Anyone Here a Fan of The Dresden Files?

[Quadrophenia]

12 minutes ago, Ammanas said:

There will be a new Dresden short story released this month that will be included in the Shadowed Souls anthology. 

I NEED MAH FIX

[Sunbird she/her]

@Quadrophenia Re: swearing vs violence, yeah, I'm aware that it's a bit illogical. I think part of my aversion to profanity is that I'm afraid if I expose myself to too much of it, I'll start using it myself, and I don't want to go there. I'm not worried about the same thing with regards to violence.

As for the gang rape... If that had been explicitly described, it probably would've been too much for me. But I could handle thinking about it from a distance when it was only implied. Sometimes other forms of especially gruesome violence make me flinch, but I've largely been desensitized to it by movies like LOTR and Jurassic Park and books like Dan Wells's "I Am Not a Serial Killer."

[Quadrophenia]

@Nightbird To be fair, I highly doubt watching a Tarantino movie will influence your vocabulary into something like a particularly vulgar and crass sailor who--in his spare time--teaches truckers. If that were the case, anyone who has ever liked a Tarantino movie would talk like a Tarantino character, complete with a predilection for feet and blaxploitation movies. 

And even if that were the case, would it "truly" be so awful? After all, you yourself have likely thrown around a few words that---in your ignorance---you likely never assumed were profanity at all! Certain words and expressions we use today would have been considered one heck of an offence anywhere from fifty to several centuries ago. Once upon a time, the reason why Yosemite Sam yelling gibberish words like "dagnabbit" was considered funny to children was because they were scandalous swears their grandparents would have found offensive. Today, it's just cowboy gibberish. 

Have you ever used the phrase, "Holy cow!" in substitute of any more explicit exclamation? Well, that's a profanity right there. It's a reference to Hindu beliefs about the sacredness of bovines, and a mocking one at that. A cake-walk has its roots in minstrel shows, paying through the nose is derived from old Nordic traditions where kings would cut your nose off if you didn't pay your taxes, cat got your tongue refers to having been beaten so severely with cat-o-nine-tails that you can barely speak, and rule of thumb? Rule of thumb used to mean that men were allowed to beat their wives. 

We literally say things all the time that have horrifying, terrible origins far more offensive than the c-word or f-word could possibly be. 

Even after all that?

Well, to quote Mark Twain... "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer."

The point being, it's weirdly self-limiting to constrain yourself from using words because they're "impolite," as that that invalidates them as a form of honest self-expression... while giving concession to far more horrifying words. Which, yeah, is slightly hypocritical. The whole point of profanity is to express a form of rebellion against polite society, or provide the perfect means to encapsulate rage or frustration in words that'd make a nun blush. Those aforementioned old swears might not mean those things now, but consider this: once upon a time, shut up was considered such an offensive slur by children's TV show standards that it was the g-rated equivalent of a f-you. 

Today, Pinkie Pie can get away with it. It's worth thinking about. These things can be completely arbitrary.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Quadrophenia

[Sunbird she/her]

@Quadrophenia I'm really not interested in arguing about it any more. I have my preferences for what I like and don't like to read or watch, and you have yours, and it's perfectly fine if they're different. I don't think people who read/watch media containing profanity are bad people; I just prefer not to do so myself. I'm not going to try to make you change your media habits, so let me be happy with mine, please?

[Quadrophenia]

Question for everyone here-

Favourite series baddie, go!

[Ammanas]

Lasciel of course!

[Quadrophenia]

1 minute ago, Ammanas said:

Lasciel of course!

If we're talking about the mental imprint of Lasciel who eventually becomes Lash, an independent spirit in her own right? That right there is an interesting example. Is that the only example of a bad guy in this series with a clear character arc?

[Ammanas]

Just now, Quadrophenia said:

If we're talking about the mental imprint of Lasciel who eventually becomes Lash, an independent spirit in her own right? That right there is an interesting example. Is that the only example of a bad guy in this series with a clear character arc?

I suppose Lash, but by the end she is basically a good guy. The only time, I believe,  we see Lasciel is in Skin Game. I also really like the winter court if you consider them bad. Which reminds me of another hilarious dresden moment: "Cat-Sithe is not evil. Only easily bored and hyper violent". Or something like that (dont have to book in front of me).

[Ammanas]

What about Marcone? He seems to have a character arc?

Edited November 4, 2016 by Ammanas

[Sunbird she/her]

I'm not sure if I have a favorite villain, but the most evil villain is definitely Nicodemus.

[Quadrophenia]

15 minutes ago, Ammanas said:

What about Marcone? He seems to have a character arc?

Eh... don't get me wrong, I love Marcone. To quote Harry, that guy has balls that drag the ground. But a character arc typically involves a character going through a gradual change. Marcone has, from day one, been the classic noble criminal with a code. That has never changed. The only thing that has changed over the course of the series is the level of power he's been accumulating; from "merely" being a powerful mob boss to being the unofficial Lord of all Chicago to becoming the single most powerful mortal in the supernatural underground of America. That's not the same thing as a character arc, though.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Quadrophenia

[Ammanas]

2 minutes ago, Nightbird said:

I'm not sure if I have a favorite villain, but the most evil villain is definitely Nicodemus.

More so then the demons of the outer reaches such as he who walks behind or Sharkface?

[Ammanas]

1 minute ago, Quadrophenia said:

Eh... don't get me wrong, I love Marcone. To quote Harry, that guy has balls that drag the ground. But a character arc typically involves a character going through a gradual change. Marcone has, from day one, been the classic noble criminal with a code. That has never changed. The only thing that has changed over the course of the series is the level of power he's been accumulating; from "merely" being a powerful mob boss to being the unofficial Lord of all Chicago to becoming the single most powerful mortal in the supernatural underground of America. That's not the same thing as a character arc, though.

I guess so. Harry just gradually recognizes it, Marcone doesn't change just Harry's perception (most notibly in Death Masks)

[Quadrophenia]

47 minutes ago, Ammanas said:

I guess so. Harry just gradually recognizes it, Marcone doesn't change just Harry's perception (most notibly in Death Masks)

Or in that one short story from Marcone's point of view.

54 minutes ago, Nightbird said:

I'm not sure if I have a favorite villain, but the most evil villain is definitely Nicodemus.

Hmm... are you sure about that? Nicodemus is a classic criminal mastermind, but there are bad guys in this series that take petty sadism to astronomical lows. The Corpsetaker comes to mind. At least Nicodemus pretends to be civilized.

[Sunbird she/her]

@Ammanas @Quadrophenia Part of the reason I think Nicodemus is especially awful is the fact that he chooses to do heinous things of his own volition (as opposed to some of the intrinsically demonic creatures whose very nature is evil) and delights in taking away others' ability to make their own choices by foisting Denarii on them.

And his pretending to be civilized just makes it worse IMO. I'd rather deal with a straightforward fight than try to see through a false veneer of civility only to be disastrously betrayed. IIRC, the innermost and most torturous circle of Hell in Dante's Inferno was reserved for traitors, and I think it fits.

[Savanorn he/him]

On Friday, November 04, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Quadrophenia said:

@Nightbird To be fair, I highly doubt watching a Tarantino movie will influence your vocabulary into something like a particularly vulgar and crass sailor who--in his spare time--teaches truckers. If that were the case, anyone who has ever liked a Tarantino movie would talk like a Tarantino character, complete with a predilection for feet and blaxploitation movies. 

And even if that were the case, would it "truly" be so awful? After all, you yourself have likely thrown around a few words that---in your ignorance---you likely never assumed were profanity at all! Certain words and expressions we use today would have been considered one heck of an offence anywhere from fifty to several centuries ago. Once upon a time, the reason why Yosemite Sam yelling gibberish words like "dagnabbit" was considered funny to children was because they were scandalous swears their grandparents would have found offensive. Today, it's just cowboy gibberish. 

Have you ever used the phrase, "Holy cow!" in substitute of any more explicit exclamation? Well, that's a profanity right there. It's a reference to Hindu beliefs about the sacredness of bovines, and a mocking one at that. A cake-walk has its roots in minstrel shows, paying through the nose is derived from old Nordic traditions where kings would cut your nose off if you didn't pay your taxes, cat got your tongue refers to having been beaten so severely with cat-o-nine-tails that you can barely speak, and rule of thumb? Rule of thumb used to mean that men were allowed to beat their wives. 

We literally say things all the time that have horrifying, terrible origins far more offensive than the c-word or f-word could possibly be. 

Even after all that?

Well, to quote Mark Twain... "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer."

The point being, it's weirdly self-limiting to constrain yourself from using words because they're "impolite," as that that invalidates them as a form of honest self-expression... while giving concession to far more horrifying words. Which, yeah, is slightly hypocritical. The whole point of profanity is to express a form of rebellion against polite society, or provide the perfect means to encapsulate rage or frustration in words that'd make a nun blush. Those aforementioned old swears might not mean those things now, but consider this: once upon a time, shut up was considered such an offensive slur by children's TV show standards that it was the g-rated equivalent of a f-you. 

Today, Pinkie Pie can get away with it. It's worth thinking about. These things can be completely arbitrary.

 

To set the record straight; at least two of these are false. The rule of thumb and the cat got your tongue. 

If the look up something like "why do we say..." you'll probably get a much better written and better researched response but suffice it to say that "cat got your tongue" is just playful terminology and the rule of thumb thing has been a false myth for, maybe, hundreds of years but that it is better understood to be a rough measure as opposed to a calculated or plannned maneuvre. 

As for the nature of what you were saying, I totally recommend Lies of Locke Lamora. It is well done and has some very in depth character interactions. 

As for this thread..eh...I don't like The Dresden Files. Mainly because I don't like Harry Dresden. To me, he comes off as a pretty generic fantasy hero who's main flaws are just that he's such a swell guy and since the Dresden Files are so main character driven, there's little appeal to me. 

 

Edited November 5, 2016 by Savanorn