More than a third of the book, and the protagonist spent all this time alone, chopping wood and killing random monsters. Yes, you read that riDNF 38%.
More than a third of the book, and the protagonist spent all this time alone, chopping wood and killing random monsters. Yes, you read that right. The protagonist is alone, and he is chopping wood and killing boring demons and getting really strong because litRPG. Had it been better written I would have suspected it of being a parody.
Usually, the only upside to low-effort adventure stories is the fast-paced action. Take that away, and there's nothing worth reading about.
I listened to this for nine hours. Other than a floating eye that left almost as soon as it arrived and a few short scenes with another POV character, these nine hours were dedicated entirely to the protagonist chopping wood and killing demons, all alone. Practically nothing happened.
The prose is full of sentences that, if not grammatically wrong (I wouldn't know), are definitely a mess, such as "even the healing as well" and "he could only run in a straight direction".
The audiobook narrator put as much effort into the reading as the author put into the writing. I literally fell asleep at some point, which very rarely happens to me while listening to an audiobook. Naturally, I went back and listened again in case I missed anything. Only I couldn't tell if I'm listening to stuff for the first time or the second, because it's all the same, and nothing happens....more
The best thing about the book is also the worst thing about it: the wide historical approach.
There is no main narrative. Instead we get lots of indiviThe best thing about the book is also the worst thing about it: the wide historical approach.
There is no main narrative. Instead we get lots of individual chapters describing individual experiences related to the zombie war. The individuals described come from many different countries, cultures, and backgrounds. The book is a thought experiment: how would different people in the world act in an otherwise realistic zombie apocalypse?
The book seem mostly well researched, which is a must for this premise.
But the historical approach is also where the book fails as a narrative. It follows a simple loop: a person describes their background, location, and relevant culture, then describes scenes from their experiences in the war. Then repeat with another person. While the people in the book are very different from each other, they all felt the same to me. They think the same thoughts, have the same insights, and lack any kind of personal charisma.
After a few chapters, the narrative loop began to turn stale. The only interesting parts were the unique background of each person, which had very little to do with zombies or the war.
While I understand this was a conscious choice by the author, I can't help but feel there was laziness involved: this kind of book is very easy to write. No real narrative, no real character arcs -- just scenes. Scenes are the easiest thing to write. The hard part is to mold them into a story.
As a thought experiment, it was fun. As a novel, not so much....more
This book is all about the humor, so enjoyment would be highly subjective. I actually liked most of the humor, but it wasn't enough to carry eDNF 61%.
This book is all about the humor, so enjoyment would be highly subjective. I actually liked most of the humor, but it wasn't enough to carry everything else. And the repeating three or four jokes got old pretty quickly.
Humor needs to be clever. Either clever observations about the human condition, or high quality cleverness of the writing itself (puns, misdirections, intelligent dialogue, etc.). This book has a little of the first, but not much of the second. It's not very intelligent.
The story is basically nonexistent. It feels extremely forced, as if the author resented the need for a plot (0r had no idea what to do with it). As for the driving forces of the plot, they are almost exclusively literal Deus-Ex-Machinas. Being cosmic forces, they bluntly conspire to make the plot happen. Human agency only appears in the human-drama parts of the story, which are mostly irrelevant to the main plot.
I didn't like the audiobook narrator. So there's that, too....more
WARNING: At this point I might just be hating on this series, though I think I do have many valid criticisms of this book. I’ll try tAre we there yet?
WARNING: At this point I might just be hating on this series, though I think I do have many valid criticisms of this book. I’ll try to remain objective, but feel free to assume I’m not. It’s very clear that my general lack of enjoyment of this book is making me scrutinize it more than usual. And my lack of engagement with the plot may have caused me to misunderstand or misinterpret portions of it.
If you want to skip the rant (it’s a long rant, but a high quality rant), go to the part in bold that reads: This, right here, is the psychological core of the Dresden Files, and the reason why the author and I will never see eye to eye.
As always, if I got anything factually wrong please correct me. I’m used to being wrong and genuinely prefer to be corrected when that happens.
This review contains spoilers.
Apparently, reviews have word limits. Had to delete about half of the original.
---
The book opens with Harry needing to talk to Mortimer. But Mortimer refuses to be seen with Harry in public because it would put his life in danger, so the two of them meet in a TV studio while recording a TV show together. I swear I did not make that up. It was the least public place they could think of, apparently. Harry did something to suppress his magic so the cameras will work, and refuses to show magic to the host for that same reason. The host makes fun of Harry's claims about magic, and in his heart Harry is laughing back at the host and at the stupidity of all people who don't believe in magic, telling the reader how it's all because they're too scared to face the truth.
And wasn’t it the whole point that Dresden can’t reveal magic to people who don’t know about it, even in words? That was a main plot point in previous books, but now Dresden just goes on TV and argues magic is real.
Dresden: “I'm not a witch. I'm a wizard.” Sanya: “What is the difference?” Dresden: “Wizard has a Z”.
Is this supposed to be funny? Anyhow, definitely should have been “Wizard has a D”.
---
Harry’s friend, a Christian knight, has the ability to receive divine guidance. This is the explanation given to how he keeps popping up in the right place at the right time, just when the plot requires it. It’s a contender for being the laziest plot device I’ve ever come across.
Speaking of Christian knights, the religious “debates” in this book are horrible. It’s mostly just inoffensive word salad. Butcher doesn’t give any of the sides good arguments, but rather gives both sides non-arguments. He either wants to preach his views but holds himself back, or simply wants to add cheap drama to the story without offending anyone or really saying anything.
The excessive vagueness of Dresden’s questioning of religion gave me flashbacks of Ender’s Shadow, of all things. I read that book as a teenager, and while the protagonist kept questioning God’s choices, he never questioned God himself. It really frustrated me as a teen, because it made no sense to me that the protagonist would miss the main question. Then I learned the author is devoutly religious, which was the real answer. Back to Dresden, Harry’s words feel to me exactly like that: a religious author exploring his teenage doubts (about the church, not God) in the story’s protagonist, while making sure not to say anything definitive about the protagonist’s beliefs. Did you think Dresden was an atheist, because he keeps taking jabs at religion? Look again. Dresden is very careful not to say anything that could be interpreted as saying anything.
A different Christian Knight is actually an atheist, but chooses to dedicate his life to Christianity because it’s “the right thing to do”. It was the only part of this book that was actually funny. The guy had also seen angels first hand, but he doesn’t consider it proof of anything. This sounds a lot like real criticisms I’ve heard from religious people, of how there is so much evidence for God and yet atheists are too stupid to see it, or how it doesn’t matter what’s true because religion is the best path regardless. This also relates to Dresden’s attitude towards skeptics of the supernatural, making a strong case that this is all just Butcher genuinely making fun of atheists.
---
After Dresden preventing what was described as “the end of the world” in the previous book, this book downplays it heavily into a minor act, explicitly in order to explain to the reader why Dresden isn’t seen as a hero and is still the underdog of the wizards’ world. If you’ve read my previous reviews you know exactly what I think about why Dresden is an eternal underdog. And this book artificially resetting his hero status to zero is as much proof as I could’ve wanted.
---
Dresden replaces his pistol with pepper spray – because carrying a gun in his pocket is a felony. Ah yes, the rugged noir detective who murdered multiple sentient creatures and can conjure fire from nothing won’t carry a gun because he’s afraid of the cops. Don’t worry, I know it’s just an excuse by Butcher to get rid of the gun and create more drama later. Though I’m not sure if the explanation makes it better or worse. To be clear, it’s not about the act but about the presentation: Butcher could have written Dresden to leave the gun at home for other reasons (or just lose it). But no, he leaves the gun at home because carrying it “is a felony”, so plot-wise it’s either personal conviction (not the case here), or because he’s scared of being arrested. And that’s without discussing the pepper spray (to be used against professional armed hit men and demons, of course). The intended deeper layer of the decision seems to be either as a moral lesson (“breaking the law is bad, kids”) or as a setup for more cheap drama. Later, of course, Dresden finds himself in a situation where he could really have used a gun. He even says so to the reader.
---
Back to the story: Dresden finds the macguffin, then loses it immediately. The exact same thing happened in the previous book, and in almost the exact same way.
---
There’s a war going on, for two years, between wizards and vampires. Unlike the usual trope of blaming the protagonist for it while he’s innocent, here Dresden is actually to blame for the war, and his refusal to be held accountable in any way is the reason the war doesn’t stop (there’s a twist; we’ll get there). And after agreeing to a duel to settle the matter, Dresden tries his best to weasel out of it (he was threatened into it, but that doesn’t explain how weaseling out of it would help him, since the threats remain). And it’s not like he’s dedicating his life to find a different solution and end the war – for two years he basically tried to ignore it while people were dying as a result of his actions. I’m honestly curious how readers can sympathize with him – he’s one of the worst protagonists I’ve come across, especially because he isn’t presented as evil or a caricature, but as a “good guy” trying to do good while actually being a complete piece of shit. The book does try at times to present him as “flawed”, but I don’t buy it. Whenever he highlights a character flaw he makes it sound like he doesn’t really mean it, and whenever his allies point at one of his character flaws it’s always with affection.
The “twist” on the war? It wasn’t Dresden’s fault. Well, it was, but somehow it wasn’t. Apparently the red court wanted a war, but Dresden breaking the rules and murdering a noble forced them to start it early. So, he *is* the cause of the war, but in a good way because the red court were less ready for it than they would have been in a few years, so the war is a good thing?? But more importantly for our discussion: Dresden believed he was the cause as far as the facts were concerned, yet never felt any responsibility for it. So the twist changes nothing on the emotional/psychological front, because he never felt guilty to begin with. Wondering why we got this “twist” that’s not even a twist? We soon get the answer: Dresden is told he is innocent, then told he must have wanted to believe he was responsible because he’s just that kind of hero, always taking responsibility and trying to carry the weight of the world on his shoulders. My thoughts were literally “what the fuck”, followed by laughter. This description of Dresden’s thoughts on the war is the exact opposite of what was actually described so far – that he has always put all the blame on the vampires.
Then there’s the duel itself, which I hope I didn’t understand because it was one of the worst things I’ve read in the series so far. Ortega has been following Dresden for a while now. He had multiple opportunities to attack him. But he insisted on the duel, making it seem like the reason was his confidence in his own ability. He also threatened Dresden into the duel by threatening to kill everyone he knew. Why not just use that to lead Dresden into a situation that will make him easier to kill? One without other wizards watching? But no. Then the duel starts, and Ortega reveals that he lied, and that only by Dresden giving up his life will the lives of the people he knows be spared (but this time it’s the truth. Pinkie promise). Again, why not simply do that before the duel? And then Ortega pulls a gun, breaking the rules of the duel and getting shot himself. I really, really don’t get it. If it just came to a gun anyway, why not just walk up to Dresden long beforehand and shoot him??? what’s the point in Ortega deliberately putting Dresden in a situation where he will be the most protected, and only then trying to shoot him? Yes, it was only there as a last resort, but if Ortega thought there would be a chance of things going this way, then the entire plan was stupid from the start, as it was based entirely on his confidence in his ability to kill Dresden in a duel.
A main worldbuilding point is that supernatural creatures can’t tell a straight lie, and by making them repeat a claim three times they are bound by it. Guess Dresden forgot to ask Ortega to make the promise three times. Admittedly, there’s some vagueness about this rule, as there is vagueness about everything in the Dresden Files. Because otherwise there will be less drama.
After hearing over and over how strong Ortega is, how many veteran wizards he’d killed, and how Dresden stands no chance against him in a fight and will therefore die, the duel itself is done through a battle of will. So none of that mattered. It was just for the drama.
The duel is performed by competing to move an object with one’s mind. The object is a sphere made from a super rare material from outside the universe which is made of pure “anti life” and can kill anything by touch. Why the out of place extreme overkill? Take a guess.
Ortega breaks the rules, then a battle starts. The Archive, observing and judging the duel, did not see who started it. It was her one job. The entire reason for why she was even there. But this way the story can postpone the final judgment, creating even more drama. Not to mention that Dresden has to remain an underdog, so no one in a high position of power can ever fully take his side.
---
“I’ll let my snakes eat her, bite by bite”.
Snakes don’t eat in bites.
---
Dresden is caught (again), and here is the conversation. This, right here, is the psychological core of the Dresden Files, and the reason why the author and I will never see eye to eye:
Dresden: Do you actually think you could convince me to join up with you? Nicodemus: yes. I know you. D: Do not. N: Do too. I know more about you than you do yourself. D: Such as? N: Such as why you chose this kind of life for yourself. To appoint yourself protector of mortal kind and to make yourself the enemy of any who would do them harm. To live outcast from your own kind, laughed at, mocked by most mortals. Living in a hovel, barely scraping by, spurning wealth and fame. Why do you do it? D: I’m a disciple of the Tao of Peter Parker, obviously. N: It is all you will allow yourself, and I know why. D: Alright, why? N: Because you are ruled by fear. You are afraid, Dresden. D: Of what? N: Of what you could be if you ever let yourself stray from the right hand path. Of the power you could use. You’ve thought about what it might be like to bend the world to your will. The things you could have, the people. Some part of you has considered and found joy in the idea of using your abilities to take what you wish, and you are afraid of that joy. So you drive yourself toward martyrdom instead. D: (I started to deny his words, but I couldn’t. He was right. Or at least not wholly wrong.) Everyone has thoughts like that sometimes. N: No, they don’t. Most people never consider such actions. It never crosses their mind.
This is fascinating, and even half true. Dresden does live in fear, only not of his power but of the lack there of. This is the ultimate form of the “nice guy” fantasy: “I tried my best and I failed. I’m poor, lonely, and people laugh at me. But I can’t be a loser. I am smart, driven, righteous, and I treat women like a man should. Why, then? Looking into myself, all I see is fear. But I can’t be a coward. So what is this fear? Oh! It must be a righteous fear. I must know how powerful I (secretly) am, and scared of my own power! The world truly does not deserve a man as morally righteous as me”.
To be fair to Butcher, there is some truth to his take on this, but again the reason is not accurate. Some people do fear success, for a multitude of reasons. A few examples: having been taught by their parents that they are worthless, they feel like liars whenever they succeed. Having been taught that success (money, fame, power) is evil, they feel guilty whenever they succeed. Having success lead them to abuse their power in the past, they want to punish themselves for it.
Butcher’s take is based on the last one, but I don’t buy it. Because he doesn’t make it about Dresden’s guilt and his fear of losing control – he’s making it about Dresden being righteous and protecting the world. There’s a reason the slur is called being a “nice guy” – they think that’s really what they are. They’ll take any explanation that makes them seem misunderstood, betrayed, and tragically heroic. They are unable to see their underlying resentment and incompetence, and that their fear is simply fear. Believing they were amazing, they have tried and failed in the past, often multiple times. So they stopped trying. If they won’t try they won’t fail, which will allow them to keep the fantasy of being secretly amazing. The actual solution, of course, is to face their incompetence and begin to work on themselves. But fantasy is more appealing, and far easier to succeed at.
This is also the heart of the alleged sexism of this series: unlike overt sexism, nice-guy sexism is sneaky, vague, and cowardly. Overt sexism is the simple: “women are week, women are stupid, women need a man to take care of them because they are childish”. Nice-guy sexism fluctuates anywhere from “women are stupid and mean because they don’t want me even though I’m treating them like princesses”, to “I’m a feminist because I love women. What I love about them, you ask? Well, their long legs, their large, perky breasts…”, to “I’m a feminist because I really like strong women. I love how they take charge, tie me up, berate me, put me in my place like the lowly man I am…”. Dresden lives somewhere within the wider range. At least he’s honest and doesn’t think he’s a feminist. But calling it sexism is oversimplifying things, in my view: he clearly wants to be an actual good guy – but he just isn’t. And just like his incompetence and fear, he’d rather imagine he’s a good guy than realize he’s not and work to change himself.
---
The ending… hell’s bells, that was awful.
Shiro, who gave up his life to save Dresden and was tortured to death, was actually dying from cancer. It’s an old trope, but there are good and bad ways of doing it. Take Dumbledore’s death – It served an important narrative purpose: after Dumbledore had died, Harry was convinced Dumbledore was ultimately wrong about Snape – and perhaps about much more. Then the reveal does two important things: it reveals that everything was a part of Dumbledore’s plan, meaning he was indeed in his right mind and in full control of the situation, making it the culmination of seven books worth of buildup about Dumbledore’s character and his relationship to Snape. Secondly, it brings absolution both to Snape and (partially) to Malfoy. Back to Dresden: What purpose did this plot-point serve? It absolved Dresden from any responsibility for Shiro’s torture and death. As always, Dresden did nothing wrong…
The supporting bad guys who were spared by the good guys (there was a conversation about it during the fight, dedicated to the decision not to kill them), later committed suicide before going to prison. This way the bad guys are dealt with violently and conclusively, but once again it’s not any of the good guys’ fault. I hate this trope so, so much.
I’m coining a phrase: Spare the bad guy and kill him too.
Speaking of bad guys: after losing to Dresden and running away, Ortega is killed off-page, by a minor supporting character. The main bad guy. Killed off page. By a minor supporting character. I’d say it’s terrible, but then again, when No Country For Old Men did this people called it brilliant, so what the hell do I know. Or maybe it’s all a misdirect and Ortega is alive…? But that sounds even worse. I don’t know what to make of this part. My best guess: Butcher kept Ortega alive because he planned to use him for the next book, but then made a last minute change and killed him off.
---
This book turned out very interesting, helping me to understand why I dislike this series so much and inadvertently improving my understanding of storytelling and literary tropes.
Tl;dr: The book is bad. The following review is just me rambling about the specifics of how and why it's bad, and wondering how come Are we there yet?
Tl;dr: The book is bad. The following review is just me rambling about the specifics of how and why it's bad, and wondering how come Butcher couldn't figure out storytelling by his forth book. I'll note that my now-established bias against this series definitely made the flaws much harder for me to ignore.
White council shenanigans again. A wizard is not allowed to kill with magic, no matter what. Not even in self defense. Harry escaped execution in the past only because it was both self defense and he was a minor. Imagine this in real life: You aren't allowed to kill, no matter what. Your life is in danger? not allowed to defend yourself. Your child is about to get murdered / raped / etc? sorry bro, just call the police afterwards. Or save your child and then get executed.
Naturally, this extreme "no killing" rule is here for two cliche (and overall bad) storytelling tropes: 1. killing is bad and children can't understand the nuance of when killing is justified and when it's not, so stories for children (and adult Americans, for some reason) often teach that killing is never justified, no matter what. Most stories circumvent the issues either by presenting a magical solution to every problem so no one has to die, or by making it a character conviction (the classic Batman "I have one rule").
Here, the "rule" is a council rule, combining it with the second excuse: 2. Children enjoy reading about irrationally oppressive authority figures, since being unable to understand the complexity of the adult world most children experience all authority as irrationally oppressive. Again, it's a common storytelling trope in books written for young children, and it feels completely ridiculous in the Dresden Files. Not that there aren't oppressive authorities in stories for adults (or in real life), but they usually aren't presented as irrational to the point of absurdity. I'm guessing this is also why Dresden practically has no non-lethal combat spells. For real. In a world where killing with magic is guarantied execution, a wizard detective with a tendency to end up fighting people never took the time to learn non-lethal combat spells. Because that would solve the problem, and then Butcher would have to come up with an actual story.
And the worst part? Dresden himself doesn't care. He lets a guy die in book 1, telling the reader he chose to let him die, while also implying he would have killed him directly had he been able to get away with it. So what's the point? Butcher uses storytelling tropes meant to teach us that killing is bad, but then writes his protagonist as one who wants to kill and just doesn't have the balls to do it because he's scared of the law. You can probably guess what I think -- that Butcher didn't spend much time thinking about this at all. He knew protagonists aren't supposed to kill, so he used the same old tropes hammered into him by every other story he'd read, but he also didn't like the tropes very much (because it makes no sense in the genre he chose), so he had his protagonist complain about it and find a passive way to commit murder. The result is a strange chimera of an adventure story for children and a mature detective noir. And to sum up, I think Butcher did a very bad job combining the two.
So, this series deals with killing in a very childish manner in general, but the way it's done also feels distinctively western/American (Christian?) to me. I've found that in most American supernatural/adventure stories, even those aimed at older teens (which is where Dresden is), there is often this "Batman rule" about not killing no matter what (or instead, a mechanism where killing leads to spiritual corruption). It always felt artificial to me, even as a teen, and it's one of the reasons I never liked American super-heroes, which often take this to the extreme. It's probably why I turned to Anime as a teen. (Sorry for using American/western writing as the main example. It was simply my personal introduction to this trope.)
Compare The Dresden Files with Cradle. Cradle's storytelling has its fair share of problems, but it treats the dilemma of killing as a story for older teens should: The protagonist simply tries his best not to kill people. He uses every chance he has to find a different solution. But if he can't, then he kills. It's not presented as a world-shattering or soul-corrupting event, and he isn't presented as a murderer. That's the mature version of the lesson: you shouldn't want to kill. You should try your best to find alternatives to killing. Lacking any other option (or the time to consider any other option), killing is an appropriate response to lethal danger. While Cradle is technically American, its origins and genre are not, and it shows. Compare with Harry Dresden's "This guy is trying to kill me, and I really want to kill him, but the cops will get me so I have to find a way to kill him without getting caught, which will also mean I'm not a murderer". I can't look up to him because he isn't inspiring, but also can't respect him because he's a manipulative coward. Either have him kill the guy or honestly try to find another way. Otherwise he's just a loser.
More Harry Potter stuff: I've discussed Butcher's "inspiration" in my review of Storm Front, but it doesn't end there. Barely into this current book, and someone tells Harry Dresden: "You have your mother's eyes", which anyone who grew up reading Harry Potter will immediately tell you that's their first association.
More on the plot of the book:
After spending the entirety of the previous book trying to bind Dresden to her, his godmother gives the contract to someone else. She says she had no choice, because she grew too powerful and had to give something away to maintain balance. If only she had thought about it earlier. Then again, had this book given up on the cheap drama there would have been nothing left.
Dresden is caught and rendered unconscious. Upon waking, his captors tell him they plan to kill him. Upon asking: "Why haven't you?", one of them answers: "good question". Brilliant.
After Dresden figured out parts of the antagonist's plan, he asks Morgan to bring help from the white council. But Morgan doesn't believe him (again), so Dresden has to fight alone (again). Who could have seen that coming.
Dresden enlists a group of werewolves called the "alphas". He tells them he's the one giving the orders, and none of them protest. It's a well know fact that an alpha likes taking orders, didn't you know? (I know it's just a name here, but it's still funny.)
Much of the plot's progression is just people (often antagonists) explaining parts of their plan to Dresden, and he in turn explains to them what he figured out. He even explains to the main antagonist how much of their plan he uncovered, and they in turn tell him which parts are correct and which parts are not. It feels as unnatural as it sounds. That's also the excuse for why they haven't killed him after capturing him: they wanted to discuss their evil plan with him first.
Then the antagonist leaves him alone to die, like some cartoon villain. Classic. Oh, and the evil plan is essentially destroying the world. Another classic. And no, the excuses the story gives for those don't make them any less cliche.
To top everything off, multiple characters keep telling Dresden how strong, brave, and smart he is. Because otherwise the reader wouldn't have known, I guess....more
Unlike the first book, with its interesting fantasy-within-scifi setting and some mystery to the plot, this one feels too much like generic LiDNF 51%.
Unlike the first book, with its interesting fantasy-within-scifi setting and some mystery to the plot, this one feels too much like generic LitRPG.
The best part of the Dominion of Blades series, for me, was seeing Dinniman playing with the same ideas he would later use for Dungeon Crawler Carl.
I'm pretty sure the ideas in this book will become a major part of DCC's faction wars in the next book. This also explains why Dinniman had set up faction wars from the very beginning: he wanted to redo this book.
It's fascinating to me how a chosen style can fit or not fit an author's inherent style, giving hugely different results. DCC and DoB are clearly written by the same author, but while DoB tries too hard to be a "serious" book, the dark humor and general insanity of DCC make it peak entertainment....more
1.5/5. Rounded up because I don't like the series and yet decided to read anyway, so I feel bad for rating it low.
The plot is... almost half-decent. T1.5/5. Rounded up because I don't like the series and yet decided to read anyway, so I feel bad for rating it low.
The plot is... almost half-decent. Though it's a straight plot with little complexity, no real character psychology except for the protagonist, no humor (or any meaningful emotion), no interesting themes and no interesting insights of any kind. Without the issues listed below, this would have been a 2.5/5 book.
Butcher decided to add religious discussions to the book. Take a guess how well those turned out. At least they were brief.
More white council nonsense. Vampires killing innocent human beings? perfectly legal. A wizard killing said vampires? off with his head!
Harry makes a deal with his godmother, and breaks it. Then makes a deal with his godmother, and breaks it. Then makes a deal with his godmother, and breaks it. I'm not even joking. That's what passes for a story in this book.
Instead of Murphy making stupid decisions to force the plot, this time we have Susan making stupid decisions to force the plot. The two women act the same way, playing the same artificial role in the story. Tl;dr: Susan calls Harry a chauvinist, ignores all his warnings, makes a really stupid and reckless decision, puts people in mortal danger, then needs to be saved by Harry. 100% cringe on both sides of the Harry-Susan relationship.
A very important note: Enjoying this book doesn't make you a bad person, and my criticism of it isn't an attack against you. Not everyone sees what others see. And perhaps I'm just wrong about everything. There are books with writing issues which I enjoyed too, simply because they were fun (Cradle series, for example). It all comes to which storytelling issues you can ignore and which ones ruin your experience. And of course, whether the book is fun or not....more
The same quality as book one. At least it's not worse.
Murphy. Seriously. After ignoring Harry's warning in the last book, doing what he tells her not The same quality as book one. At least it's not worse.
Murphy. Seriously. After ignoring Harry's warning in the last book, doing what he tells her not to, almost dying, then when Harry tries to save her getting in his way and almost getting both of them killed -- after all that, we begin book two with Murphy being really angry at Harry for not telling her secret magic stuff when she asked him in book one (it was important to her investigation, but she had no chance of solving it herself or coming out of it alive). "Women, am I right fellas??" -Jim Butcher, probably.
I'm joking, of course. Butcher can't write human beings regardless of gender.
Murphy keeps trying to arrest Dresden for the entire book. Why? because Butcher has no idea how to write realistic human conflict. There's really no in-story explanation that's even remotely believable.
The book makes fun of science again, with the exact same joke from book one about it being a religion and too stupid to see all the clear evidence for supernatural activity. Yay.
To Dresden's unknown magic abilities (A.K.A whatever magic the author feels like putting in any given scene) from book 1 we now add Bob's unknown potion library, meaning Dresden could have access to any potion the author wants to give him. And since Bob isn't always reliable, he can simply refuse to make a potion without saying he can't make it, leaving an opening to future potion making.
How does the magic work? what is possible? what isn't? is there a cost? If Dresden is as brilliant and powerful a wizard as he keeps claiming, why are all his spells basic protection/make-fire/make-wind/etc? Is there not even a little complexity to the magic in this world?
"It bleeds, and I can nail it" -Fool Moon, 2001. "If it bleeds, we can kill it" -Predator, 1987. Either quote the movie proper or make up something original.
Dresden can't tell anyone about magic, because the "white council" will arrest him. Yet the council does nothing when wizards, monsters, etc start killing people. What is the council's function in this world? you guessed it: to make trouble for Harry Dresden. Excellent writing, Mr. Butcher.
So far, this series feels like a low budget American police drama TV series. To the point where each book is about one episode worth of single-use content, only stretched over ten hours of audio.
Speaking of TV, I heard there's an adaptation of the Dresden Files. One reviewer said their version of the protagonist is much less edgy, so maybe I'll give it a shot....more
I find myself saying the same things about this kind of book: this is exactly how to NOT write a male power fantasy. (then Very basic and very cliche.
I find myself saying the same things about this kind of book: this is exactly how to NOT write a male power fantasy. (then again, a lot of people like this book. so feel free to ignore me)
Meet Harry Dresden. He's extremely powerful (so you'd think he's cool) but in practice he's really weak, nearly dying no matter whom he fights against (so you'll cheer for him as the underdog). He reports to the reader multiple times on how he acts "like a gentleman" with women, and how he doesn't understand why people think it's creepy. He then complains to the reader on how he always fails with women. Like I wrote in my review to The Name Of The Wind, this could have been an opportunity to let the protagonist realize why people think he's creepy and finally grow up -- but no, the author takes his side...
The plot uses about every cliche possible: The protagonist is an extremely powerful and knowledgeable wizard, but he works as a private investigator (of sorts) and is on the verge of bankruptcy. A murder is committed, and suddenly everyone thinks it's the protagonist (for no good reason. He wasn't even framed or anything). Harry can't call for help because the "white council" of wizards doesn't trust him because of his past, so he has to work alone. Harry has a powerful spirit ally named Bob, who blackmails harry for a day off; and guess what? that's the one day most of the plot takes place in. We get a climax between Harry, one of the most powerful wizards (as we're told), and a guy who barely knows anything about magic. Harry almost dies. It's presented like Harry's disadvantage is because he can't use magic to kill, but that makes little sense -- does he not know any non-lethal spells? after studying for years and possessing immense talents? come on.
We're told Harry is really strong so we'll look up to him, but we're always shown how weak he is so we'll cheer for him as the underdog. He's extremely talented, but he's very poor. He's very honest and a "good guy", but no one trusts him and everyone try to make his life more difficult. He acts like a gentleman with women, but they won't sleep with him. See my point? This is everything wrong with the average nerdy teenager's power fantasy: "All evidence says I'm a loser, but actually I'm secretly very powerful and amazing".
The book makes fun of science for missing all the monsters and wizards that clearly exist in the world. It's one of my least favorite storytelling tropes, especially since it reflects a real sentiment that exists among way too many people ("it's true because my book says so, but science can't see it so science is stupid. And I'm really smart because I see that science is stupid"). It's as if people really can't tell reality from fiction, and I guess that scares me a bit.
The magic itself is completely unimaginative. Mostly Harry just speaks a word and wind/fire/whatever comes to him. There's not even a semblance of originality.
Speaking of originality: it's about an orphan wizard named Harry, who's really-really special but no one believes him and everyone always accuse him whenever something bad happens. He killed a very bad wizard years ago, which is the cause of his reputation. He does magic mainly by speaking single words. There's a clear bad guy in the story, but it turns out he has nothing to do with plot and is only a misdirect by the author.
At the end (spoiler for the same cliche ending you've read a hundred times before): (view spoiler)[ the bad guy dies by his own creation, because the author wanted him out of the picture but also didn't want the protagonist to kill him. At least Harry wanted him to die and didn't try to save him. Had he done that, I would have given this book one star instead of two. (hide spoiler)]
Tried reading this book years ago and couldn't finish it, but people keep recommending it to me, so I decided to give it another shot. I'll try reading the second book, as many say the series improves a lot later on.
Contrary to what this review implies, I didn't hate the book. The prose is solid and the main character has potential. If only it had better plotting, less cliches, and anything even a little original, it could have been alright....more
Decided not to rate it, because it's the kind of story that might improve later. So far its 1.5 stars.
This book is just... empty. The prose is DNF 39%
Decided not to rate it, because it's the kind of story that might improve later. So far its 1.5 stars.
This book is just... empty. The prose is decent, but everything else feels like it was written with no plan, no effort, and especially no passion. It's not exactly 'bad', because that implies it failed to achieve something -- but it never tried anything to begin with.
Book 1 appeared to set up a simple yet fun story with an underdog protagonist, potentially-interesting characters, and a mission to collect (steal) cards from noble families in order to save the protagonist's family. Book 2 resolved almost everything, leaving the protagonist as an overpowered boy without any purpose, introducing new character but doing very little with them. Book 3, more than a third of the way in, doesn't do much of anything. There is no goal, no real danger, and no interesting character dynamics....more
I read issue #1 a long while ago and disliked it immensely. I refrained from rating it back then because I prefer to read more than one issue before dI read issue #1 a long while ago and disliked it immensely. I refrained from rating it back then because I prefer to read more than one issue before doing so. But I never got around to reading further.
I wrote a full review after reading it for the first time, but the draft is apparently gone.
There's nothing here besides a single emotion: an aimless, angry desire for revenge. The villains are as evil as possible. The good guys are as victimized as possible. The protagonist is fighting for justice in a world so black and white it feels completely fake.
The final page of issue #1 has the author describing the background for this comic, and it's exactly what I expected. Here's the first paragraph:
"Monstress was more a desire than an idea. An impulse that came over me, something I'd think about in the shower or when I was driving and listening to Janet Jackson on the radio. I had this image in my head of a battered girl, standing alone, absolutely furious, and behind her a battlefield that streched for miles. I didn't know what to do with it -- and I'm not all that patient -- but I had no choice in this matter. Nothing was there. No story. Just that girl."...more
2.5/5. It's alright. Not as good as Dungeon Crawler Carl, sadly.
I enjoy Dinniman's writing style, but his ideas, as "different" as they are, always fe2.5/5. It's alright. Not as good as Dungeon Crawler Carl, sadly.
I enjoy Dinniman's writing style, but his ideas, as "different" as they are, always feel shallow. The same is mostly true for DCC.
What DCC has, which is notably missing here: dark humor, whacky creativity, Princess Donut, and Jeff Hays as narrator.
What DOB has that DCC lacks: a mystery, and a more grounded sci-fi story. The worldbuilding of DCC is pure nonsense (inentionally, of course).
Many of the ideas and plot points of this book are very similar to those of DCC, so if you haven't read either I'd recommend you read Dungeon Crawler Carl first. The dark humor fits Dinniman's style better than this more "serious" book....more
![熱帯のシトロン 1 [Netsutai no Citron 1] (Tropical Citron, #1)](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1607989255l/1606655._SX50_.jpg)
Loading...
