The Dresden Files

by "muck up" do you mean "make even more entertaining through the exploration of alternate takes on established mythologies"? Because then, I'd agree with you.

I only made it through book 1 of the Dresden Files and found them too formulaic, and a little boring. It felt like the first thing he'd written, kind of color-by-numbers.

"alternate takes" = mucking up.

Yeah, it's horrible when authors have imagination and think outside the box.

I think Gaiman does them brilliantly. The way he ties connections between different mythologies and elaborates on the mythologies. Plus, that's what happens to mythologies. They change with time in order to remain meaningful. Just because they've not changed in a long time doesn't mean they shouldn't.

i enjoy the books. i tend to buy only the soft covers and have only read the first three (or four, can't rightly remember at the moment). his writing is improving, but it is by far a step down from the kind of writing i am used to enjoying, but i do love the contrast of the stories told. wizardry in contemporary america helping solve homicide cases, the council and the police, everything shrouded in secrets and promises.

not gripping, sometimes downright silly, i still enjoy them like i enjoy a blockbuster movie when in the mood-

It's okay to use mythology as a springboard for something creative. But when you set the baseboard on fire like Gaimen does you have nowhere to leap to. Just one example from Sandman. He has the fates and God exist at the same time, which is impossible. Anytime you have God controlling the universe, he controls it. You can't have the fates and God existing at the same time. Those are two threads that cannot be tied together. That's like having Apollo running around while Ra chills by the pool.

How is it impossible? It worked for the Greeks...

He'd quite happily have Appollo and Ra around - he certainly had Bast and the Norse Gods in his universe.

I think you're mixing up God versus Gods. He certainly had multiple Gods in there, not one almighty being.

There are multiple gods. There is one God who is an almighty being (in Christianity that is).

I think those who have a very narrow understanding of mythologies should refrain from critiquing Mr Gaiman's use of various myths.

At least I have an understanding, unlike the rest of you.

I have an understanding that you're a video game-addicted blowhard.

I have an understanding that you're a hipster moron.

Big G = God

Little g = super-natural being.

The Cult = foolish

The confusion is all on your side. Not mine. And whose more apt to know mythology, a gamer who battles gods in his spare time, or the one who doesn't know how to use cases?

odd shiv on your part, i think, plucking me out. my grammar is fairly proficient. i just choose to ignore cap cases on message boards as a break from narrative.

oh, and i am sorry to mention this, brother, but.. your argument holds little actual weight-

"whose" is possessive and "who's" means who is

i really dont have anything against you, though. so, yeah; that was an odd jab-

Awww, and here you are.

Well, I'd never fit into those skinny jeans, but if that's how you feel, s'okay with me. Hipsters socialize.

You "battle" nothing in your spare time. The person who studies mythology (ie - Gaiman) is the one who's most apt to know what he's talking about. What he's learned about Gods, gods, mythology and folklore in the last two years alone is more than you've learned in your lifetime, I'd wager.

It's a shame he never shows it in his writing.

What did the rest of us do?

One stupid thread and you're going to call out the whole cult? Seriously?

Further, you seem to be muddying the waters by insisting that your Judeo-Christian worldview is somehow authoritatively correct. For the Pantheistic Greeks, Zeus et al were Capital G Gods. You seem to be mewling about the fact that someone has written a story that doesn't conform to your worldview and thus somehow lacks merit.

How about some actual examples from you instead of vague attacks? Tell me how Gaiman's take on the Furies and Orpheus is somehow incorrect? Tell me how his take on a modern-day Odin somehow strays from our historical understanding of the Norse God. Or Anansi. Or Lucifer. Pick one and give us a solid example of "mucking up".

jd_james_427, it is fine that you like author A and don't enjoy author B, but your argument against author B is simply narrow-minded and obtuse. Please try again.

I'm sure it's important to you that you believe in some version of the Christian God - but that doesn't validate your point in this thread. And while I play games, I certainly don't learn my mythology from them.

Anyway, on the subject of God vs Gods - surely you believe in a pantheon (however small) yourself - God the father, Jesus the son and some add-on to make a trinity the holy spirit? Are you sure it's God, singular?

The oldest known religion (Hindu) has a trinity at the core, Christianity was probably just following on from their example. Or was it the Pagan triple Goddess, they were around before Christianity too or perhaps the Zoroastrians trinity? etc etc

Everyone here is so mistaken, I wonder if it's possible if they're actually reading what they are attacking.

Firstly, I am not Christian, nor do I abide by any religion. The fact is, in English grammar, the monotheistic God is the only one referred to with a capital G. Any other supernatural being said to control anything is a god. Don't blame me for the structured rules of the English Language. I didn't create it, people are just continually ignorant of it.

Secondly, I already proved examples of Gaiman's nonsense. In the Sandman series, the dream god visits hell, where he meets Satan. He wins a battle of wits with Satan by saying, "What is hell, but a dream of heaven?” If Satan, hell, AND heaven exists, then, logically, God does as well. BUT there are instances of Sandman talking with the Fates.

If you create a diagetic universe where God exists, no other creature can contradict him. So, if the Fates decreed something against Him, what would happen? The fact is, it doesn't make sense.

Gaiman never bothers to explain or sort out these contradictions. That makes for sloppy writing.

Back to my original point, Jim Butcher sticks to traditional mythology, and when he doesn't, he explains why/how it works in the diagetic universe. He does it just leave it hanging out there, creating a massive taint on what could be an excellent work, as Gaiman often does.

Gaiman is a great researcher. He has assisted in the creating of From Hell and Watchmen, both which I love. But when it comes time for him to stand on his own as a writer, he leaves gaps the size of Jupiter in the narrative, leaving anyone even remotely familiar with the source material questioning.

Let me make something else quite clear, neither here, nor anywhere, do I ever “try to make friends” or care about what people think. This is a correction, not an excuse. The fact that all of you couldn't get the base opinion down speaks largely for your own biases. Maybe throw away your urge to be trendy, and replace it with the responsibility to think and understand before you go around judging.

It does make sense though. If God gave Free Will to creatures, yet is omnipotent & omniscient, yet also has "the Great Plan" (these three conditions are usually attributed to Him), then what will be will be. If the Furies challenged Him and He fell or overcame them, it's what He wanted in the first place. When you look at the concept of the Endless throughout the whole series, you get a greater sense of Destiny's role, the face that everyone has their time and place onstage, their role to play, and that's that. It IS explained, several times over, throughout the course of the Sandman series.

That you can't suspend your disbelief for this means that Gaiman's diegesis isn't working for you, but it is not a signal of flawed writing/research.

So we're all wrong and stupid, whereas you're correct and smug? Perhaps you should admit that you weren't at all clear in your original meaning.

I like being trendy. What are we being trendy about anyway? Dissing God/Gods or liking Gaiman, an author who has been around since the 80s?

I think I am beginning to see what you are trying to get at.

If you are referring to the recent adaptation by Christians of addressing their deity by the impersonal noun, "God", then you are fractionally correct in that most other religions know what their deities names in fact are. The Judeo/Christian desert god of war has a great many names, but none of them are "God".

Many polytheists will happily inform you that, for example, Brahma, Vishnu, and Krishna are Gods. I also know Greek patriots who have rejected the Orthodox Church as foreign and hold the twelve Δωδεκάθεον as their Gods.

My God is God. Your god is a god. However, my God is a woman and her name is काली.

It almost feels like you're arguing with yourself.

what does 'FAIL' stand for? I figured out GTFO on my own but the other I'm confused about.

I agree with PGoutis... it wasn't the biases and 'urges to be trendy' and disagreement that brought about such wrath. It was calling everyone foolish that did it. I realize making friends and being a conformist are not your goals or whatever but there's no need to be personally alienating.

YAY !!

oh hahahaha jeeze these are killing me-

didnt we have an epic fail thread going for a while. what ever happened to that, and is it time for a resuscitation ? nate ? mike ? anyone ? bueller..

(and where the hell is karb ? i havent seen that cat in like forever.)

I couldn't finish the first dresden book, but I however, have not one problem finishing books by Gaiman.