Dresden Files spoilers for Peace Talks/Battle Ground

[C.T. Phipps]

2 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

She doesn't have the Eye of Balor.  Dresden does.  I've been wondering about this plot hole for a while. 

I think it's fair to say that Maeve was Nemfected and that skewed her actions but Justine is entirely possessed by HWWB.   

I figured the plan was to murder Harry the moment she was on the island then steal the Eye. Then destroy the Island.

[Gaston de Foix]

21 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I figured the plan was to murder Harry the moment she was on the island then steal the Eye. Then destroy the Island.

I think that is the most generous interpretation of the events.  Nothing in the text supports that though. 

Let me express what I think is the most fundamental problem with the books for me, personally.  My willing suspension of disbelief became involuntarily unsuspended. 

Butcher has worked so hard and so carefully to craft a story that one could relate to.  About making mistakes and bad choices.  About being hesitant in expressing feelings.  About overcoming overwhelming odds through skill and will and courage.  There's an admirable humanity about his books. 

And he took all this good will and carefully organized storytelling and made a dog's breakfast of it.   He's published a Brandon Sanderson novel on steroids.  I don't get why his beta readers and editors didn't tell him to slow down, trim the fat and focus on telling a concise and thrilling tale.   I think they really let him down. 

[Lord Patrek]

His editor probably asked him to add some fat, as cutting PT into two installments meant that there was not enough to warrant a full novel for BG. Which is why the battle scenes make up for the bulk of the book.

We'll see next week if BG debuts highly on the NYT bestselling list. PT debuted at number 2 and there's no reason to believe that BG will not debut strongly.

For his publisher, selling thousands more copies in hardcover during a pandemic year (or any year, for that matter) is a good financial decision on their part. Even if it disappoints fans in the long run.

But 18 books into the series, they know we're invested and will be coming back. So if you're Butcher's editor and Penguin/Random House powers that be, selling that many units a few weeks apart is marvelous. Especially after the long hiatus between Dresden Files installments.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I think that is the most generous interpretation of the events.  Nothing in the text supports that though. 

Let me express what I think is the most fundamental problem with the books for me, personally.  My willing suspension of disbelief became involuntarily unsuspended. 

Butcher has worked so hard and so carefully to craft a story that one could relate to.  About making mistakes and bad choices.  About being hesitant in expressing feelings.  About overcoming overwhelming odds through skill and will and courage.  There's an admirable humanity about his books. 

And he took all this good will and carefully organized storytelling and made a dog's breakfast of it.   He's published a Brandon Sanderson novel on steroids.  I don't get why his beta readers and editors didn't tell him to slow down, trim the fat and focus on telling a concise and thrilling tale.   I think they really let him down. 

The only Sanderson I’ve read was The Memory of Light.  It was bad, it was monotonous, it was hours of my life I will never get back.  Hence, I’ve never read another Sanderson novel.  

PT/BG was better written than MoL but, I think Butcher is a better writer than Sanderson.  The story of PT/BG was boring (and it shouldn’t have been) and it just felt off the entire way through.  

[Gaston de Foix]

8 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The only Sanderson I’ve read was The Memory of Light.  It was bad, it was monotonous, it was hours of my life I will never get back.  Hence, I’ve never read another Sanderson novel.  

PT/BG was better written than MoL but, I think Butcher is a better writer than Sanderson.  The story of PT/BG was boring (and it shouldn’t have been) and it just felt off the entire way through.  

I don't know, man.  I was never a big Jordan fan, never got into the books.  But I did read AMOL.  Writing the concluding novel in someone else's bestselling and epic series is not an easy gig.  Whatever you think of BS's prose, props to him for taking it on and doing his best.  

12 hours ago, Lord Patrek said:

His editor probably asked him to add some fat, as cutting PT into two installments meant that there was not enough to warrant a full novel for BG. Which is why the battle scenes make up for the bulk of the book.

We'll see next week if BG debuts highly on the NYT bestselling list. PT debuted at number 2 and there's no reason to believe that BG will not debut strongly.

For his publisher, selling thousands more copies in hardcover during a pandemic year (or any year, for that matter) is a good financial decision on their part. Even if it disappoints fans in the long run.

But 18 books into the series, they know we're invested and will be coming back. So if you're Butcher's editor and Penguin/Random House powers that be, selling that many units a few weeks apart is marvelous. Especially after the long hiatus between Dresden Files installments.

I get that.  But the relationship between editor and writer is a little more sacred than purely financial decisions no? I mean if Ace needed novels from him to stay afloat, that's one thing. 

But can Butcher really accomplish that single-handedly? How many books will he sell, do you think? I have no clue about these sorts of things. 

[C.T. Phipps]

I took it as more the fact that Jim Butcher has been absent for six years so dividing the books in two helped make it up to fans who were upset at the long absence.

Two books in a couple of months is a big apology and one I appreciate.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I took it as more the fact that Jim Butcher has been absent for six years so dividing the books in two helped make it up to fans who were upset at the long absence.

Two books in a couple of months is a big apology and one I appreciate.

But it’s not really two books.  It’s one book cut in half with boring filler.  I, for one, would much rather have had one tight well written book than two mediocre books.

[Lord Patrek]

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

 How many books will he sell, do you think? I have no clue about these sorts of things. 

It's impossible to say with exactitude, but given how high it debuted and how long it remained on the NYT list and Amazon Top 100, PT probably sold in the ballpark of 50,000 copies in the USA thus far. There is no reason to doubt that BG would sell less, so by the end of the year Butcher's latest works will have sold close or over 100,000 copies on this side of the pond.

In hardcover and at premium ebook prices, which amounts to a shitload of money for his publisher. 

[C.T. Phipps]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But it’s not really two books.  It’s one book cut in half with boring filler.  I, for one, would much rathet have had one tight well written book than two mediocre books.

I thought both are easily the best books since Changes. So, YMMV.

Peace Talks was great because it was about Harry's relationship with Ebenezer and Thomas.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I thought both are easily the best books since Changes. So, YMMV.

Peace Talks was great because it was about Harry's relationship with Ebenezer and Thomas.

But they don’t actually deal with anything.  They yell and run.  There is no catharsis anywhere in either of these books.  

These books are Changes done poorly.  Changes had moments to breath before the action and stakes just ramped up even further.  Changes despite being long for a DF novel was tightly paced.  

This was punch, slap, Forzare! rinse and repeat.  

These are not good books.

[Lord Patrek]

12 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I thought both are easily the best books since Changes. So, YMMV.

Peace Talks was great because it was about Harry's relationship with Ebenezer and Thomas.

C. T., I think you need to accept that not everyone was as amazed as you were by these two books. Especially BG.

If they scratched that itch for you, great.  But you need to understand that many of us were not as thrilled and you can't possibly convince us otherwise. . .

[C.T. Phipps]

I suppose it helps if you're a massive Lara Raith fan. She's my second favorite character after Molly and that includes Harry.

I'm also a massive anti-Murphy/Harry fan.

But I mourned Murphy's death considerably.

I wanted to see the Formori also be used as villains more.

So, it hit a lot of buttons.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I suppose it helps if you're a massive Lara Raith fan. She's my second favorite character after Molly and that includes Harry.

I'm also a massive anti-Murphy/Harry fan.

But I mourned Murphy's death considerably.

I wanted to see the Formori also be used as villains more.

So, it hit a lot of buttons.

You realize you are a steer in love with a cattle rancher, right?

[Gaston de Foix]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You realize you are a steer in love with a cattle rancher, right?

Harry has a similar death wish for death by Lara.   

I wonder if this is the last we will see of the svartalves? 

[C.T. Phipps]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You realize you are a steer in love with a cattle rancher, right?

She's a vampire.

I feel like this is a weird statement as if it is a big leap of logic to love a vampire versus the romantic vampire archetype having been something that has existed for over a century. She ranks up there with Selene, Lucita de Aragon, and Bloodrayne for my all time favorite female vampires in fiction. I write vampire fiction and have had succubus main characters as well. Yes, Lara Raith is as evil as her father but unlike Lash, who is a literal embodiment of evil, I feel like she's still human enough to be redeemed.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

She's a vampire.

I feel like this is a weird statement as if it is a big leap of logic to love a vampire versus the romantic vampire archetype having been something that has existed for over a century. She ranks up there with Selene, Lucita de Aragon, and Bloodrayne for my all time favorite female vampires in fiction. I write vampire fiction and have had succubus main characters as well. Yes, Lara Raith is as evil as her father but unlike Lash, who is a literal embodiment of evil, I feel like she's still human enough to be redeemed.

If it clarifies the discussion a bit my favorite “Vampire” work of Speculative fiction is Justin Cronin’s “Passage” Trilogy.  That work does not romanticize Vampires.  

Lara Raith needs big moves if she is going to be “redeemed”.

[C.T. Phipps]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If it clarifies the discussion a but my favorite “Vampire” work of Speculative fiction is Justin Cronin’s “Passage” Trilogy.  That work does not romanticize Vampires.  

Lara Raith needs big moves if she is going to be “redeemed”.

Part of what I like about the Dresden Files are there are degrees of evil.

Mab is the utterly ruthless, cruel, and quite possibly insane thin snowy line between human extinction and survival. Basically, while everyone else is playing World of Darkness, she's playing Warhammer 40K and is the God Empress of Mankind.

Lara Raith is a predator who NEEDS to brainwash and kill by her nature but is also allied with humanity against the Outsiders just because it's her source of food but MAYBE just maybe used to be a good person before her father tortured/brainwashed it out of her. Yet keeps Thomas alive because he IS a good person. He is her only source of decency.

Marcone used to be this but I believe his conversion to the Denarians has destroyed what was good in his soul and I expect to see him die redeeming himself or giving wholly to evil.

Harry thinks he can never redeem himself for black magic but as we've seen, the White Council's position on it is complete bullshit.

[Poobah]

20 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Yes, Lara Raith is as evil as her father but unlike Lash, who is a literal embodiment of evil, I feel like she's still human enough to be redeemed.

And yet Lash somehow managed to receive far more character development in ~2 books and come off far more sympathetic, human, and interesting than Lara has this whole series as a recurring character. I've been resisting jumping in on this for a while because I've been having a really shitty mental health time and kinda don't want to read a book that I feel is likely to further disappoint me right now but I think I want to echo some comments above suggesting that we see and read these books and characters in vastly different lights.

You talked about empowered female sexuality earlier and a feminist perspective earlier when defending Lara and that in particular bothered me a good bit: she's literally a sex object, there to titillate and thrill - even if I'm very charitable and go ahead and just discount the especially male-gazey Harry perspective the books are written from and just look at it neutrally what does she do in almost every scene she's in? She hits on the male protagonist, acts seductively, and if it's an action scene Butcher always finds a way to get her clothes torn or burned off as quickly as possible. This isn't exactly an enlightened perspective, especially considering that she also runs, jumps, and dives straight into pretty much every negative stereotype about sexually empowered women - she literally is a monster who uses sex to manipulate, exploit and kill people. I don't really see how that can be spun positively.

[C.T. Phipps]

12 minutes ago, Poobah said:

And yet Lash somehow managed to receive far more character development in ~2 books and come off far more sympathetic, human, and interesting than Lara has this whole series as a recurring character. I've been resisting jumping in on this for a while because I've been having a really shitty mental health time and kinda don't want to read a book that I feel is likely to further disappoint me right now but I think I want to echo some comments above suggesting that we see and read these books and characters in vastly different lights.

You talk about empowered female sexuality earlier and a feminist perspective earlier when defending Lara and that in particular bothered me a good bit: she's literally a sex object, there to titillate and thrill - even if I'm very charitable and go ahead and just discount the especially male-gazey Harry perspective the books are written from and just look at it neutrally what does she do in almost every scene she's in? She hits on the male protagonist, acts seductively, and if it's an action scene Butcher always finds a way to get her clothes torn or burned off as quickly as possible. This isn't exactly an enlightened perspective, especially considering that she also runs, jumps, and dives straight into pretty much every negative stereotype about sexually empowered women - she literally is a monster who uses sex to manipulate, exploit and kill people. I don't really see how that can be spun positively.

And in the end it meant nothing since she was a soulless shadow of a still-evil demon. Nothing Harry did with her accomplished anything and I feel like it was a plot that went nowhere. Lara Raith, by contrast, is the person who raised his kid brother and is a power in her own right.

Lara Raith is hardly a sex object given that she is in control of every single one of her sexual encounters with the exception of her father (*squick*). She's a woman who managed to escape from a sexually abusive and controlling relationship with her father before gaining the power as one of the few female rulers in fantasy these days (no, I'm not bitter about Daenerys).

Yes, she's a succubus and a vampire, which have traditionally been used as avatars of "dangerous female sexuality." However, there's a reason that bisexual and queer readers as well as women as a whole have reclaimed these characters for their representation. Why there's a successful queer feminist modernized version of Carmilla on Youtube. Female sexuality is not something to be feared but celebrated, especially when by someone who is aggressive and in control of situations with a male partner.

The inherent misogyny is inverted because Lara Raith is one of Harry's allies, not his enemies. The fact he's attracted to her is something that works well as he's not someone intimidated by someone like that. Aggressive supernatural male characters are allowed to hit on female protagonists all the time and these books are called romances. However, if you reverse the role then suddenly it's threatening to the reader? Nonsense.

Part of what I like about Lara Raith is she's also an antihero that has established her own kingdom and gone from being her father's assaulted and brainwashed slave to being ruler of the White Court as well as one of the strongest supernatural players. She's an ally of Harry's and humanity as a whole remaining a "bad guy" just like Marcone. It makes her a dynamic and interesting character even as she also does terrible things.

What was her plan with the culling of the talents? Did she actually plan to destroy the White Council in the future or was it an attempt to look like she was waging war, allow Harry to eliminate her enemies, and then restore their neutrality? Wheels within wheels and at a much higher game than Harry is capable of playing at.

Does it absolve Lara Raith of all the evil she does to maintain her power that she has ONE PERSON she cares about (Thomas)? No, It does, however, add a Jaime Lannister like angle to a character that might have otherwise been flat, though. In a way, Lara is everything I wish Cersei had been.

[ASOIAFrelatedusername]

2 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

And in the end it meant nothing since she was a soulless shadow of a still-evil demon.

Even if she is inexplicably (from an in story perspective) absent, Bonnie is not definitely not nothing and she was born out of an act of self-sacrificial love.