The Dresden Files

Just because the science is a fact has never stopped Scientists from having incredible arguments about it, no different from literary scholars arguing about interpretation.

I agree and I disagree.

I mean, a book will have its own series of discussions that it brings up. Free will vs. determinism is a big thing in the Dresden Files cosmology, for example, and one of the themes the series itself often brings up. An analysis of how it presents it (and the presuppositions behind the whole free will/determinist paradigm) would be based on the merits of the book.

A, say, cultural/feminist/race relations/sexuality-based reading might be more based on the individual's own relationship with these issues, sure, but that doesn't mean it's more about the reader than the book, it just means those are the topics that person chose to emphasize in a reading. I don't think that's wrong because the book itself brings up sexuality all the time, it just does it in the heteronormative "standard" we've come to expect from other media.

@Serapham, I don't get most sarcasm, metaphors, and jokes either. I just think it's fun to learn about it and pick it apart. I prefer a more rational say what you mean and mean what you say world but this slightly more obtuse one is somewhat more fun... when it isn't frustrating. the Humans are frustrating but their works tend to not be.

No one had specifically addressed this point of Seraphem's, but it caught my eye:

If you really feel this way, then why are you even in this thread? What you get out of DF is what you get out of it, and apparently in your view, it has nothing to do with what anyone else gets out of it, so why have a discussion?

Actually, you could extend that...why does this site exist? The purpose of TV Tropes is to examine patterns in media. But in your ultra-Watsonian view, there are no patterns; each work of media stands completely apart and what each individual viewer/reader/player gets out of it is divorced from both what the creators put into it and what every other individual viewer/reader/player gets out of it. Ergo, there should be no discussion.

I think I remember bringing up a less articulate version of your point ages ago. It didn't take for some reason I cannot recall.

Hmmmm.

I was thinking more generally; examining a work for any specific property, be it cultural themes, one of the -isms, or even just symbolism means that that is what you will find. This is true in a broader sense as well, it's why confirmation bias is a thing. But in relation to literature, it seems to crop up more often. If you believe that something is symbolic, or sexist, or what have you, you run the very real risk of filtering out only that.

I remember something in AP English in Highschool. We were reading The Grapes of Wrath, which is a great book, but our teacher had... something of an obsession about the work's symbolic qualities, so everything (and I do mean everything) became deliberate. He was asking why the dead baby was placed in an apple basket specifically, and we would just say whatever nonsense came into our heads first, all of which he eagerly agreed with. He wanted it to be symbolic, thus, it was.

Now, this in and of itself isn't a bad thing. Literary analysis on an individual basis is going to be subjective, and that's fine. It's the contrasting of views that strikes out the more individualized interpretations, and results in a superior analysis of the work. The problem we run into here is when it becomes an issue of social justice, or we begin to apply the things we see into observations about the author, because the former shuts down discussion, and the latter just upsets people because it seems like a personal attack.

Well put.

See, I don't agree with that assessment. I don't think there's in any way an inhibition on discussion because of some kind of perceived bias towards "social justice." And like I've said before, I don't care about the author - or at least not what they say about their work - so much as I care about what the book actually says. And I do think there's stuff in TDF (the frankly kind of eyebrow-raising heteronormativity) that's worth talking about that skirts the edge of 'social justice', but I think that term as a whole gets hilariously misused.

My issue is more that once it becomes a social justice thing, people start getting shut down for disagreeing. It's worth talking about, but I question how often it's actually discussed, as opposed to dictated.

It's not something that happens all the time, but it happens often enough that I'd call it a problem.

EDIT: And I know that you, personally don't care much about the author, but we (the thread) have had the "Butcher is sexist/racist/homophobic/etc because Harry did/said/thought X" argument come up more times than I'm comfortable with.

edited 20th Oct '14 9:45:54 AM by kingtiger522

In a totally subtle way of changing the topic...given some thoughtplay I wonder...how does the supernatural scene look in Hawaii in DF?

I mean, I *assume* the Hawaiian gods are filed as "asleep" but maybe the middle management and below is awake? Lots of Summer-water based fae and what else?

edited 20th Oct '14 3:32:57 PM by 3of4

I'm not familiar with Hawaiian mythology. Does it say anything about their gods being particularly active or dormant? For some reason volcanoes come to mind, but that's probably the pop-culture version speaking.

Given that they're volcanic islands famous for being highly active, I'd wager that volcanoes at least feature.

Because talking about stories that you love is amazing? As is looking at them, as themselves, within the confines of their verse, as well as trying to work out those parts that we don't yet know. What might be going on that we didn't see. Why certain characters are doing what they are doing. It's all fun and makes the work even more enjoyable.

It's when anything outside the work gets brought in that things get "What the fuck does it matter? It's not part of the story."

And, pretty much the stuff Kingtinger said, just, taking a bit further, totally agree with.

edited 20th Oct '14 4:16:03 PM by Seraphem

Hmm... Hawaii may actually have a rather atypical supernatural "scene," as it were. There's apparently a boatload of stuff we never see in the series, simply because of how a lot of it is regional; Harry isn't running into too many African tribal spirits, for instance. I'd expect there to be a lot of that going on.

It's probably had some Fomor issues, given the whole island thing. There's a Mage: The Ascension bit on mages in Hawaii that mentions weresharks, and evil spirits that can be summoned to fuck people up. There's also a couple of what sound like fae races, the Menehune (little hidden master crafters) and Nawao (big wild hunter types).

But what is there to talk about if everyone only takes notice of the face value of the text, as you advise?

Also, all of this—

—falls under the umbrella of:

If it's not in the book, printed on the page, then it's outside the work.

What was Titania doing during the events of Skin Game? Nothing. She wasn't in that book, therefore she was doing nothing. Maybe in a future book Butcher will retroactively tell us that she was doing something, but for the time being, any such speculation is outside the work.

That's the logical extension of your position.

So obviously you don't go quite that far. You agree that there are some things that are not part of the work that are nonetheless worth discussing in the context of the work. So why do you have a better idea of where the line should be drawn than anyone else?

edited 20th Oct '14 6:30:11 PM by Karalora

Book no, but they ARE part of the story. The world, the 'verse. They are still part of the whole, yet still contained within the bounds of the greater 'verse of the story. All of that is part of the story, everything that happens within the 'verse is part of the story of that 'verse. My issue is bringing things from outside that 'verse into it. Not speculation about things within the 'verse.

edited 20th Oct '14 6:33:26 PM by Seraphem

Nope. Until it has been specifically revealed in the story, it isn't part of the story. Sorry to disappoint.

Yes it is, everything within the 'verse is part of the story. Whether in a book or not, known or not. It is all part of the story.

The 'book' is simply a physical shell. The words and pages and whatnot, just an attempt to give physical form to the story. To communicate some part of it's greater whole. They are not what the story is, just an attempt at trying to convey it.

And what we see, just one part of a greater story. The story of the entire exsistance of that 'verse. Everything within the setting, the world, the universe, the 'verse. Whether seen or not, known or not, is part of it. If one that is undefined for us.

I have to disagree. The Dresden Files is a work of fiction. It has no reality of its own. All of it that exists is what has been published. Them's the facts.

Obviously this doesn't sit well with you. You feel that we can legitimately speculate on potentialities that have not yet been put into print. That's fair as far as it goes, but now we come to the crux of the matter: How far from the actual, existing printed pages may we wander before it's considered "outside the story" and, in your estimation, we should shut up about it?

The series draws heavily from mythology and folklore. Can I use my own knowledge of mythology and folklore to speculate about the story?

The series purports to describe hidden agendas in the real world. Can I use real-world politics and facts in my speculation? Or is that too far "outside the story" for your tastes?

Maybe most importantly, why do your tastes trump mine in determining what is useful fodder for discussion of the story?

When does it cease to be about just the story. And become random people trying to cram their own ideas about what everything is 'about' into the story and find some way to twist things till it's 'about' what they want it to be about, regardless of how much or little sense that makes. And is more about them spouting off their own ideas while claiming that the story totally is all about what I want to say it's about rather then have anything to do with the actual narrative?

Since that's my whole issue with the 'Literary Criticism" stuff, is that's all it ever seems to be from anything I've seen or heard about it.

Yes it does. ALL stories do. The good ones, the great ones, the ones that go beyond mere words on a page and become actual stories. Not ones the physically exist. But ones that are quite real. That have an exsistance outside the confines of the words and pages and bindings. It is what gives stories their power.

And where did I say that? My position is that what I understand and everything I've seen of 'Literary criticism' is never about the story but about random people foisting and exposing their own points of view, and trying to use whatever story they can twist to say what they want as a platform to do so. It's not about the story, but about the person. Or just spouting off random BS to try and sound smart, none of which is actually about the story, but about some view of 'society' or 'what the author was trying to say'. Not the narrative.

Yes I get that isn't what it's meant to be, but that is all I've ever seen from it.

edited 20th Oct '14 7:07:53 PM by Seraphem

You have not demonstrated to my satisfaction exactly where the boundaries of "the story" are. if "the story" can include items that have not been published, then where are the limits? And why?

"Random" people?

If it makes sense to them, isn't that good enough?

But you already agree that there is more to the narrative than just the words printed on the page.

And where do they get that reality and that power, do you suppose? Could it be because people recognize meaning in them that transcends the strict boundaries of the fiction?

Well, you are acting as if those of us engaging in a little light literary criticism are enjoying The Dresden Files wrong.

Does your preference for a strict reading not reveal as much about you as my preference for a more interpretive one does about me?

Says the guy who is using way more words than necessary to convey the same old "It's just a story! Stop thinking about it so much!" complaint that I've heard many, many times before.

How do you know they're not talking about the story? Is it possible you're reading past the literal words they write and making presumptions about what they're thinking?

Aaaaand, there it is! The point-by-point quote. Godwin has been achieved, the discussion is over, it's time to move on.

Hm. You know, I should get more involved in my country's mythology. I bet there's some interesting stuff to draw ideas from. That makes me think, I wonder how all the creation myths in DF mesh? (And yes, this is an intentional diversion from the incredibly pointless argument above.)