Literature The Dresden Files Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

08:22:41 PM Jul 25th 2014
OK, if wizards mess up technology, where did Harry find out about the Evil Overlord List, which is pretty much an internet thing, having started on a forum and then stayed on the internet? I don't THINK anyone published it dead tree format...
08:26:39 PM Jul 25th 2014
Harry hangs out with people who can use the Internet. They could tell him or print it out and hand him a paper copy.
06:13:18 PM Mar 25th 2014
Where in the book series was it firmly established that humans alone have free will? I have read all of the books and do not recall this ever being a fact. I recall that it was stated immortal creatures rarely change or at least it takes a lot for them to change which is why their names can almost always be used to summon them. But I don't recall this ever being a hard and fast rule. The only place I have heard it mentioned is in the RPG books which are not 100% canon. Humans change more because of their shorter lives, but not necessarily because they alone are capable of it. Wouldn't Odin's own ability to willingly take and discard different mantles imply a degree of choice and capability of changing his own nature?
06:59:12 AM Mar 26th 2014
Uriel makes a point in The Warrior, I think, of pointing out mortals have free will; the whole thing about immortal creatures not changing is directly tied to them not having the free will to change.

And Odin taking and discarding mantles is something that happened on Halloween, one of the few times where those rules about free will and nature are thrown out the window.
08:03:42 AM Mar 26th 2014
edited by
Had a chance to go through the books real fast:

Mab makes particular reference to it, saying she values "freedom" because she doesn't have it. Uriel's In-Between operation is all about preserving free will, and appears to deal exclusively with humanity. In The Warrior, he and Harry have a long conversation where Uriel points out how mortals' free will makes them special and able to act.

Marcone specifically notes, in Dead Beat, his free will lets him "spit in fate's eye," directly in contrast to Gard. Bob outright says he doesn't have it: "Free will is horrible, Harry, believe me. I'm glad I don't have it."

When discussing Molly, Lash bitterly says that Molly has free will, with the clear implication that Lash and Lasciel do not. Word of Jim is that she still doesn't gain it later—just a sort of autonomy.

In their discussion in Changes, Uriel says free will—the choices Harry made—must take precedence, and he is extremely limited and cannot act to subvert those choices; i.e., he does not have free will.

In Ghost Story, Forthill's angel of death says that Free Will is something beyond her, and notes that mortals specifically have it.

I took a slow breath, thinking. Then I said, “Free will.”
She inclined her head in a micro-nod, her eyes still all but openly hostile. “Something given to you yet denied to me. I may not take any action that abrogates the choices of a mortal.”

Generally speaking, free will is only ever brought up as a subject when they're talking about people. It's a total non-issue when discussing fae, vampires, or other monsters. Becoming one or becoming servant to one is nearly always discussed in terms of losing free will.
09:25:22 AM Mar 26th 2014
But there are other times it seems to contradict this. Mab is by nature cruel and merciless. She has possessed her mantle for thousands of years if not longer. Yet she showed mercy to her own daughter. Lea stated Winter is not always a heartless realm despite that being their nature. The only way the Fallen could rebel in the first place is if they had a choice about it. When I read the angel of death's comments I took it to mean angels have free will, but are forbidden from using it. Many of the supernatural creatures are duty bound one way or another combined with being so hold they tend to be set in their ways. If non-mortal creatures truly lack free will it changes the entire moral framework of the series.
10:16:13 AM Mar 26th 2014
Being forbidden from using free will is pretty much the same thing as not having free will. I don't see how it affects the "moral framework" of the series—it's been true from the start that creatures other than humans act within their natures.

Mab didn't really show mercy to Maeve—having her killed was a pragmatic decision.
05:57:12 PM Mar 26th 2014
Being forbidden and not having it is an important distinction. If The Fallen did not have it it meant they had no choice but to rebel meaning God damned them before they were even made. That does not go well for a being that is supposed to be one of the Big Goods of the series. It may be God Himself does not have free will. If an angel obeys God because they have no choice that is not proof of goodness or anything. They have no choice. In many ways, they are only highly sophisticated automatons. Being forbidden from using it though means an angel is truly loyal to God by choosing not to excercise their free will beyond that one choice.

Mab was caught between the responsibilities of her position, the Winter nature to kill Maeve, and her maternal love. Mother Winter made it clear Mab should have outright killed Maeve herself since that is what Mother Winter would have done. Instead, Mab gave Maeve every possible chance to be saved and she was only killed as a last resort. The unwillingness to be absolutely ruthless is against the nature of Winter Queen.

And it does chance the moral framework. Monsters like the Red Court Vampires are hated and condemned because they prey on mortals. They were condmened by an angel of all things. The Fallen were cast from heaven for rebelling against God. The skinwalkers were banished because some of them chose to stay on Earth. Harry despises the Winter Fae when they prey on mortals instead of trying to find another way to live. If none of these creatures ever had a "choice" and were all condemned the moment the right set of circumstances presented itself because of their nature then how is God good? The series has presented the Christain God, good angels, and Michael as the "good guys" because of their respect of free will and the Fallen as evil for interfereing with it. But if the Fallen never had a choice but to rebel then why is it right for God to condemn them? The same with the skinwalkers and vampires. And best they are creatures that have to be destroyed for the safety of humanity, but you cannot really label them as evil or at least the same level of evil as someone like Nicodemus who had a choice. And it is easy to view God as evil is He deliberated created creatures that were going to be evil. How is it fair to condemn them?
07:51:45 AM Mar 28th 2014
The Fallen exercising that will was the rebellion. The series makes it clear that the more powerful something is, the less they have the agency to act in the mortal world, and Angels, fallen or otherwise, are stated to be extremely powerful, such that acting in the mortal world is inherently dangerous for the mortal world. That's why they can't use Free Will, and that's why the Fallen fell—because they wanted to use their free will, which was against the White God's decree.

Nonetheless, Mab ordered Maeve to be killed; she still acted within her nature, even if she didn't want to.

The White God is still good because the Vampires, the Fallen, the Skinwalker are not just misunderstood, they're murderous creatures fueled by murderous and evil spirits and beings. Something that wants to kill, eat, and enslave humanity is evil whether it's doing that because it chose to or because that's its nature.

And you're misunderstanding something—namely, it's never said or implied that the White God made all of those creatures the way they were. The mythology of the Dresden Files may put the White God in a powerful position, but He doesn't control everything, and He didn't create everything in the Nevernever.
03:22:09 PM Mar 28th 2014
Your first part is assuming the mortal world is the only world where free will exist. The question then becomes if creatures have free will while in the Never Never. If the Fallen did have free will or wanted to use it then that means mortals were not the only beings with it. Angels have it as well. Only for most of them the only choice they get to make it to be perfectly obedient to the White God.

With Mab we are getting into a mix of nature, duty, and free will. Mab's Winter nature would be to kill Maeve for the threat she poses. Her nature as a mother would be to spare Maeve or do her best to help her. Ultimately Mab chose to do her duty and follow the winter nature of killing Maeve. Just because a person follow's their nature does not mean they do not have free will. It is Dresden's nature to help people and one he often follows. I think Mab going against her winter nature at all or trying to decide/find a compromise between two opposing natures is proof of free will.

For the last part, I know the White God did not create everything or at least up to this point it has not been revealed that He has. I was using Him because He is being played up as one of the major forces of good in the series through the Knights of the Cross, the angels, and the Church. An angel spoke through Murphy condemning the Red Court. The Fallen have been major antagonists in several books. Supporters of free will is being portrayed as one of the defining features of the novels. The good guys support the right to choose while the monsters seek to take it away. If the White God were to support the free will of mortals and deny them entrance to his heaven for choosing evil, but were to cast His own creations out of heaven for being what he made them when they did not have a choice (working under the idea that the Fallen never had free will at all) then it comes across as unjust. He created the Fallen and then condemns them for being what he intended them to be.
09:48:59 PM Sep 30th 2013
edited by
I'm curious about something. (And of course, the obligatory SPOILER ALERT in my question).


...*ahem.* Now that that's out of the way...

In Changes, Harry breaks his back and takes on the mantle of Winter Knight to get it fixed. Two things happen in short succession. 1. Harry and Mab spend some...shall we say, intimate time together. 2. Harry cuts Lloyd Slate's throat on the Stone Table.

There are two results. 1. Harry's back is fixed. 2. Harry becomes Winter Knight.

So my question is this: How intertwined are these actions? I was under the impression that the sex was just to fix his back, and the knife & stone table thing was to become Winter Knight. However, a lot of other people seem to think that the sex was to make him Winter Knight, a side effect of which is his back healing. Have I been misinterpreting which actions have which results?
08:00:10 AM Oct 1st 2013
The sex was ceremony. It didn't fix his back. He got the Winter Knight mantle and Mab fixed his back because he made it part of the deal, and because a Winter Knight that can't walk isn't all that great of a Winter Knight.

The sex was not a mechanical part of things so much as it was Mab asserting her dominance over Harry.
11:09:14 PM Apr 19th 2014
I think the stone table part was to remove the mantle from Slate and then the......almost pay-per-view event was the transfer to Harry. At least that's the impression I had. It was all a bit of a blur for Harry and, as he is the narrator, it is for us as well.
07:31:25 AM May 3rd 2013
01:19:38 AM Aug 20th 2012
I'm not quite sure about this, but do we still need a Recap page if each book in the series already has its own page? Plus tropes?
09:09:20 AM Aug 20th 2012
Make the proposal here, mate.
11:20:58 AM May 3rd 2012
edited by Dante668
I've made a franchise page for The Dresden Files here and I'm working on sorting things out. I've divided up the megalist of tropes to the best of my ability (in an external file), and I'll start making individual book pages as soon as I can.
09:09:08 AM Aug 17th 2012
I added a Cold Days page, with the promotional blurb that was on the website.
10:26:01 AM Oct 22nd 2011
.... Um, what just happened? Why did TDF get moved? And did doing so kill the discussion page it used to have? :annoyed:
10:39:18 AM Oct 22nd 2011
I believe there's a way to have the discussion page and all related links transferred to the new page, but I'm not positive how it's done. I think the person who did the move needs to ask the mods to do a transfer.
01:32:25 PM Oct 22nd 2011
Also thinking we should undo the move, or split it into sub pages since it's a multiple medium entity with comics, books and a tv show.
01:39:27 PM Oct 22nd 2011
Actually, that's a very good point. This page, though mainly about the books, is not just about the books, and thusly probably should remain at the Main/ header as a general page for the different mediums.
09:17:57 PM Oct 22nd 2011
edited by LucyZephyr
As someone in the fandom, splitting stuff up by Literature/TV Show/Tabletop is not a great idea. Yeah, the TV show and the RPG exist, but with the exception of some core fen and some folks who caught the show on Sci-Fi, no one is going to flesh out the other pages enough to warrant this. Hell. the RPG book is actually more of a bonus book than another medium.

Please, collapse it back to The Dresden Files?
10:35:47 PM Oct 22nd 2011
08:21:36 AM Oct 23rd 2011
Agreed, back to the Main/ header
08:22:34 AM Oct 23rd 2011
edited by MangaManiac
My reasoning was that every work's being namespaced and the TV series and Tabletop Game already have their own pages.

They're here.
08:34:24 AM Oct 23rd 2011
That's correct, but as was said this page is not just for the books, but also includes info on the comics, TV show and RPG.

When a series spans multiple media the Main/ page is often a disambiguation and general info page, and that's what this is.
08:35:40 AM Oct 23rd 2011
I was thinking about making the Main/ a disambig, but apparently it's locked and deleted now.
08:38:49 AM Oct 23rd 2011
edited by JBK405
Igore this post, it was in error
09:20:39 AM Oct 23rd 2011
Is there conversation on the forums about this happening somewhere? If so, I can't find it. 8(
10:54:04 AM Oct 23rd 2011
I think I've been edit-blocked for trying to move the page back to Main. (I think, because I haven't received any notification as to why I've been edit-blocked) What the hell?
11:56:15 AM Oct 23rd 2011
edited by MangaManiac
Try PMing Fast Eddie about it.

He is a bit stubborn, though.
05:51:09 PM Oct 23rd 2011
Nevermind, its been addressed.
10:41:20 AM Aug 19th 2011
edited by kickasstakenames
Was gonna post it in WMG but not sure if it counts. Help me out here tropers, who should be the cast of The Movie?
08:11:09 PM Oct 18th 2011
Harry is Lee Pace. Thomas is (by Word of God and fandom agreement) Matt Bomer. I like Maria Bello for Murphy. Christina Hendricks for the Leanansidhe. Thandie Newton for Mab.

Marcone is hard. A friend suggested Jeffrey Donovan, another Adrian Padsar. I think if you mixed them with a dash of Gabriel Macht, that'd be about right. Or, if we had access to a time machine, a young Ray Liotta.
08:48:11 AM Oct 19th 2011
Luccio's younger body is Summer Glau. The description is almost absolutely dead on.
09:13:26 AM Oct 19th 2011
edited by MrDeath
I thought Justine would be Summer as a reference to River.

On that note, Morena Baccarin as Lara, perhaps? Hell, why not just bring over the whole Firefly crew? We know Butcher's a fan, after all. Anyone else thing Nathan Fillion would make a decent Harry?
05:47:53 PM Oct 19th 2011
At the author meet I attended, JB said his perfect pick for Harry would be a young Harrison Ford, actually. I think Pace has the required height, the somewhat underfed look, the perfect scruff (when he lets it go out), and is good at playing of characters that are in turns hilarious and heartbreaking.

If y'all want to see an awesome Dream Casting, I'm a fan of this one:

The same person also did another Po C Dream Casting that I think is far superior, especially with the casting of the Carpenters:
06:02:34 PM Aug 3rd 2011
I've seen accusations that the books are racist. Some people have said that the usage of the word "Injun" and "oriental" is proof that Butcher is racist. Also, there was a debate on Butcher's twitter account based on a post that accused Butcher of being leery of Hyde Park purely do to the amount of Black people and latino. Are there any grounds to this accusation or is it not really that accurate?
06:17:05 PM Aug 3rd 2011
I don't know about Hyde Park, but the other stuff probably falls under Everything Is Racist. I remember in the RPG Harry warning Bill that only Ebenezer McCoy, Harry's mentor, has the privilege of calling Listens To Winds Injun Joe to his face. Anyone else does so at their own peril.

Remember, a lot of the characters either are, or were mentored by, people that predated the Civil Rights Movement, and the White Council is shown to be obstinate, set in its ways, and Eurocentric (and depicted as a bad thing), and the rest is Harry's POV.
07:15:45 AM Aug 4th 2011
Yeah, whoever's doing the accusing is a stick-up-his-ass Everything Is Racist moron. Using a couple words—while noting explicitly that those words aren't to be used by most people—doesn't make something racist. Most likely whoever wrote that just has a hate-on for the series and is scrounging for anything they can to criticize.
11:11:20 AM Aug 4th 2011
Whilst 'Injun Joe' appears to be a case of N-Word Privileges, the repeated, unlampshaded use of 'oriental' in Harry's POV is more legitimately unfortunate. Whilst it doesn't have the same weighting, it's rather similar to regularly using 'negro' to describe black people. In other words, it was OK once, but...
11:52:58 AM Aug 4th 2011
edited by MrDeath
Whether or not something is racist is about what happens in it, not just what words a character uses.
02:08:03 PM Aug 4th 2011
In that case, would you be OK with a book that referred to 'niggers', 'chinks', and so on without any apparent self-awareness?

As for how it happens, the Dresden Files (or, at least, Harry's POV) generally use it to indicate some measure of exoticism and otherness. Ye olde 'mysterious Orient'. Whilst Dresden's certainly not as bad about it as those books, I'm reminded of the House of Night series, which seemed to consider 'being a vampire' and 'being Native American' equally alien.
02:25:59 PM Aug 4th 2011
That's why I said, "Not just what words a character uses." As you said, "oriental" simply doesn't carry the weight of those other words. Hell, I can't even recall ever seeing it used derogatorially. From the usage of it I've seen, most people use it as a discriptor, and most people are genuinely unaware that it's seen as offensive. Off the top of my head, honestly, I couldn't tell you even why it's apparently offensive.

What makes a work racist is things like what characters of the different races are depicted as being and doing. The Native American is called "Injun Joe," yes. But he's also one of the most powerful people around, has the main character's respect, and is treated as a well rounded, good person. Admittedly, I don't recall seeing many asians in the books, but Ancient Mai is, again, one of the most powerful people around, and while she might not be on Dresden's side, necessarily, still a goodguy without really any stereotypes played up.

That is what decides whether or not a work is racist. Not whether a couple words are used incidentally in the narration, but how the people of a given race are portrayed.
09:29:24 PM Oct 17th 2011
edited by LucyZephyr
No offense, but you shouldn't tell people what they can or can't consider racist. The issues are far more complicated than you are giving them credit for. Also, re: the Hyde Park thing, it was PoC fans who lived in that area who raised concerns. It's incredibly rude to presume to tell them what they may or may not find offensive.
07:52:17 AM Oct 18th 2011
edited by MrDeath
I'm not at all telling people what they can or can't consider racist. I made no such blanket statements.

What I'm saying is that it's totally blowing things out of proportion to say that it's "proof" that Jim Butcher is racist because of a pair of words he uses (one of which, as was explained, is explicitly noted as only being acceptable as N-Word Privileges for a select few). Saying a work or author is racist just because of those two words—and completely ignoring their context, or the actual treatment of the characters of those races—is, frankly, short sighted and ignorant in itself.

As for the Hyde Park thing, I don't recall the circumstances in which the park's mentioned in the books, so how is it mentioned? And what's the Po C being referred to?(Nevermind) Does Harry go on about how the blacks and hispanics in the area make him uncomfortable and are subhuman? Or does he just mention he doesn't like the park, and someone jumped to the conclusion that obviously this is because of the black and latino population?

Just an accusation of racism means nothing. Hell, I was once called a racist when I specifically said it would be wrong to stereotype black people as loving fried chicken and watermelon—the "logic" being that because I was even aware of the stereotype, I was a racist but I just didn't realize it.

So, to answer the original question, unless the books are negatively portraying people of those races in such a way that makes it clear that they're bad because they're that race, or all people of that race are bad, no, then the books aren't racist.

Edit: To add to that, after a quick look around, half the people accusing the books of being racist use the argument that "there's only white people, and anyone else is a monster lurking in the dark."

Which ignores that Dresden's true love (Susan Rodriguez) and best Warden friend (Carlos Ramirez) are both good, and Hispanic; the last surviving Knight of the Cross (which is as capital-G Good as you get) is a black guy, while the one who sacrificed his life to save Dresden was Japanese; several good cops, including the head of SI after Murphy's dismissal, are black; three of the seven-member High Council are minorities (Martha Liberty's black, Ancient Mai is Chinese, Listens-To-Wind is Native American), and all portrayed as good; and those are just the ones off the top of my head.
10:37:33 AM Oct 18th 2011
The biggest and most frequent criticism of Butcher's POC characters is not that they're poorly-executed (though the two Asian characters, Shiro and Ancient Mai, are a bit on the stereotypical side), but that there's so few of them. For instance, Rawlins is the only recurring black character (and perhaps the only black character, period) who is native to Chicago. At the last census, Chicago's population was 37% black, and only 42% white. You can see how non-white readers might find Butcher's overwhelmingly pallid portrayal of the city to be a bit weird, no?

That, and there are other unfortunate gaffes. Hyde Park (or, more accurately, the area near the university - Butcher got the name wrong, as I recall) was described in Dead Beat as being pretty much Chicago's version of The City Narrows, 'home to the worst excesses of inner-city decay'. In reality, it is a moderately poor but clean and well-ordered neighbourhood that is only notable for its particular concentration of non-white inhabitants. Honest mistake or no (and let's face it, he should have done more research there), you can see where the annoyance stemmed from.
11:13:32 AM Oct 18th 2011
edited by MrDeath
Annoyance, yes, I can understand. Starting the criticism with "FUCK YOU JIM BUTCHER!", as the original complaint went, and automatically assuming that Butcher was motivated out of malicious racism, however, is a different story entirely. It wouldn't be the first time he's made a mistake about the geography and demographics of the city (giving the baseball stadium a parking lot, for instance), and if the original complaint had been delivered more civilly than with "FUCK YOU, YOU RACIST SOB!" then I imagine Butcher would have, in turn, reacted more civilly.

As for the demographics portrayed* , okay, part of it is, unavoidably, that Harry is white and, in the real world, whether you're racist or not, and whether it should be the case or not, people do tend to associate themselves with people of the same ethnicity. Just because 37% of the population of the city is black doesn't mean that those people are evenly distributed throughout the city and regularly associate and interact that 42% of white people.

This is on both sides of the coin: If you walk through a city, you'll usually see the groups segregated, white people with white people, black people hanging out together. So from that perspective, it makes sense that a white guy would, in fact, mostly hang around with other white people. I work in a (admittedly much smaller) city, and when I walk through town, there are definitely areas where I see nothing but black people, and others that are predominantly white. Ask yourself this: If I were to write a story about a person living and working in one of those predominantly-black areas, and my story included only two white people among his friends and associates, would that be racist?

Yes, Butcher could probably have included more people of various ethnicities, but Harry isn't taking a census of the city here, he's just interacting with his friends and allies. Also, I could've sworn Stallings was black too, but I might be getting him mixed up with Rawlins.

And looking at the character sheet, a solid chunk of the people he interacts with on a regular basis either aren't Chicago natives to begin with (and thus aren't indicative of whether or not Butcher is portraying the city correctly) or are literally monsters who it's probably best to not count (though I imagine someone will take issue with the bloodsucking monster vampires being almost uniformly from South America with Hispanic names).

Bottom line is, yes, there's probably some Unfortunate Implications, which I'm finding are absolutely inevitable no matter what you try to do and how you try to do it. This doesn't, however, mean the books are "racist" or that Jim Butcher is.
12:11:27 PM Oct 18th 2011
The 'fuck you Jim Butcher' was in relation to someone being told that their neighbourhood was (and now I have the precise wording to hand) 'a bizarre blend of the worst a large city had to offer marching side by side with the erudite academia of the University of Chicago. It wasn’t the kind of place I wanted to walk around after dark, […..] cheap apartments that were flying gang colors on the windows nearest the doors'. And he got the name wrong, too. And whitewashed the place. Again.

I'm pretty sure that if my home turf received that sort of writeup, my reaction would also be 'fuck you, Jim Butcher'.
12:16:27 PM Oct 18th 2011
It's hardly the way to start any kind of constructive dialogue, though. Instead of giving the benefit of the doubt and allowing that Butcher might have simply been mistaken about the neighborhood (he doesn't live in Chicago, remember), the complainant jumped right on, "Oh, it's because you're scared of black people, isn't it?"

I can understand being pissed, but screaming obscenities and accusations of racism isn't going to inspire the author to apologize and/or fix it.
12:28:44 PM Oct 18th 2011
edited by Iaculus
It was an Internet rant, intended to vent a single reader's frustrations after one gaffe too far. It was not meant to begin a serious dialogue about geography in the Dresden Files. It only became a topic of discussion because someone else linked to it. Not all complaints are designed for the use of the author, after all.

A link you might find useful, on the infamous 'tone argument'.

Oh, and here is a link to the original 'fuck you Jim Butcher' article, plus another one discussing Butcher's response to it.
12:48:15 PM Oct 18th 2011
edited by MrDeath
Whether it was intended for Butcher or not, it still found its way to him, which is all but inevitable on the internet. He didn't put it in a private journal, he put it on the internet where literally the entire world could see it.

Quite possibly, it short-circuited any meaningful dialogue that could've resulted because Butcher seems to have taken it pretty personally, and he couldn't let it go through the subsequent conversation with another tweeter. The guy has a legit complaint, as you said, anyone would be annoyed at the least if their home neighborhood was portrayed like that...though reading the post now, he says he was there for 4 months, so it probably wasn't his "home turf".

But that's no call to be uncivil in a public forum, and the internet is definitely a public forum. It benefits nobody to go off like that—because that "FUCK YOU JIM BUTCHER!" is what introduced the problem to the author, he's that much less likely to admit fault or rectify it in future books (he could've easily had Harry, say, stop in the area for an extended period of time and learn that it's not what he thought).

The original complainant should have pointed out the mistakes and why they're mistakes; insulting and swearing at someone is not the way to be constructive, and is only going to put someone on the defensive.

As for the tone argument, racism isn't uniform, and the response to it should reflect what was behind the offensive comment. Deliberate malice should evoke a different response than simple ignorance. As I said, the original complainant appears to be assuming Butcher was acting out of the former rather than the latter.
01:04:10 PM Oct 18th 2011
You assume that the author would have cared one way or the other about Butcher's reaction. Generally, if you're sufficiently angry that you're going 'fuck you <name>', the subject's finer feelings and chances of improvement are not of particular relevance to you. Offended parties do not have an obligation to educate the people who offended them.

Also, you might want to read (or re-read) the original article. It's not that the author assumes Butcher is being malicious, it's that they're honestly bewildered by why he thought that neighbourhood was so awful, and start running through possible theories (one Starbucks too many, a dodgy Mexican restaurant, too many black people...) that might explain it. Although the fact that he depicted the place as primarily white probably didn't help.
01:35:54 PM Oct 18th 2011
edited by MrDeath
Doesn't much matter what the author of it cared about—it's still a public forum, and he chose to conduct himself in a way that has demonstrably damaged the possibility of constructive dialogue with anyone else who wants to discuss it with the author. Look at the ensuing dialogue: Butcher feels insulted by the language of it, and the accusation of racism, and thus the civil person who tries to talk about it with him can't get anywhere.

I did read it, and those aren't "possible theories," they're dripping sarcasm followed by a direct accusation of being racist.

The blogger's tone is clear: The paragraph starting with "Was it the Starbucks..." is a listing of all the good things about the neighborhood that Butcher couldn't possibly have seen as the bad parts. It's said sarcastically to contrast the following paragraph, which are still-benign things, but with the ethnicity of each called out to imply that Butcher walked in and panicked at the sight of something non-White.

He then sets aside the line about black people on its own, to deliberately and specifically call the author out, by name, with an accusatory and condescending tone: "Was it the Black people, Jim Butcher? Did they make you feel unsafe?"

That is not bewilderment, that is confrontational and accusatory rhetoric—he seems to take the description like a personal attack. He's assuming that while Butcher didn't know anything about the neighborhood, he knew the demographic of it enough that that alone made him deliberately change it to depict it as a crappy slum...while removing the demographic that "scared" him so much, apparently.

I have to say, to me, if it really was that Jim Butcher was racist against black people, wouldn't it make more sense for him to make the crappy slum that Harry doesn't want to walk around in predominantly black? Not saying it's right to "whitewash" the place, but it seems contradictory to me the idea that he's both A. racist against black people and B. making the crappy area predominantly white.

The much, much more likely scenario is that Butcher looked at a map of Chicago or someone who had been there, got some misinformation and came to the wrong conclusion about the area. Or that he had heard there was an area close to there that was rough (the original post mentions things are bad several streets down from where Dresden goes) and assumed the same was true for the surrounding streets as well.
07:57:32 PM Oct 18th 2011
Laculus, as the person who called out Butcher for his reaction to the Hyde Park thing and later met the man cordially, I'd had my share of racism apologists about this and I admire you for keeping this up.

Mr Death, I write a lot of Dresden fanfic and in doing so do a lot of research on the city of Chicago to portray it accurately. A basic google search would have given a more accurate depiction of the area around the university. Butcher, by choosing to set his books in a city, can be held accountable when he makes major mistakes about the location. He whitewashed and it was racially skeevy as fuck. I personally don't think he did it out of malice— but as we say on the internet, Intent Isn't Magical. He offended real, actual Po C Chicagoans and they were upset about it.

Their post was angry. Anger is not a bad thing, and when you shut someone down for having an angry tone, you *are* invoking a tone argument and shutting off legitimate concerns. Apologism and getting pissed about people daring to perceive racism in a poorly researched part of a book is not the productive response. Acknowledging something unfair was published and making an effort to do better in the future is a much better reaction.

And can we stop with this idea that "fuck you Jim Butcher" was a personal attack? Let's be real— it wasn't. No one intended for Butcher to see it and even if he did, it was not directed at Jim Butcher the person but Jim Butcher the Best-Selling Novelist Who Made My Community Look Like a Crime Den. They are not the same. These people don't know Jim Butcher. They probably couldn't pick him out of a line up. They were mad at the books for simultaneously whitewashing and disparaging their home.

Also, Jim Butcher learned from the incident, by his own admission. He even told off his fans when they wouldn't stop trolling me. I got the impression from him that no hard feelings remain over what happened.

I'm pretty sure Mr. Butcher isn't racist. Some things that wind up in his books sadly are, but more out of ignorance than intent. But that doesn't mean we should not make conversation about them. Media does not exist in a vacuum and these things matter and are worthy of our time.
10:03:29 PM Oct 18th 2011
edited by MrDeath
Yes, I understand that a mistake was made, and they were right to be upset about it. I'm not denying that, and Butcher ought to have done more thorough research. He screwed up, there's no sense in denying that, and the people who had their neighborhood portrayed poorly are well within their rights to be upset. (And I sincerely hope that first line isn't meant to imply that you think I'm a "racism apologist".)

As for the anger, no, I'm not trying to shut anyone down—I'm saying they have a legit grievance, but they should have gone about airing that grievance more civilly. Anger may not be bad in and of itself, but it's not a blank check to throw out manners, whatever the cause of that anger may be. How you say something does matter, whether you're angry or not. Jim Butcher deserves as much respect as anyone else does.

No one intended for Butcher to see it, and it wasn't intended at Butcher the person? Well, as you just said, "Intent Isn't Magical," and that cuts both ways. Jim Butcher the Best-Selling Novelist Who Made My Community Look Like a Crime Den is still a real person who has a right to be angry when someone calls him out on a public forum with a "FUCK YOU", and accuses him of being a racist. Whether the blogger knows him or could pick him out of a lineup is immaterial—not knowing someone personally is no excuse for treating them in such a manner.

Nowhere did I say that we shouldn't make conversation about it. In fact, I mean the opposite, that conversation should happen, and that launching "FUCK YOU!" at someone is not a good way to start that conversation. I should hope it's not too much to ask for or expect that people be civil with one another when they're upset.
02:42:45 PM Oct 19th 2011
Ta for the support, Lucy, and I'm glad that what I was saying made a halfway bit of sense to someone else. Oh, and it's spelt 'iaculus', by the way. Very understandable mistake, seeing as our uppercase I and lowercase l look pretty much identical.

The thing is, things had already gotten offensive when their neighbourhood was compared to a crime den, and whilst 'he started it' is rarely a good excuse, you have to remember that marginalised groups, by definition, deal with this sort of shit all the time. It's significantly harder to be polite and respectful when dealing with something offensive when it's the hundredth time you and yours have been insulted, sidelined, or generally misrepresented that day alone, and whilst you (general 'you') can glibly ask them to rise above it, you have to realise that there comes a point when you're effectively requiring them to be superhuman. If a white author can get a pass for being iffy about race ('hey, everything has Unfortunate Implications, what can you do about it, huh?'), a black reader should be granted that same leeway for being rude about a certain racist screw-up.

That is why the tone argument is generally seen as a 'silencing tactic' - it denies marginalised people the opportunity to express exactly how angry they are about something, instead demanding that they suck it up and be nice to the people who are already being exceedingly rude to them on a regular basis. It means that every complaint they make must be carefully framed as a polite lesson to the ignorant privileged, rather than them just saying to their readers 'fuck it, this author isn't worth your money, and here's why'. As mentioned above, why should they be obliged to teach the people who offended them, rather than just warning others away? To analogise, an author can read a review in a newspaper if he wants, but that review is not for him, but to inform customers about whether his book's worth buying.

Besides, while I'm glad that things apparently worked out in the end, I'm personally of the opinion that if an author gets sufficiently bent out of shape about one angry, frustrated reader's rant that a more polite reader cannot make any headway discussing issues in their text with them, that is the author's problem, not the reader's. As an author, people will not like your work. More than a few of them will be impolite about it. That is not a reason to ignore them (authors are human, and humans make mistakes), but it is a reason not to get too worked up when someone criticises you.

Also, regarding the thingy a couple of posts up, it's not so much a contradiction as two separate things intersecting. First, Chicago is depicted here as overwhelmingly white - recurring POC natives to the city can be counted on the fingers of a blind carpenter's hand, and background characters, when given physical descriptions, are pretty much invariably pallid. Which, as mentioned, is a bit weird when the city as a whole is only 42% white, and Dresden's adventures are not restricted to known all-white ghettos (not that Chicago has a huge number of those). Second, when we're introduced to one of the city's most obviously non-white neighbourhoods, it's essentially The City Narrows. In other words, it can rather appear as if the ethnic makeup of real-world Chicago is not mapped out in the Dresden Files by a greater number of brown people showing up in certain areas, but by a greater degree of urban decay. An accident? Most likely. Unfortunate? Hell yes.
05:43:25 PM Oct 19th 2011
Apologies about the name, Iaculus. And apologies for the implication, Mr Death.

I'd add more, but I think Iaculus made the arguments I would have. Hit me up when y'all get to the gender/sex issues of the series. :laughs:
07:57:41 AM Oct 20th 2011
edited by MrDeath
Apology accepted. I was pretty sure you didn't mean it that way, but I wanted to make sure.

I guess I'll just say I disagree with the principles behind the tone argument. I was always taught that if I want to make my point and be taken seriously, to do so in a courteous manner. I know it's not as serious an issue, but whenever I swore at someone on this wiki, even if I was totally, objectively in the right, I got reprimanded for it, for example.

And being civil and respectful isn't necessarily just for the benefit of the person you're speaking to, but to anyone else who might be watching the discussion. It's not always about changing the other party's mind, but of also gaining support for your position.

If, without any other context, you see two people in disagreement and one is swearing up a blue streak and the other isn't, who would you be more likely to take seriously or take the side of?
09:50:01 AM Oct 20th 2011
If, without any other context, you see two people in disagreement and one is swearing up a blue streak and the other isn't, who would you be more likely to take seriously or take the side of?

Let me flip that around a little. If, without any other context, you see two people in disagreement and one is dressed in nice, expensive clothes and the other looks like a tramp off the street (even a particularly clean tramp), who would you be more likely to take seriously or take the side of? Most folks, whether consciously or not, will pick the guy with the professional-looking duds, as innumerable court cases have demonstrated, but that kind of sucks if you're not all that wealthy and you have more difficulty in affording and maintaining a nice suit (or, you know, buying one at all).

Politeness, like good clothing, is something of a privilege. It's easy to be polite when the issues at hand are not personally relevant or offensive to you, and significantly harder when they're just part of a long list of racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever crap thrown your way. Well, that, and it's sometimes very hard indeed to illustrate just how not-cool something is whilst remaining polite. Not everyone is addicted to understatement like us Brits.
11:10:47 AM Oct 21st 2011
edited by MrDeath
So what if it's "very hard"? It must have been "very hard" for Gandhi to practice non-violence, or for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to do the same, but they managed it, and are both much better remembered, and more successful in their efforts, than those contemporaries of theirs who might have been shouting and swearing, or escalating to violence, out of anger and frustration.

Yes, I know those are two rather extreme examples (since the men must have the patience of saints), and honestly I was trying to avoid mentioning King in particular because part of me felt it would be seen as something of a "low blow," like I was trying to play some kind of reverse race card, but it's the clearest way I think I can make my point.

If they can preach and practice peaceful, civil discourse in the face of threats to their own lives while trying to change the way their country works, I don't think it's really too much to ask for people to exercise a little personal restraint when dealing with what is most likely an honest mistake.
12:22:25 PM Oct 21st 2011
Yeah, I'm sorry, Mr. Death, but your privilege is showing. Not everyone is MLK or Gandhi, and not everyone should have to be. Especially if you're going to brush off the offending authors' follies as understandable slips that are nothing worth making a fuss about.
01:43:43 PM Oct 21st 2011
edited by MrDeath
I think you're misunderstanding why I brought them up. It was not to say "everyone should be like them;" that is a totally unrealistic expectation. I brought them up to say if they can do it when they're facing things like the constant, ingrained oppression of their people and literal, physical threats to their own lives and the lives of their loved ones, then it's probably possible, even if "very hard", to take a deep breath and not flip out when a fantasy author makes a mistake about your neighborhood out of simple ignorance.

I never said everyone is or should have to be MLK or Gandhi—hence me saying they're extreme examples and they must have the patience of saints. The "your privilege is showing" is simply uncalled for.

I also never said that it's nothing worth making a fuss about and, in fact, I said exactly the opposite in my previous posts, that it's a legitimate grievance that they have every right to voice. I have said this, or similar things, more than once during this discussion.

I'm saying when that fuss is made, maybe it should be made without resorting to screaming, cursing, and accusing the author of being a racist.
08:25:24 PM Oct 21st 2011
edited by LucyZephyr
So basically, we are no longer arguing about whether the complaints were valid, but how they were presented?

Ah. Okay then.

I'm with Iaculus. Your privilege is showing and you really need to read that link s/he gave you on the tone argument. I mean this in the nicest way possible: I don't think you understand why the tone argument is problematic, and it's making you seem apathetic to this issue.
12:25:23 PM Nov 22nd 2011
Basic manners still apply, whatever the subject is. Speaking as a professional writer and editor, it's been my personal experience that how you present your complaints and arguments matters in a real, tangible way, whatever the subject is.

This whole thread illustrates my point: I was initially defending Butcher because the initial complaint was a screaming, cursing, condescending and accusatory rant—seeing that, I thought it was yet another random internet guy flipping out over nothing, and dismissed it. Generally speaking, people are more likely to tl;dr or otherwise ignore a capslocked and/or bolded rant that starts with "FUCK YOU!" and ends with an insulting accusation like, "Was it the black people? Did they make you feel unsafe?"

If the initial complaint had presented itself more calmly, I, and others, would have been more likely to take it more seriously, and less likely to dismiss it or defend Butcher against it.

That is what I'm talking about. Not "educating" the offender, or even trying to change his mind in particular. Change happens when you convince the people watching that you're right, and it's easier to do that when you're not flipping out and cursing.

I'm promoting civil discourse—not trying to silence anyone or ignore the issue. I have acknowledged they were right to be angry, and to voice that anger, and that Butcher should've done his homework.

Butcher and his fans' initial dismissal of it would not have happened, and the whole thing would've been over sooner and more amicably, if the initial complaint had been made in a less insulting manner.

Finally, "Your privilege is showing" is, frankly, insulting and rude, even if you mean it in the nicest way possible. I take offense to the idea that because you think I'm white, I'm "privileged" and thus my argument can be dismissed because I just don't get it. You may not actually mean it that way, but it's coming off as dismissive and condescending.
12:32:34 AM Jul 27th 2011
So why hasn't this been split into separate novels? The two pages are filled to bursting.
12:39:14 AM Jul 27th 2011
The stories and tropes are too interconnected, which makes sense, but why are they on separate pages instead of being in separate folders on the same page like Wheel of Time.

Clicking through is annoying.
06:33:15 AM Jul 26th 2011
Just put up a whole bunch of Ghost Story stuff. Remember, kids, almost all of it is going to need spoiler tags.
04:28:38 AM May 31st 2011
Is it just me? Or do Dresden fans recommend his novels more frequently than others? I mention them at... really, most every opportunity, same with the Codex Alera. Just check out the entries on Jim Butcher or Better than it Sounds...

Wierd, no?
11:46:12 AM Dec 24th 2010
edited by MrDeath
Re: Harry and his Fellowship in Changes

Just for fun, who were each of them associated with? The ones we know:

Thomas is Legolas
Sanya is Aragorn
Mouse is Gimli
Lea is Gandalf
Martin is Boramir
Harry is Sam
This leaves Molly, Murphy and Susan. I say Susan is Frodo, which leaves Merry and Pippin for Molly and Murphy. Ideas?

On the one hand, Molly ends up wounded at the end of Changes, sorta like Merry after Eowyn kills the Witch King. On the other hand, Murphy kills near-god beings with a magical bladed weapon, again, like Merry and the Witch King.

And yes, it's sorta hilarious that short Murphy has to be a hobbit.
02:31:22 PM Dec 10th 2010
To me, splitting the page into "Tropes A-M" and "Tropes N-Z" seems kind of unwieldy. Wouldn't it be better to split it into different book pages, similar to Discworld?
07:39:33 PM Dec 26th 2010
I did the splitting when the page issue came up, and I thought about that, but no. The books are too interconnected and build too much on each other for that to be economical. And since we're going to have more than 20 books in all, I think it'd turn into a mess. Eventually, the pages may have to be split in three instead of two, but this should work for now, I hope.
10:54:49 AM Jul 26th 2011
I might be flogging a dead horse here, but why were the tropes put on separate pages instead of being put in folders like we do for every other trope-heavy series on the site?
09:31:41 PM Oct 17th 2011
VERY late reply, sorry for that. But the issues was that basically the pages were too big, enough to affect the servers. Adding folders does not do anything to make page length more manageable, so the splitting was necessary.
02:53:42 PM Dec 7th 2010
Uh, what happened to the High Octane Nightmare Fuel page.
02:56:22 PM Dec 7th 2010
Eaten by the Malvora family of the White Court.
05:44:17 AM Nov 28th 2010
I don't know about the Molly thing being unrequited. Harry mentions a few times how hot she's grown up to be and now Susan's out of the picture and Murphy may not want him after Ghost Story...
06:06:52 AM Nov 28th 2010
That's its current status, though. Speculation on how things will develop belongs in Wild Mass Guessing, not on the main page.
12:34:51 PM Aug 31st 2010
edited by MrDeath
Cut this from the main page, will answer them in here. Will start with pointing out only a small handful of creatures in the whole series qualify as "Nigh Invulnerable beings that are More Powerful Than Anything Harry's Faced Before", and those he usually does the sensible thing by running the hell away when he can.

  • Informed Attribute: You know all those supposedly Nigh Invulnerable beings that are More Powerful Than Anything Harry's Faced Before? As long as they don't ambush him, they frequently get their asses kicked. It might even happen if they do ambush him. In order:
    • Fool Moon: Harry kills a Nigh Invulnerable super-werewolf with a necklace an amulet.
      Only because said amulet was A. charged up with his magic, and B. made of inherited silver, which was explicitly pointed out as the werewolf's weakness.
    • Grave Peril: Harry kills a ghost. The only reason he died was because it was part of the Plan.
      Ghosts are uber powerful now? And you make it sound like the whole thing was Harry being a Chess Master; it's more like he took advantage of a one-time effect to gain the upperhand.
    • Summer Knight: Harry kills the Summer Lady, one of the most powerful beings on earth.
      By exploiting her weakness (Iron) and calling in faerie backup while she was distracted. And by holding onto her MacGuffin so she couldn't just stomp him.
    • Death Masks: Harry nearly chokes Nicodemus to death. Note that Nicodemus is literally invulnerable, is willing host to a demon, has been around 2000 years, and no one has found this weakness before... or at least, there are no records of this.
      Again, this is his weakness in particular, and it doesn't kill him anyway. It was a desperation attack that mostly bought Harry time to escape.
    • Blood Rites: Harry defeats the head of the White Court, but doesn't kill him so that Lara can increase her influence, and reacts fast enough to get a Black Court vampire killed by a frozen turkey.
      Neither white nor black court vampires are "Nigh Invulnerable beings that are More Powerful Than Anything Harry's Faced Before". In fact, Black Court vamps are among the easiest to kill if you know their weaknesses. He beats the White Court king not through martial skill, but by figuring out his weakness.
    • Dead Beat: Harry prevents a rise to godhood by someone who was described as the most powerful being he's faced.
      And he does this by not taking him in a straight fight. He exploits a weakness in the ritual, and lets that kill him. The T. Rex helped as well.
    • Proven Guilty: Harry gets ambushed by a xenomorph and defeats it and raids Arctis Tor, the stronghold of the Winter Queen.
      A. Xenomorphs are hardly Nigh Invulnerable either (did you watch the second film?), and B. he does it while the Winter Queen isn't there, and with the help of the Summer Lady, who is considerably powerful herself. Also, by exploiting the Faeries' weakness to Iron.
    • Small Favor: Harry almost chokes Nicodemus to death again and defeats all of the gruffs, including one the size of a freight train.
      Neither of the first two sets of Gruffs were Nigh Invulnerable or all that powerful. Remember, Harry is one of the stronger wizards as far as raw strength goes. And he mostly just runs away from them anyway. The one that is super powerful he doesn't fight at all.
    • Turn Coat: Harry almost kills the semidivine skinwalker with no knowledge of any possible weaknesses.
      As I mentioned in the Edit Reasons, Harry doesn't come close to doing that kind of damage on the Skinwalker. He hits it pretty hard, but it just gets right back up and knocks him for a loop. It's only the intervention of Toot and Injun Joe that saved him at all.
    • Changes: with only a few seconds to plan, Harry figures out how to kill the entire Red Court.
      This entirely ignores that the details of the ritual had been explained to Harry and set up for the entire book. That "few seconds" wasn't to plan, it was just when he realized it.

Honestly, I'm getting a vibe here like that guy a few months ago that kept wanting to call Harry a God-Mode Sue.
01:44:46 PM Aug 31st 2010
Good kull.

Funny Tibit, the RPG lists that the only way one can be resistant to damage is to have an exploitable flaw as well.
01:48:10 PM Nov 27th 2010
I personally find it hilarious that the troper who added this section thought that killing a ghost was some ridiculously incredible achievement when they whack one at the beginning of the story and Harry mentions they've been knocking off hostile ghosts for the last couple of weeks before the book started.
09:59:55 AM Jul 31st 2010
My comment about Sanya was that he's not really a Badass Abnormal, because he didn't used to be a Badass Normal when he got his upgrade.
11:43:37 PM Aug 17th 2010
My read on the situation is that he'd been a Badass Abnormal as a Denarian, then reverted to Badass Normal when he gave up the coin. Then, when he picked up the sword, he returned to Badass Abnormal status.
04:47:06 PM Jul 8th 2010
Ok, there seems to be some disagreement about one of my edits. I had written in that Harry deliberately goading Susan into turning full vamp and then killing her to wipe out the Red Court was a possible Moral Event Horizon. This kept getting deleted, with a commentary that MEH wasn't the right trope for this. Re-reading MEH, I think I agree, but I can't figure out which other trope this should be listed under. What the Hell, Hero? does not seem to fit either.
07:40:35 PM Jul 8th 2010
edited by MajinGojira
Because the "Deliberately Goading" thing is a pure fabrication on your part?

That was all Martin's idea—his long term goal. Not Harry's. Do reread the pertinent segment. I'd suggest p. 415 through 420 of the Hardback edition, the last pages of chapter 48.
11:25:43 PM Jul 8th 2010
edited by MadMosquito
Uh, maybe the part where I said I agreed MEH wasn't the right trope is not obvious enough? As for the goading part, it is an issue of interpretation (rather than 'fabrication'), Harry clearly realizes the reaction he is going to get out of Susan by pointing out the role of Martin in the kidnapping (note the part when he mentions that he will never forgive himself for it, page 415 of the Hardback edition, 5th paragraph, since we are being all referencey now ;) ). He may be getting the idea of the follow-up from Martin thanks to the soulgaze, but the part where he sacrifices the humanity of Susan is his own initiative.
06:48:31 AM Jul 9th 2010
edited by JBK405
The situation is classic Shoot the Dog. A horrible, perhaps even reprehensible action that is required by the circumstances and which force the heroes to take action they normally wouldn't. He is forced to nudge and then kill Susan in order to save their child (Which is the decision she would have made, too) and stop the war and kill off the Red Court. Shoot the Dog at its finest.

EDIT: An looking at the page, I see that this is already there as a Shoot the Dog entry, so it's been taken care of. It could probably use some expansion, but the trope is there.
10:09:29 AM Jul 9th 2010
Sounds good to me, I may expand the Shoot The Dog entry about this a little.
10:25:39 AM Jul 9th 2010
The interpretation comes only with the clarity of hindsight. Don't look at the final outcome, look at the immediate outcome.
05:33:12 PM Jul 7th 2010
edited by
In the Dresden Files RPG, the word Squick is used, in the same context as T Vtropes has it. Now, I'm still a bit green, but does anywhere else use squick the same way? If not, then this may just go to show that Jim Butcher is a troper.
05:56:44 PM Jul 7th 2010
A google search shows that other places do use squick the same way we do, sadly.
06:54:50 PM Jul 7th 2010
Squick is an old, old internet word.
01:41:46 AM Jun 22nd 2010
Jim's a gamer, right? Plays City of Heroes? Can anyone with a copy of Changes handy back me up on this: During one of the fight scenes in Changes (The one where Molly gets coated in paint), she taunts the badguy at one point by turning to the side and doing an exaggerated pair of butt-pats along with a cry of 'Come get some!'

I've heard before that Jim Butcher, the author, plays City of Heroes, and there is an emote in that game that fits that description almost exactly by the name of... 'Getsome'.

Coincidence, or shout-out?
03:55:53 PM Jun 28th 2010
edited by KeitheOtaku
That did actually happen. It's not a Dresden book if there's no pop culture reference in it somewhere, so it definitely has the potential to be a shout-out to City of Heroes.
11:22:25 PM Jun 2nd 2010
OK, I don't know if this is the right place to bring it up but anyway: shouldn't Plot Hole be added to the list? With 12 books out there's probably several examples but I came on this just now; In book 4 Summer knight Harry defeats Aurora by letting loose a dozen pixies with knives at her. Now I know it's supposed to be something about the small guys making a big difference but she's a fairy queen incomparably stronger then Harry, she should have handled them with no second thought (like he handled a dozen horse-sized bees just before that), right? Right? But that would go against rule of cool or whatever it was. Writer just needed something to wrap it up quickly.
06:13:15 AM Jun 3rd 2010
edited by Belian
Probably should halve been asked on the forums, but I will answer here.

Aurora's defeat has nothing to do with how much power she or the pixies had. It had more to do with surprise, her not having enough time to even use any of her power (Harry had time to plan/get ready for the bees' attack), and ''steel'' knives. If there had been just one pixie she might have been able to counter attack one way or another, but there were over a dozen. How well could you concentrate and retaliate if a dozen hummingbirds suddenly appeared in front of you and attacked you? With knives? She had no chance of surviving.

I will not say that there are no Plot Holes anywhere in the books (Butcher acknowledges most of them), but Aurora's defeat is not one of them.
10:02:47 AM Jun 3rd 2010
What do you mean she couldn't have handled them, she could have made a shield around her, made a barrier in front of pixies, blew them away with wind... any number of ways. As for it happening too quickly: if you want to take that as a viable explanation then you should add Talking is a free action? They exchanged whole sentences after he released Toot-toot.

On a side not: Which ones does he acknowledge, and why not add them?
11:28:35 AM Jun 3rd 2010
For that example it sounds more like your trying to expand the definition of plot hole in order to damn the series—hence I don't exactly trust your assessment.
12:04:19 PM Jun 3rd 2010
She saw Toot-toot for maybe 5 sec. She did not recognize a "single pixie" (basically the lowest fey of all) as any sort of threat. This made the shock of seeing a dozen or more pixies coming at her even greater. Even then, she did not realize their threat right away. Once Toot-toot called the other pixies, she probably had less then a sec to run the emotional gambit from amused to surprised to recognizing the threat to reacting. She only made it to the recognizing part and did not have time to react. If she did have time to react she would have won with ease, but that is why Dresden waited to release them for so long. There were other times he could have used their help and did not use them because he knew that he would probably need them in that fight.

As for some Plot Holes, the most famous one is the geography of Chicago in the early books. But that is already listed under Did Not Do The Research. Actually, I can not think of any "good" examples of Plot Holes.
12:26:53 PM Jun 3rd 2010
From my experience, any time someone wants to list a Plot Hole on a works page, they're just throwing up some Fridge Logic to try and make the work look bad. The amusing thing is most of them I've seen have either been discussed already on the It Just Bugs Me! pages, or it's something that could easily be answered if the poster were actually interested in the answer rather than complaining that the show stinks.
06:00:27 PM Jun 3rd 2010
Well it wasn't fridge logic for me, rather a kick in the nuts for suspension of disbelief but whatever I won't press further to adding this example.

Although it seems like fans are overprotective of the page if what Belian said was true.
01:31:23 PM Nov 22nd 2010
Fairy magic is generally ineffective against Cold Iron. Even if Aurora had thrown up a shield, the knives would have cut right through it.
01:28:16 PM Nov 24th 2010
edited by Zaptech
Rereading the scene in question, I agree that this is not a plot hole at all. Aurora initially responds with disbelief and mockery at Harry bringing out Toot, and then the little guy sounds the charge. She is, for an instant, shocked when all the pixies swarm out, and then immediately raises her hand to cast a spell to obliterate them. Before she gets the spell off, they're all over her and slicing her with cold iron. There's no way she could have defended herself in time; we know pixies like Toot and his crew are fast as hell when they want to be, and the scene makes it very clear that Aurora is acting to defend herself. She just moves too slowly to actually do anything before one of the pixies slices her hand, and at that point it was all over except for the bleeding.

It also confirms that if Harry had released the pixies further away from her, she would have wiped them out. The only reason they were able to kill her was because they attacked her at close range. Even then, she almost wiped them out. I'm not seeing plot hole here at all.
12:59:16 PM May 5th 2010
So has anyone made a sort of database for the pop culture references Harry makes (or in the book in general)? Something along the lines of The Annotated Pratchett Files or Craig's Hilarious Clone High Page.
04:08:02 PM Jul 3rd 2011
There's a bunch of them on the Shout-Out trope page; I doubt that they cover all of them, though.
12:10:21 AM Apr 22nd 2010
Okay, I removed the 'Discontinuity' entry. One, it's misplaced, it should be the TV...


Yeah...Kinda had to remove it.
01:55:17 PM May 5th 2010
As for the second, fans can decide something is Discontinuity even if the creator loves it.
01:57:51 PM May 5th 2010
edited by MajinGojira
Considering it was a separate continuity regardless of whether it was endorsed or not, I'm not seeing how it applies at all.
01:43:53 AM Apr 3rd 2010
About the next book: Changes

When you start adding things in: Keep large parts spoilers. This -really- is the book that starts a -lot- of changes.

A -lot-

A **LOT**
03:28:32 PM Mar 22nd 2010
The page image takes up half my screen; anyone have a smaller one?
07:09:13 PM Mar 22nd 2010
Why? It IS a bit large, but fits well on the page.
08:31:01 PM Mar 22nd 2010
Your mileage varies; I don't think it fits well at all. On my screen it's less than a centimeter shy of the center mark. The text is shunted over to the right half of the screen and it makes it more difficult for me to read.

More importantly, Images in Wiki Pages says that 300 pixels wide is the maximum and that smaller is better. The current image is 373 wide. If someone has an image that's 300 or even 250 wide that would be perfect.
08:39:43 PM Mar 25th 2010
Alright, fixed it myself. I couldn't find an image that was 300 wide, the closest I found was 264 wide.
Collapse/Expand Topics