Bit of Lit: the Dresden Files

[Scrib]

I never saw Gaiden's post, only yours, LOL.

What Harry *should* have done is not going to change what happened, because Harry would not have done anything but what he felt he had to do. Save Amocchicus? Face down a house full of Vampires. Save his stupid girlfriend who should never have been there in the first place? Kill Bianca. Stop rampaging Werewolves? Kill them. Stop a ritual that would make someone a god? Revive a T-Rex as a tank. Save your best friend's daughter? Face down the Council and get in even deeper shit with the Merlin. Save his baby boy? Pick up a coin.

Harry never does the smart thing, which you might argue was the Right thing (ie not kill bianca, not start a war). He does what his personal code demands: save the girl, stop the bad guy. It's not always RIGHT to do the GOOD DEED

This is fucking hilarious. Thank you for explaining the basic character traits of the protagonist of this series a third time in a row. And for telling me that I can't change things in a fantasy series.

And I think that's that. This is going nowhere fast. You win. But I have to say: This is a great tactic for providing apologia, I should remember if for real life.

Also: a semantic argument (which at least won't lead to madness):if the good deed is not right then it is not the good deed. That is just word play.

You mean like Thomas?

What exactly is wrong here? What Harry or Vampire Thomas should have done is irrelevant (and I know you're probably just pointing out an exception to his rule), because they could never have done anything other than what they did. And since they are completely without will or responsibility(seemingly in contradiction with the words of the representative of God in the series) and they were always going to act that way and we can't talk about alternatives.

Sure, Thomas is doing some dubious things and Harry usually hates that but hey, Harry has no choice, he was always going to act that way.Because character traits! When the Merlin wants to kill a teenager we can't whine about it any more because character traits!

[Vendetta]

Harry is dumb and impulsive and mildly self destructive, and well meaning acts can have negative consequences. I mean it's almost like he's a character with flaws not a perfect mary sue....

Fuck me, do you really think it's a flaw in the writing of the series because the main character isn't Captain Perfect Jesus who always makes the most optimal decisions because he's Always Right Forever?

[Scrib]

Harry is dumb and impulsive and mildly self destructive, and well meaning acts can have negative consequences. I mean it's almost like he's a character with flaws not a perfect mary sue....

Fuck me, do you really think it's a flaw in the writing of the series because the main character isn't Captain Perfect Jesus who always makes the most optimal decisions because he's Always Right Forever?

Don't be a moron.

The problem is not that Harry makes bad decisions or has character traits that lead to bad decisions. It's that Gaidan said that Harry made the right decision and, when called on it, proceeded to give me a bunch of meaningless apologia instead of defending his argument. And then Tevar took up his sword. And, when called on it, proceeded to give me a bunch of descriptions of a series I had already read when that was never my concern. I read the fucking books too, I know who Harry is. I totally get where she's coming from, we simply have nothing to discuss: and that was as she wanted it.

You see how irrelevant that is? I ask you a simple question like:"Was Anders Breivik right to do X?" or perhaps more comparably:"Was Obama right to do drone strikes?Where they successful?" and you end up telling me some shit like "Weelll...Obama would always act that way because something personality something bullshit" and completely refuse to answer the question of what you think was right or successful. What do you and I have to discuss? You are almost certainly sympathetic to Obama (because these excuses only come out when we like someone) but are simply unwilling to come out and defend his position, instead you tell me what I already know and completely opt out of the normative game.

There's a huge difference between "this character fucked up and did something wrong or imprudent because it's in their nature" and " this character has character traits that make them do things...that I won't say are wrong/imprudent or not because...something". It's the cocktease of arguments: It hints at excusing the character because of extenuating circumstances or personality traits but because no one actually wants to directly make that argument they just explain his character traits, leaving you to see the implication. Argument without consequences.

It is the other person's choice to frame their answer in the latter format. However why would I join that circlejerk?

tl;dr: I don't need people to describe character traits. I know the character traits. I know Harry is not perfect. .Opinions on the prudence or rightness of an action where what was being discussed. If you opt out of that discussion I opt out of hearing you read me the personality section of Harry Dresden's wikipedia page. We all win.

[Vendetta]

Right, but the series is fiction. The moral right and wrong of Harry's choice at that time isn't actually relevant, only whether what he did was in character for him.

The whole concept of "excusing" a fictional character is a nonsense, you can only decide whether other characters in the same fiction respond appropriately to their actions, and appropriately is determined by whether it is in chararacter for those other characters.

You should be wary of applying real world moral thinking to fictional stories. Apply them to the real world (ie. whether you will read the story and/or reccomend it to others) don't try and say "The story should be different because I don't agree with this character's moral judgement in this situation", the story is what the author writes it to be.


Secretly I think this is also Spekio's argument about the represenatation of the christian God in the series, I've seen the argument before from people don't believe in God who don't like the fact that he shows up in fiction, ps. fiction is fiction, if the fiction includes the existence of an all powerful god then I will accept that for the duration of that fiction, just as I will accept dragons, vampires, elves, spaceships, and anything else required for the fiction to operate. It won't even affect my decision about whether the fiction is any good, that's a decision made on whether the presentation of the things is good, not what the things are.

[Scrib]

Right, but the series is fiction. The moral right and wrong of Harry's choice at that time isn't actually relevant, only whether what he did was in character for him.

Uh...no. This is just wrong? It's relevance is determined by the discussion, in this case by Gaidan's claim.

Also, this seems more than a bit silly. If the right and wrong is irrelevant then a ton of our discussion evaporates. If we buy into Tevar's strategy it's not just the moral question that vanishes, but also the rationality argument. If we can only talk about whether someone was in character then I should go to the scifi section and strike out all the discussion on how stupid say...the New Republic was?

Not to mention that some would probably reject the "in character makes it all okay" argument too. It depends on how believable the character is. Harry is believable, but that doesn't change the principle.

The whole concept of "excusing" a fictional character is a nonsense, you can only decide whether other characters in the same fiction respond appropriately to their actions, and appropriately is determined by whether it is in chararacter for those other characters.

Nope. You can totally discuss whether they responded appropriately by our standards and we do this all the time. I find it difficult to believe that you're seriously saying that we never making claims about the moral or rational status of any character. Hell, in this very short thread we've had people discussing how petty or irrational the Merlin is. This seems like a completely unsustainable position. You're literally trying to eliminate "should" from the discourse.

I totally get looking at a work within it's universe: that's what I'm doing. We don't have vampires. I'm using moral and rational principles and making a decision based on what I know of his universe and the consequences of his actions.

There is a place for looking at character's reactions and there's a place for the strategy I talk about above.

You should be wary of applying real world moral thinking to fictional stories. Apply them to the real world (ie. whether you will read the story and/or reccomend it to others) don't try and say "The story should be different because I don't agree with this character's moral judgement in this situation", the story is what the author writes it to be.

Did I say that the story should be different? I said that the character acted in a morally wrong fashion. I don't care to derail the story just as the people who complain about Tywin or Walder Frey or Ramsay from Game of Thrones don't outright say that they should be made more moral.

And I still don't get why we shouldn't apply real world thinking. That seems absurd to me. What is the alternative? Story logic? X is a hero therefore we're fine with what he does? X lives in the typical action universe so running in front of a loaded gun is fine because he's the hero? You seem deadset on invalidating a significant portion of the debate a site like this must naturally have.

But I'll repeat myself: the discussion sets the boundaries. Gaidan set the boundaries. So..there.

Secretly I think this is also Spekio's argument about the represenatation of the christian God in the series, I've seen the argument before from people don't believe in God who don't like the fact that he shows up in fiction, ps. fiction is fiction, if the fiction includes the existence of an all powerful god then I will accept that for the duration of that fiction, just as I will accept dragons, vampires, elves, spaceships, and anything else required for the fiction to operate. It won't even affect my decision about whether the fiction is any good, that's a decision made on whether the presentation of the things is good, not what the things are.

I suppose a critique is that God has a special position and is the result of provincialism. You can of course counter this by saying that he's not even the most prominent player in the Dresden verse but he seems like the biggest. I had this problem in Supernatural too: gods gain power from worship,but God seems to have always been powerful. The story says that he created the universe and was acting since the beginning. But this doesn't make sense unless the worship==power thing allows him to rewrite the past (very possible).

Now, you can blame this on culture instead of Butcher but there is a certain perception of God as someone who has a special status. God has a Plan that is good for Michael and everyone else while people like Odin are just dying supers in a universe full of them. You don't really think of vampires and werewolves the same way you think of God right? This is especially a problem if you dislike him -in whatever way- then you're certain that he's not going to get what the werewolf will.

But again, a lot of shit doesn't seem to have to go through God (see: Mab protecting the Outer Gates).

If you really want to argue against special treatment invading the story you might want to hate the fact that worship gives power. Seems a bit...convenient.

[Vendetta]

You're literally trying to eliminate "should" from the discourse.

Yes, I am. This is the story of what Harry did, not what you thought he should have done. Anything else is fanfiction.

If you're making an argument about real world morality you can use fictional examples as allegories to support that argument, but that's not what you're doing. You're trying to apply real world morality to a scenario in which the only thing which applies is the will of the author.

"Harry Dresden" is an automaton without will or moral thought, he can only do and believe what Jim Butcher decides to make him do and believe.

Now, you can perform literary criticism by trying to decide whether Jim Butcher wants us the reader to believe certain things about morality by showing his creations doing those things "Is Jim Butcher telling us this is the right thing?*", but you can't make a real world judgement like "Did Harry Dresden do the right thing?" because Harry Dresden isn't real and doesn't do things in the real world.



* To which I would argue the answer is no. Precisely because he takes great pains to demonstrate the flaws in a character who would do things like that and the negative consequences of an action taken with good intentions.

[Scrib]

You're literally trying to eliminate "should" from the discourse.

Yes, I am. This is the story of what Harry did, not what you thought he should have done. Anything else is fanfiction.

It's fine to call it fanfiction. I don't accept any negative connotations that you think come with the word. Quite frankly, if discussing alternate endings and paths is fanfiction then this forum is a monument to it and I'm fine with that.

As for dismissing said "fanfiction": I don't see how it's for you to decide that a style of conversation that everyone uses is worthless. That is something that people decide when they set out the parameters of discussion. If I was to ask why something was done then what should have happened is a another discussion entirely. However that's not what happened nor does it mean that either question is meaningless.

If you're making an argument about real world morality you can use fictional examples as allegories to support that argument, but that's not what you're doing. You're trying to apply real world morality to a scenario in which the only thing which applies is the will of the author.

I'm reading a work from the ground up not making convenient meta claims about truisms. I'm reading the world as the author wrote it and making judgements. We're talking about two totally different things and you're doing your best to abuse this gap for profit. In-universe reasons=/= out-of-universe-reasons. That is all. That is all the needs to be said. You can have a discussion about either and I was having a discussion about the former. Hell, even Tevar was. You just want to throw out one type of discussion because it's currently convenient.

"Harry Dresden" is an automaton without will or moral thought, he can only do and believe what Jim Butcher decides to make him do and believe.

In universe reasons=/= out of universe reasons. In universe Harry Dresden is a person.

I'm really interested in how everyone else feels about this because this seems a bit absurd on it's face given where we are. I can guarantee that, in a page, when we start talking about characters-especially ones we don't like- this entire thing will just fade away and we'll start treating characters as beings in their world again.

Everyone agrees that we shouldn't make judgements about what characters should have done for moral or practical reasons? Tevar, Gaidan? Are you all going this far? I mean, it seems like a high price to pay to win but each to their own.

[Covenant]

Everyone agrees that we shouldn't make judgements about what characters should have done for moral or practical reasons? Tevar, Gaidan? Are you all going this far? I mean, it seems like a high price to pay to win but each to their own.

That's a very different question than if we think Harry made the right or moral decision, honestly. I think a lot of us probably agree with Vendetta--I do, it's what I believe, but I think that's a different question than the one you've been having. I think what we're running aground of here happens to be a conflux of issues.

First, some people think it matters what the character does, and that the character did the right (or right for them) thing, and therefore it is a good thing for the series.

Second, some people think it matters what the character does, and the character did a bad thing, and therefore it is the wrong (or at least frustratingly character-eroding) thing for the series.

Third, some people do not think it matters what the character does, so if they did the right or wrong or a bad or a good thing it doesn't matter so long as the book is enjoyable, because the book being enjoyable is the only reasonable criterium to judge the merit of the character's actions as part of a narrative.

I would say each of these have merit. One and Two are the people arguing if Harry was right or wrong to do what he did, and people are arguing back and forth about it. These are the people who both agree the series has merit and either like or dislike the action taken, but the thing is, at the end of the day you have to judge it for what it is and not what it could have been. Authors do great things when they choose dramatic moments to make characters break their routine, like having Han come back to save the day at the end of A New Hope, but the characters are not wrong or bad for behaving according to their character outside of those moments, even if that character is troubling or just annoying. Characters can be annoying without being "badly written," since they're really only badly written when they're failing to measure up to how the author is writing the world around them. Simply being unrealistic isn't bad writing, though you can really strain a reader's patience with the author's shenanigans if the reader has to continually accept the author's contrived reality.

Really, if a character is constantly acting in a way that frustrates you, then your problem is with the writers and not the characters. This is most easily noticed in a TV Series that has a lot of outside contributors, where a character may make the "wrong" choice or forget something that happened the week before due to writer incompetence. That's when you're allowed to point at the screen and go "Wait a minute, the Captain would NEVER do that! They never leave a man behind!"

But when a character is being consistent, and just terrible, then the real problem is that you're watching a series you hate, not that the character made the wrong decisions.

I think that's really what happened here. Some people like the decision, some don't like it, but everyone roughly agrees it was a consistent and believable choice. I think some fans go too far and begin accepting or approving of unethical character actions because they like the hero. People have a hard time with flawed or gray-ethical characters, and will either whitewash all the things they do as heroic, or reject it as hack writing when the character stumbles.

I think it's fine to say "That was an amoral and stupid choice for Harry to make," but unless you don't think it's the sort of thing he'd do normally the real criticism lies with the writer, which is what Vendetta is saying. Vendetta's comment is a bit of a non-sequitor for the beginning of your argument (where it was about the morality/intelligence of the choice) but not for the idea of criticizing literature because of character actions.

All that said, even if it was reasonable for the character to behave this way, you're totally fine in being upset that they did so. I don't agree that we can't apply real-world ethics to evaluating the actions a character makes, but if we find issue with those actions we need to remember that its the author who did it. It's mucky, but I think Vendetta is still saying basically just that. If you think Harry acted out of character, then yeah maybe he acted wrong. but if you agree he was entirely within character to act this way then what you're really mad at is Jim Butcher contriving a situation where we are supposed to applaud the character doing something you think is idiotic. In both cases you're right to be annoyed.

[Scrib]

Just to be clear: you talk about conflation but I said nothing about what was good for the series. We were discussing the series from the inside and not some meta-context, that's all. It's no different from discussing how a Star Destroyer would do against the Enterprise: we don't assume that it means either series sucks. There's no need to draw larger conclusions. To tag that on to my argument gives you an easy out by saying:"well that's what the author chose and you have to live with it" essentially. I notice that Vendetta does this as well.

You're trying to force my argument into a meta-level. Harry does X in the universe==> bad things outside the universe. My argument is just:Harry does bad things==> bad. I don't care about what this says about the franchise any more than the forum dwellers care what this means for the Alien series after it loses a Vs. against Cthulu.

[Covenant]

No, I was specifically responding to what you ask about Vendetta's point: if you're only concerned about an in-universe examination of actions then you need to use an in-universe set of contexts for analysis, and that means using real-world ethics to judge an action would be not helpful. By that point the discussion had drifted.

In any case, I would agree with you that Harry has not only questionable, but outright dangerous ethical decision-making on display in that situation.

[Scrib]

No, I was specifically responding to what you ask about Vendetta's point: if you're only concerned about an in-universe examination of actions then you need to use an in-universe set of contexts for analysis, and that means using real-world ethics to judge an action would be not helpful. By that point the discussion had drifted.

In any case, I would agree with you that Harry has not only questionable, but outright dangerous ethical decision-making on display in that situation.

I get the point you're making about people's tastes. But Vendetta's point doesn't actually require feeling a certain way about the series, just feeling a certain way about the story, on it's own terms. It just says that the sort of judgement you come to in your final paragraph is wrong and/or shouldn't be done. You presuppose that we're talking about the effect certain decisions have on the series when the question is simply whether non-meta-questions have merit.

But moving on...

What do you mean by real-world ethics? Because this seems like a dubious term. I am applying ethical principles created in this world to actions in that world. Saying something like:"it's better to save Susan because it is always better to save a life" to me would be using alien ethical calculus in that situation. You are using rules that make sense for ordinary people to situations they don't belong.

But even that isn't a good example because that is justifiable by ethics in general. A better example: someone saying:"you should be free to fuck a White Court vampire because we should be free to have sex with people we like as long as there's no gun to your head". This is clearly nonsensical for a variety of reasons,precisely because it is applying real world concerns to situations they don't belong. The White Court are not people like us, and so extrapolating just doesn't work. Just like it doesn't when X-Men or True Blood writers try to convince me that their superpowered monsters are equivalent to other oppressed groups and the oppression they face is the same.

If I was to say:"you are free to have sex with a White Court vampire if you have the amulet that permanently nullifies their powers" I would be making a decision using the laws and circumstances inside the universe.

When I say:Harry is wrong. I'm not saying he's wrong for meta reasons. I'm saying he's wrong because of the world and rules that Butcher has crafted. In that context, using common ethical rules, we can judge him wrong.

[Covenant]

When I say real-world ethics I mean the ethics of the world we normally live in--things like proportional response, don't prejudge, etc. For example, in a world without 100% Evil From Conception monster races we don't treat intelligent creatures to genocide the way that some fantasy worlds seem structured to accept.

It's not really relevant to here though, as I think the rules of the Dresden Files and the rules of our real world are pretty similar on this case. I'd also agree with you, anyway.

[Rogue 9]

That, and killing vampires, should they exist, would always be the right thing to do.

You mean like Thomas?

I knew someone would say that when I typed it. Whether or not the White Court qualifies as vampires in the traditional sense is really up in the air; at any rate they clearly don't need to kill or even "feed" in the sense of psychic vampirism bar making extreme use of their powers, since Lord Raith survived for decades without doing so.

In any case, the Red and Black Courts both exclusively hunt and kill humans for their sustenance, knowing full well what they're doing, not caring a whit, and actively enjoying it to boot. Yes, in the case of hostile, powerful beings intent on treating humanity as cattle, killing them is the correct thing to do.

[Scrib]

That, and killing vampires, should they exist, would always be the right thing to do.

You mean like Thomas?

I knew someone would say that when I typed it. Whether or not the White Court qualifies as vampires in the traditional sense is really up in the air; at any rate they clearly don't need to kill or even "feed" in the sense of psychic vampirism bar making extreme use of their powers, since Lord Raith survived for decades without doing so.

In any case, the Red and Black Courts both exclusively hunt and kill humans for their sustenance, knowing full well what they're doing, not caring a whit, and actively enjoying it to boot. Yes, in the case of hostile, powerful beings intent on treating humanity as cattle, killing them is the correct thing to do.

The Red Court don't need to kill either. They are pretty much in a similar position to Thomas. They can just make a person an addict and drain them slowly. In fact, they might be better than Thomas since they don't short out your heart/lifeforce. Blood can be replaced.

And Thomas does need to feed. He never stopped.Ever. He either went around sipping or taking huge bites out of people.According to him it was torture. He can just "pass" better.

Lord Raith was an incredibly powerful being that probably had insane stores of power...and the authority to prevent anyone testing him too much until Harry came along. No one from the outside is risking a war, all his sons are dead and he essentially fucked submission and Stockholm Syndrome into the women (speaking of possible authorial cultural blindspots: what prevents him from doing this to the men? Patriarchal prejudice? Seems a bit strange when supernatural power is not dependent on sex: you would think that that sort of thing would dissolve after a few strong vampire women kill some arrogant men)

[Spekio]

As for the Merlin, Harry is the only warlock in recent memory to be spared and thus distrusted by default, plus Morgan his number two Warden (or maybe it's three?) has been watching Harry for years and has little good to say about him. Then there's Harry's general disrespect, defying his authority and unintentionally becoming a major obstacle to the peace process the Merlin seems so hell-bent on. It's not hard to imagine the man disliking Harry that much.

For being so all-powerfull he came out as petty.

It makes perfect sense. Black magic corrupts. Rooting out any sign of it protects the White Council from the slippery slope of acceptance. Harry undermines this. And not only does he do this, for the longest time it's not actually clear that he can be trusted.

He comes, personally, all the way to where our protagonist lives, to fuck with his head. I would have no problem if he sent wardens to do that, but he took time of his supposedly important business to be a petty cunt. It makes the world small, it made the Merlin another unimportant player to main character.

Seriously: It's like a president coming out and taking a shit in a reckless soldier's lawn and letting said soldier go unmolested. This is mary sue self insert bad.

Not to mention his deliberate fucking up of the peace in order to save his girlfriend. A significant portion of his Order died because Harry is a fucking moron, you think that slides? We're literally talking about the difference between some sort of autonomous human civilization and a planet full of chattel. For one reporter. (And no, the issues that later come to light are no excuse because Harry didn't know of them)

And him being petty is not at all a meaningful critique in the first place.

See above. And let's be frank, not only did the "war" did not impact Harry all that much, it didn't break the series out of it's mostly formulaic ways.

Besides being the protagonist, why did the WC did not kill Harry? He is a reppeat offender who killed sizable parts of the order (Or so we are told, because fuck interesting things). Characterization all over the place.

Still, and this is bad writing, Butcher misses the chance of removing Harry from his confortable zone and have him do stuff in the war instead of retreading the same book all over again.

Plus, the things with the laws of magic in this setting seem iffy. In the first book, I got the impression they were natural laws of magic, but afterwards, when we learn they are laws of the white council, they seem silly. Merlin here punishing a stupid kid while his blackstaff is murdering innocent and guilty with satellite strikes.

The effects of magic are natural phenomena. The bad stuff is addictive and corruptive. This is fact in the series. No one denies this. The laws are just dealing with this. You take a shot and we kill you. End of. It's a way to delineate between the acceptable uses of magic and the unacceptable ones. What exactly is so iffy here?

It was never made clear wheter the laws of magic were natural laws or laws of the white council. Harry talks about how magic come from life and how it is unthinkable to kill with it, then we learn that it iss okay to break the first law in self-defense, but not in the defense of others? How does that work? If it has such serious consequences that every instance of murder is a capital punishment, how come self-defense is an exception? Is it not a gateway to the same vice?

It seems porly thought out, all that talk about how magic is a tool of and for life, yet we hid it and don't stop killers with it.

Also: the Blackstaff is special for reasons made clear in the series so that means nothing. It's not just a principled thing, it is a matter of practicality too. Everyone takes the corruptible nature of souls for granted, it is not just that people arte being murdered: it's that allowing certain forms of magic to be practiced will only fuck more people later on. If you are immune to the usual effects of black magic then you get to murder people. I don't see the problem.

I think we learn about the Blackstaff when he, Harry and the Archive's bodyguard are going to kill that Black Court vampire, right? I don't remember making clear it is more that is is more just being allowed to do black ops. Someone mentioned they got that awnser from the author's twitter.

Still, the rules of magic not making sense do not bother me as much as the fact that Butcher seems to be making it up as he goes then patching up the conflicting bits.

EDIT: formatting

[Spekio]

The thing I think Spekio has a point on (well one of the things. I see a lot of what he's talking about aside the unlike-able characters. It just doesn't bother me because I see Dresden Files as light fun than can be serious when it wants too. Like a well done action movie) is the rules of magic only affecting mortals.

Thank you. I already admited most of my qualms were subjective.

[Spekio]

I will point out there is a HUGE reason why the Fae Courts are in Detroit. You find out in "Small Favors" why Chicago is so important.

Butcher seems fond of retcons. See when we are in a party with the crème de la crème of the local NeverNever and no Summer Knight is present only to later learn he lived there. We had a Dragon, so we know powerfull people would attend. They are there because Harry is there because it's the only way the story can happen like the author wanted.

It's like on the book with the werewolves, we get everysingle type of werewolf on the same city (and despite living there and being a paranormal investigator he is unaware of said werewolves) at the same time. How small is this world?!

[Spekio]

I'm baffled Spekio? What deference to the Christian God? I'd say Harrys an atheist but he's entirely sure gods exist, but he doesn't worship them and outright states that he has no idea what created the universe but all creations myths are obviouusly not true. He steps cautiously around his agents because he is powerful as all get out and they are scary as fuck, but he's not Christian any more than he's wiccan, buddhist or a druid.

He has some talks with Michael or whomever about how he does not think he is worthy of believeing in god or some such. Still, the world revolves arround the christian creation myth.

(Also, does anyone thinks this withe god is an asshole for giving the magical sword to a developed nation suburban dad instead of the people on vampire island?)

[Spekio]

With previous posts replied to, does no one here consider Harry Dresden a Mary sue?

I'll go over the fact the universe revolves arround him, that's every bit of poorly written sci-fi/fantasy. I'll go over the fact that he looks like a idealized version of Butcher who, despite being socially awkard discovers he has the power to change the world.

I won't, however, conceed on how upon meeting the SUM OF ALL HUMAN EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE, an entity that by chance currently inhabits the body of a little girl, renames it so it can match the entity's exterior, treat's the entity like a little girl and get's the entity's approval and affection?

How is this not a form of "shut up honey, the men are talking"?

[Scrib]

With previous posts replied to, does no one here consider Harry Dresden a Mary sue?

Not really. I think the term Mary Sue is over-used.

I'll go over the fact the universe revolves arround him, that's every bit of poorly written sci-fi/fantasy.

Not actually Mary Sue at the current degree. Harry is special,but one OF the special people, not The One.

He's a relatively competent character and he goes looking for trouble. He's not even as bad as Kvothe and I don't consider him a Mary Sue. Honestly, having seen some of those it's hard to imagine Harry being one.

I'll go over the fact that he looks like a idealized version of Butcher who, despite being socially awkard discovers he has the power to change the world.

Maybe. That sort of thing is a "final nail" type argument if anything at all to me.

I won't, however, conceed on how upon meeting the SUM OF ALL HUMAN EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE, an entity that by chance currently inhabits the body of a little girl, renames it so it can match the entity's exterior, treat's the entity like a little girl and get's the entity's approval and affection?

How is this not a form of "shut up honey, the men are talking"?

Because she is a girl? Sure, she's also the Archive but as far as I know the Archive is not like Lash or some dominant personality. The child is in charge of the Archive, it's not like the child is an empty husk that the Archive contains. That sort of dehumanizing attitude is probably what set Harry off in the first place.

Naming the child might be a bit pretentious, but he does treat her as her rank befits as far as I can recall. Doing otherwise would be patronizing.

But yes, Harry seems to have a thing about (human) women and children, this is known.The author himself said it I think. Of course, this isn't a good thing in his universe.

(Also, does anyone thinks this withe god is an asshole for giving the magical sword to a developed nation suburban dad instead of the people on vampire island?)

God is by definition almost always an asshole. But I suppose you could say that it's only this current batch that are from developed nations and they move around. Even then, that's a good fifty years or so of them being focused on one area.

Shit needs to happen around Chicago so...

[Spekio]

I had to download a pdf for this.

"So, uh. What's your name?"

She said, "The Archive."

"Yeah, I got that part. But I meant your name. What people call you."

"The Archive," she repeated. "I do not have a familiar name. I am the Archive, and have always been the
Archive."

"You're not human," I said.

"Incorrect. I am a seven-year-old human child."

"With no name? Everybody has a name," I said. "I'm can't go around calling you the Archive."

The girl tilted her head to one side, arching a pale gold eyebrow. "Then what would you call me?"

"Ivy," I said at once.

"Why Ivy?" she asked.

"You're the Archive, right? Arch-ive. Arch-ivy. Ivy."

The girl pursed her lips. "Ivy," she said, and then nodded slowly. "Ivy. Very well." She regarded me for a
moment and then said, "Go ahead and ask the question, wizard. We might as well get it out of the way."

Now imagine that instead of "Ivy" we got "Lin" because surely Harry couldn't call The Merlin Merlin. I call shenanigans.

[Covenant]

Mary Sues are special things, so I'm not sure he would apply. The decisions and behaviors of the Sue are usually considered right except when they are wrong and endearing, but I have not seen that to be the case with Harry, who seems to be abrasive and make bad decisions, and is kind of a wimp outside his nebulously defined lucky "high power level" type thing. He's not good or well practiced, he's just lucky and privileged in some ways, on top of making some relatively poor decisions other times.

I think he's got a lot more to do with a Cowboy Hero than a Noir hero, though people keep pulling the hardboiled detective or Noir refeence on him it doesn't look like it sticks. To me he seems more like a Deputy or a Sheriff with the Windy City as his territory and the Fae realms and such as his version of Indian Country. Maybe this was unintentional, but he seems more like a Western hero than anything--down to the for-spite bad decisions and protectively patronizing attitudes towards women. Hardboiled characters mistrust women because women are lethal in those books, not because they're arrogant. Blasting Rods and revolvers? That's more Western stuff. Sam Spade didn't even use a gun.

Taken in that vein, I think he fits, but he's too much of a special snowflake for me to take seriously as a character. I would be with Spekio on all counts except the Mary Sue one. Too much emphasis on making everything happen in one place, and making the heroes the focus of all events (and giving personal appearances by big-name characters) does make the world look kinda small.

[Terralthra]

I had to download a pdf for this.
Now imagine that instead of "Ivy" we got "Lin" because surely Harry couldn't call The Merlin Merlin. I call shenanigans.

Because The Merlin has a name, Arthur Langtry. A-duh.

The Archive never really had an identity all her own, since she became the archive as an infant and her mother killed herself. Harry never insults her or disrespects her knowledge, he simply thinks in addition to being a font of all human knowledge, she deserves to be a human, too.

[Crazedwraith]

I'm still not sure what you're getting at with the Ivy thing.

Now, to me Mary Sue is a nebulous and ill defined term. Especially when applied here since It is, or was originally, a fanfic term.

I'd agree that Harry has a lot of traits in common with the sort of Mary Sue you describe though. You even missed a few: Harry's amazing power for one so young. Harry's continual upgrades in power over the course of the series. Harry's super special pet dog and... Spoiler

his special destiny that gives him power over outsiders

But traits alone don't really make a Mary Sue. The writing of, and context of the traits do. To me, these traits (aside from that spoilered one, that dissappoints me) are given a lot of context, a lot of drawbacks and actually cost Harry an awful lot, so they keep him on the likeable side of Mary Sue. But then we come fully back to 'just a subjective opinion' thing.

[Spekio]

I had to download a pdf for this.
Now imagine that instead of "Ivy" we got "Lin" because surely Harry couldn't call The Merlin Merlin. I call shenanigans.

Because The Merlin has a name, Arthur Langtry. A-duh.

The Archive never really had an identity all her own, since she became the archive as an infant and her mother killed herself. Harry never insults her or disrespects her knowledge, he simply thinks in addition to being a font of all human knowledge, she deserves to be a human, too.

Not sure if you are serious. She just called herself the archive - the incredibly powerful entity whom he just met - yet not only our protagonist is patronizing towards her, she just accepts. This is bad. There is no way she - the sum of all human knowledge - needed to be told or freed or even enabled by a supposedly small time wizard.

She is independent enough to hire a supernatural hitman and to ferry herself across the globe, kill highly powerfull vampires but needed a man whom she met for all of 10 minutes to give her an identity?