death Of The Author (which is a Post-Structuralism concept- a movement defined very heavily by it's rejection of self-sufficient structures: like your concept of a a story as a closed system). The original essay by Robert Barthes does say that Author/Creator are unrelated to the work and that we should divorce them in order to better understand the work- but not because the story is self contained but because it isn't. Barthes was saying that a work is influenced and built from innumerable sources of culture and not a single individual's experience. Death of The Author does place a lot of emphasis on the interpretation of the audience, but that's largely because it states that the audience's interpretation- also built by culture- reveals just as much, if not more, about a work then the work itself. Death of The Author isn't saying "the only importance of a story is how the reader takes it" it's saying "how the reader takes it is important because it reveals meaning."

Stories are made up of metaphors and symbolism and hidden meanings- they are grade because of these things and attempting to understand them doesn't cheapen the story, it enhances it. People write books on the socio-economics of Dracula, because if you look at the cultural and political climate of the time, the novel can tell us a massive amount about what the Victorian era people where afraid of: and why the novel captured them. People examine short stories novels and poetry because these things are far more then just a collection of facts on a page- they are a collection of thoughts hopes dreams and desires. Stories are moving because of the elements that make them up: and examining those elements doesn't cheapen the story: it makes it richer since we learn far more through it then we ever could sticking to just the "facts".

"You are never taller then when standing up for yourself"

My favorite part of Dresden Files is when Harry shoots fire at vampires and zombies and stuff.

Those parts are pretty awesome.

edited 19th Oct '14 1:18:08 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Yes, provided they are the meaning IN the story.

But it is from the Watsonian that it all comes from. From the story, the facts. Anting else, brings in stuff from outside the story which come from the individual person. Not true. What is written is fact. "X did Y" is fact. Unless there are other facts that make what we saw seem suspect. But what is there on the page in black and white IS hard fact. that those words were said. It is the foundation that everything else grows from. Nothing before that matters, only those words and what they themselves, in and of themselves mean. Because that is, in the end, all that truly matters, is what you get out of it. Not all one person gets out of it, but each person. In the end, really debating and talking and what not about the different things people could take from it, that is what truly matters. Just what you, as an individual take from the story. Define non-textual. because all of those derive solely from the text itself. From the words that give shape to form of the story. They might not be outright spoken, not directly put in words, but still derive from the text.

The whoel Death of the Author Bit. Okay history lesson about something that only vaguely makes any sense to me. To me, it means, ALL that matters is the words of the story. The everything starts with the story, not what went into making it (Beyond as trivia). What the story says, the facts of what happens is the basis from which everything else is derived. Everything else grows from that starting point.

Which has nothing to do with the story itself. Sociology sure, but not the story. Yes it might be interesting to look at that, but it is outside the story. outside the narrative and no more a big deal as doing the same type of thing with, a piece of pottery from some ancient civilization. Or some cave drawings. it's about the society, not that story. Yes the stories of a time can tell you stuff about that time. But that is outside the story itself. Not a part of the story. So can what their houses looked like, how they layed out their cities, any bit of data.

If they are what is in the story no. But forcing a whole bunch of outside baggage into it that exists only in that readers head and not in the story itself does.

Preach. Or don't, people will interpret it as Butcher being a Christian supremacist.

Dopants: He meant what he said and he said what he meant, a Ninety is faithful 100%.

And it's stuff like that which makes me have that point of view.

Not your point, but the point you were referencing.

I prefer the part in which he acts impertinently and makes lame pop culture jokes towards entities of unimaginable power which are already less that pleased with him.

Controversy!

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Yeah the Smashing and burning is great, but it's the smartassery that makes him really shine.

I like the part where he's beaten down beyond belief and then he stands up and keeps fighting.

Dopants: He meant what he said and he said what he meant, a Ninety is faithful 100%.