I was a reluctant Harry fan in the beginning. The first few books make it difficult to distinguish between Harry’s innate chauvinism and the attitude of the book. But as I kept reading, I realized that Harry’s chauvinism, his continuous desire to Save Women From Themselves, was in fact a *huge* character flaw, and therefore Quite The Interesting Character Flaw Indeed! I’ve met other readers who had similar reactions, both male and female alike, and even Mr. Reads, upon handing me the first Dresden novel, told me to give it a book or two before I made judgment.
Some book series suffer from extension. Janet Evanovich’s Stephanie Plum books, for example, and undeniably Laurell K. Hamilton’s Anita Blake series (which This Humble Author stopped reading at least six or seven books back). But the Dresden Files, on the other hand, get more interesting, more in depth, and *better written* every book. You can’t say that often, and when you can, you revel in it, just a bit.
I complained about some sexist attitudes expressed in the X-Men 3 movie a while ago. Someone answered that they were expressions of the character and not the theme of the story. This is a valid argument when discussing dialogue in a story. The problem I have is when a sexist attitude is expressed ("Hell hath no fury...") and then holds true in the narrative.
Its overwhelming at first because the books are written in first-person from Harry's perspective, and he has seriously idiotic opinions about women early on. As the books progress, these opinions drop off because these opinions keep being proven false. I think its a sign Harry is growing that the attitude surfaces less and less. Certainly, all of the characters in the book series grow and change like real people and when Butcher gets a chance to flesh out a minor character (like housewife Charity, or the background mortician Butters) he can really surprise you (Charity went from unnoticeable to extremely kickass in a single chapter, for example).
Anyway, in the Dresden Files, Harry's chauvinism is characterization and doesn't hold true to the plot. I can understand why a lot of people would like to spare themselves the reading anyway, but I actually like to see a stupid character learn his lessons in a story. Its fantasy, after all.
On a side note, Evanovich's books weren't all written by the same person. There was an expose about it a while back - apparently when authors need a break, publishers commonly find ghost writers to continue their series.
ReplyDeleteBetacandy -- That clarifies so much.
ReplyDeleteHi Ragnell,
ReplyDeleteThe problem I have is when a sexist attitude is expressed ("Hell hath no fury...") and then holds true in the narrative.
Exactly! Particularly when it's not only a sexist attitude, but really, the silliest stereotype in the world. Yes, "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned," but hell hath no fury like a man scorned, or a father, a business associate, a mother, etc. And to make it the backbone of an entire movie, which could have been *good* but instead really *wasn't*, just breaks my heart.
Its overwhelming at first because the books are written in first-person from Harry's perspective, and he has seriously idiotic opinions about women early on. As the books progress, these opinions drop off because these opinions keep being proven false. I think its a sign Harry is growing that the attitude surfaces less and less.
Or when it does surface, Harry smacks himself and says, "well, remember when that didn't turn out so well for you?" which is Just Smart in a million different ways.
Certainly, all of the characters in the book series grow and change like real people and when Butcher gets a chance to flesh out a minor character (like housewife Charity, or the background mortician Butters) he can really surprise you (Charity went from unnoticeable to extremely kickass in a single chapter, for example).
I *adore* Charity, and Michael as well, because both defy the common stereotypes and/or assumptions we expect. The last scene of Proven Guilty with Michael and Harry, for example? Absolutely perfect.
Anyway, in the Dresden Files, Harry's chauvinism is characterization and doesn't hold true to the plot. I can understand why a lot of people would like to spare themselves the reading anyway, but I actually like to see a stupid character learn his lessons in a story. Its fantasy, after all.
Another reason I keep reading is that every book is different. The problem I've begun to have with the Stephanie Plum books, and the problem I did have with the Anita Blake series, is that every book became exactly the same, formulaic to the Nth degree. Sometimes people want formula, and that's fine--who am I to judge?--but it's not something I want with any regularity, you know? Each of the Dresden Files is completely different, and not just plot-wise. Each is structured differently, contains different, major characters, and sometimes ends well, and sometimes, not so much.
Huzzah, Friend! Feminist Dresden Fans Unite, Indeed! :)
Ciao,
Amy
Hmmm. There's an essay in here somewhere. On chauvinism and feminism as invoked by male authors in a female dominated sub-genre. (Quick other than Butcher name another male writer in the Dark Fantasy/Modern Horror/Etc sub-genre)...
ReplyDelete