I'm still formulating my opinion on the book, and I understand where you're coming from, but I have to disagree with you.
I didn't find Harry's reaction to learning of the child irrational at all. Parenthood is a very big deal to a lot of people - the mere concept, whether they know the child or not. I mean, you don't know a baby's personality when s/he is born, but most parents are already devoted and will do anything to protect him or her. As I understand it, even if someone learns of a child years later they often react the same way.
As for the other girl, Harry didn't know that's what would happen to her, and as I recall the possibility didn't really occur to him. Perhaps he should have thought of it, but he wasn't thinking overly clearly in this book, and he didn't deliberately sacrifice another child.
Susan's death is more murky. I don't think he should have kept the knowledge from her, she had as much right to it as he did, but it was still manipulation because he knew what she would do and he knew the stakes
( ... )
I mean, you don't know a baby's personality when s/he is born, but most parents are already devoted and will do anything to protect him or her.Yes, but most of them are aware that they're going to have a child and have nine months to get used to the idea. Then, too, many of them want the child
( ... )
If Harry had had anything to do with Maggie up till that point--if he and Susan had raised her, if they'd had joint custody, if he'd seen her on weekends or summers or holidays--fine. Under those circumstances, I wouldn't have any problem. Because Harry would have spent time and effort on Maggie. He would have gotten to know her. She would have been a part of his life, and he would have been a part of hers.
But that's not the situation. HE ISN'T A PARENT. He didn't raise her; he hasn't cared for her; he isn't in any way a part of her life. Two minutes before Susan called, he didn't know the kid existed. He isn't a father, save in the biological sense of the word. And yet Harry hears that Maggie exists, and BAM! Instant and passionate devotion, to the point where he throws away his moral code and his entire personality.
I read some other review of the Dresden books that convinced me I would hate the main character and the retrograde sexism, so... this doesn't really surprise me.
Well, the first book was very sexist, but since it was trying to be a magical version of 1940s film noir, that didn't surprise me. Over time, Harry got called on sexism a LOT, mostly by the women of the series. And his insistence on being unable to treat a woman less than courteously even when she was an enemy came back to bite him.
I would have said until this book that Harry was learning. That he was becoming more aware of his own sexism and why it was unacceptable.
I thought I was the only one who thought this about the book. I loved the ending, but I hate when writers throw in kids needlessly. Butcher could've easily had Susan in trouble and Harry had to save her, and just add the kid at the end. Like, he fails to save Susan and instead finds about the kid that way.
I hate when writers throw in kids needlessly. Butcher could've easily had Susan in trouble and Harry had to save her, and just add the kid at the end. Like, he fails to save Susan and instead finds about the kid that way.
Yes! That would have made more sense, really, since Susan was a character since the first book. She was established. The audience was invested in the character. We cared about her.
And Harry getting saddled with the everyday reality of a traumatized eight-year-old girl that he doesn't know and can't even talk to because they don't speak the same language could have been one hell of a contrast to his expectations, issues and fantasies about family. Especially if Butcher had let the audience learn to care for Margaret Angelina, and had allowed the parent-child relationship grow over several books.
Comments 21
Reply
I didn't find Harry's reaction to learning of the child irrational at all. Parenthood is a very big deal to a lot of people - the mere concept, whether they know the child or not. I mean, you don't know a baby's personality when s/he is born, but most parents are already devoted and will do anything to protect him or her. As I understand it, even if someone learns of a child years later they often react the same way.
As for the other girl, Harry didn't know that's what would happen to her, and as I recall the possibility didn't really occur to him. Perhaps he should have thought of it, but he wasn't thinking overly clearly in this book, and he didn't deliberately sacrifice another child.
Susan's death is more murky. I don't think he should have kept the knowledge from her, she had as much right to it as he did, but it was still manipulation because he knew what she would do and he knew the stakes ( ... )
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
But that's not the situation. HE ISN'T A PARENT. He didn't raise her; he hasn't cared for her; he isn't in any way a part of her life. Two minutes before Susan called, he didn't know the kid existed. He isn't a father, save in the biological sense of the word. And yet Harry hears that Maggie exists, and BAM! Instant and passionate devotion, to the point where he throws away his moral code and his entire personality.
Reply
Reply
I would have said until this book that Harry was learning. That he was becoming more aware of his own sexism and why it was unacceptable.
And then...we got this.
Reply
Reply
Yes! That would have made more sense, really, since Susan was a character since the first book. She was established. The audience was invested in the character. We cared about her.
And Harry getting saddled with the everyday reality of a traumatized eight-year-old girl that he doesn't know and can't even talk to because they don't speak the same language could have been one hell of a contrast to his expectations, issues and fantasies about family. Especially if Butcher had let the audience learn to care for Margaret Angelina, and had allowed the parent-child relationship grow over several books.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
To my mind, that's EXACTLY what Butcher did.
Reply
Leave a comment