As far as I can tell, this is... A bitch session about minor inconsistencies in the series as a whole, complaints that you think Butcher and his fans are dicks, and a very long, convoluted and repetitive way of saying you think the TV show is better; mostly because of one character. That's all well and good, but do you think you could give me a summary of the book you were actually reviewing, as opposed to "books are mind candy show is better"? Because I'd really like to know how this compares to the rest of the BOOK series so I can choose between borrowing it first or just plain buying it.
And, one thing I really have to disagree with you on: ghosts are not real, or at least have not been proven to exist. Butcher can write whatever he likes and call them ghosts, just as SMyer can mess with vampire and werewolf archetypes and still call them that. And complaining that the books have made-up things in them is... Well. Silly. It's fiction. He can makes up as many creatures, sigils and rituals as he likes, because it's fiction.
I AM a fan of Jim Butcher's work. I thought I made that clear last night. However I won't pretend his work is perfect. Yes, what I mentioned are petty.
Also I never said that ghosts are definitely real. But if we're to go by conventional lore the most common version of a ghost is the deceased human soul. And in my opinion that works better in fiction. Jim Butcher just has issues agaist this idea of a ghost.
I spent a good while trying to word my comment last night in such a way that I didn't seem overly rude, so I do apologise if I came across as such but I promise that was not my intention.
I didn't say you weren't a fan of him. I said you seem to think he's kind of a dick, and you do come across as such. You can like somebody's work and think the author themselves is a dick. You can also feel someone is a jerk without hating them.
I never said that you claimed ghosts were real. I just said that you're getting worked up about somebody using the word to apply to something different to the norm. You have issues with this; he does not necessarily have issues with ghosts as they are popularly portrayed. Maybe he just wanted to do something different and creative. He can do that.
You didn't "talk about the aspects of the series you didn't like", you complained about some minor (and as you admitted, petty) continuity problems, your preference for the TV show, and then you recited the entire plot of the book with very little discussion. You
( ... )
The only Butcher series I have read was The Codex Alera, which I adored. I doubt I will ever try Dresden Files; I'm not usually a fan of long book series and it reminds me too much of Buffy with a dude and wizards.
That said, I have to agree with lizas_lines. Your review just seems like an excuse to bash the fans of the books and talk about why you think the show is so much better, which is mostly because of one character. And because of Butcher stating he disliked the change in this character you have developed some kind of grudge against him and the people who agree with him. You suggest that he should just be grateful that an award winning actor is in the show and have no opinion on how they alter his work. Ridiculous.
I also have to agree with lizas about the ghost thing. Parapsychology is, at this time, a pseudoscience and although knowing about it may make you knowledgeable on the TAPS board it contains no solid proof that ghosts exist. Authors are free imagine them how they want, just like every other fictional creature.
**shrug** I love the book series, I liked the TV series, and I quite enjoyed "Turncoat".
That said, it sounds to me like you have a personal problem with Jim Butcher, and airing those kinds of beefs, whether real or imagined, isn't really what this site is about.
No, I do NOT have a personal thing against Jim Butcher. If you read what I have said I actually go for a while talking about my favourite character in his books, Thomas Raith. I was actually disappointed Thomas Raith never got to exist in the TV show.
I don't care one way or another. However, whether you intended it or not, that is clearly how your entry read, or you wouldn't have had three comments which all mention it.
One comment claims I don't talk about the plot of Turn Coat at all. Hmmm... Funny thing is I see six paragraphs in which I do. Not to mention I say repeatedly that I LIKE the books.
To be honest outside of discussing The Dresden Files I think he's a sweet heart. He's a very chivalrous and funny gentleman. In fact he dedicated Turn Coat to a fan who passed away early last year.
The biggest thing that bothered me about the books in general was the mangling of magic theory, and not all of it, mind, quite a bit of it is at the very least logical, but some bits are more to the "Huh?" side of things. On the other hand, in his cannon, he does a remarkable job making it all work, making the little changes. I've never attempted to reconcile Book!Verse and TV!Verse, they diverge quite a bit, characterization wise and even plot-wise. I like both, but I like them separately, I won't read the books then get upset because the show wasn't the same.
On another note, for well researched magic theory and mythology, paired with compelling characters, try the TV series, Supernatural, it's excellent.
I agree with you on all accounts. I do enjoy certain thigns in the book that don't exist in the show (Thomas Raith), and I enjoy certain things of the show that don't exist in the books (Hrothbert of Bainbridge). Just because I can pick something apart doesn't mean I don't enjoy it.
And you're right about Jim Butcher and magical theory. I don't know why but I could never really get into Supernatural. As far as TV urban fantasy goes I'm currently very fond of the British show Being Human and I loathe that it will soon get an American remake by Syfy when the British version is STILL Going!
I didn't Really get into Supernatural until S3, I'd watched it off and on before then, but I think S3 was perhaps the most compelling season. Then I went back and re-watched S1 and S2 after, but it took S3 for me to love it. S4 was actually a bit of a let-down, but so far, S5 has been an absolute thrill ride. I recommend watching S3 first, then going back to get back story because, to be perfectly honest, it started out kinda slow and picked up from there.
I think the one character from the Dresden Files books I would have liked to have a "real" role in the TV show was everyone's favorite Gentleman gangster. He was one of those rare "Goodguy Badguys", Not evil, just not good, either. He made an excellent foil to Harry that the TV series lacked, of coarse, if it had continued, we might have actually seen Thomas and Marcone in the TV series. Pity Syfy is... Not the most reliable.
I think I would really love to have seen Thomas in the show. Rules of engagement felt like it was meant to be foreshadowing for Thomas. Marcone always reminded me of Xanatos from Disney's Gargoyles. I liked that character a lot. Jonathan Frakes could make a good Marcone even if he doesn't look the part. Even Jim Butcher acknowledges the similarities with Marcone and Xanatos, one inspired the other.
Comments 23
And, one thing I really have to disagree with you on: ghosts are not real, or at least have not been proven to exist. Butcher can write whatever he likes and call them ghosts, just as SMyer can mess with vampire and werewolf archetypes and still call them that. And complaining that the books have made-up things in them is... Well. Silly. It's fiction. He can makes up as many creatures, sigils and rituals as he likes, because it's fiction.
Reply
I AM a fan of Jim Butcher's work. I thought I made that clear last night. However I won't pretend his work is perfect. Yes, what I mentioned are petty.
Also I never said that ghosts are definitely real. But if we're to go by conventional lore the most common version of a ghost is the deceased human soul. And in my opinion that works better in fiction. Jim Butcher just has issues agaist this idea of a ghost.
Reply
Reply
I didn't say you weren't a fan of him. I said you seem to think he's kind of a dick, and you do come across as such. You can like somebody's work and think the author themselves is a dick. You can also feel someone is a jerk without hating them.
I never said that you claimed ghosts were real. I just said that you're getting worked up about somebody using the word to apply to something different to the norm. You have issues with this; he does not necessarily have issues with ghosts as they are popularly portrayed. Maybe he just wanted to do something different and creative. He can do that.
You didn't "talk about the aspects of the series you didn't like", you complained about some minor (and as you admitted, petty) continuity problems, your preference for the TV show, and then you recited the entire plot of the book with very little discussion. You ( ... )
Reply
That said, I have to agree with lizas_lines. Your review just seems like an excuse to bash the fans of the books and talk about why you think the show is so much better, which is mostly because of one character. And because of Butcher stating he disliked the change in this character you have developed some kind of grudge against him and the people who agree with him. You suggest that he should just be grateful that an award winning actor is in the show and have no opinion on how they alter his work. Ridiculous.
I also have to agree with lizas about the ghost thing. Parapsychology is, at this time, a pseudoscience and although knowing about it may make you knowledgeable on the TAPS board it contains no solid proof that ghosts exist. Authors are free imagine them how they want, just like every other fictional creature.
Reply
That said, it sounds to me like you have a personal problem with Jim Butcher, and airing those kinds of beefs, whether real or imagined, isn't really what this site is about.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I do NOT HATE JIM BUTCHER!
To be honest outside of discussing The Dresden Files I think he's a sweet heart. He's a very chivalrous and funny gentleman. In fact he dedicated Turn Coat to a fan who passed away early last year.
Reply
On another note, for well researched magic theory and mythology, paired with compelling characters, try the TV series, Supernatural, it's excellent.
Reply
And you're right about Jim Butcher and magical theory. I don't know why but I could never really get into Supernatural. As far as TV urban fantasy goes I'm currently very fond of the British show Being Human and I loathe that it will soon get an American remake by Syfy when the British version is STILL Going!
Reply
I think the one character from the Dresden Files books I would have liked to have a "real" role in the TV show was everyone's favorite Gentleman gangster. He was one of those rare "Goodguy Badguys", Not evil, just not good, either. He made an excellent foil to Harry that the TV series lacked, of coarse, if it had continued, we might have actually seen Thomas and Marcone in the TV series. Pity Syfy is... Not the most reliable.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment