Talk:The Dresden Files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Crime task force. (with unknown importance)
This article is supported by the Fantasy task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Misc

This book series is one of the best I've ever read. If you haven't read it, do yourself a favor and rectify that. -GG Crono

Go ahead and merge it. I don't know how. -GG Crono

To whomever added the extended characters page: We should really keep this page trimmed a bit. The small bits really don't tell the reader of this article much. If you feel up to writing a mini-bio, go for it, but I'd prefer to keep this trim and informitive. -GG Crono

Hi, I was the person who inserted the long list of characters. I am planning to first do a listing before doing a more in-depth write up about each of them, as well as preparing a base for anyone who is interested in doing the write-ups. I admit that telling too much about the story could be detrimental to readers but that is what the spoiler warning is for. Furthermore, I would think that we should include as much canon information as possible to make this article complete; too trimmed would make it nothing much more than a stub. Neofaun 17:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

To GG Crono: I just noted that you have again removed the list of characters. I understand that you want to keep the article small but I question the need for it. Readers can scroll and choose to read the bits they are interested and the way I understand how Wikipedia works is that any reliable information should be in an article. Furthermore, I personally find it rude to excise whole sections of information (twice) that someone have taken a lot of trouble to insert without giving any warning or allowing the matter to be further discussed. I am going to restore what you took out again. If you have any issues, I would be more than happy to discuss them with you and any other interested parties to come to a common consensus. Neofaun 17:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Your points are well noted. I was just doing what I thought looked better. As such, I think it would be best to not add entries to the list until they can be filled out with more than a line or two of information. In any case, I won't change it again. Apologies. -GG Crono

Thank you for your understanding. I have given some thought about your concern that the completed article might look bloated and unwieldy. A possible solution would be to create a 'Characters of The Dresden Files' sub-page which would be devoted solely to all the characters and their bios. What say you?Neofaun 12:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with having a sub-page for the characters. It would help greatly and let the main page appear more organized and uncluttered.Jordan 00:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Someone else create it, though. Someone whose Wiki-Fu is stronger than mine. -GG Crono

LOL, I will try to spare some time and get around to it (eventually) but my Wiki-Fu is not really great either. Anyone who wishes to have a go at it in the meantime is more than welcome to.Neofaun 16:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi I was doing a search for Jim Butcher And I didn't see an Author Bio With The Dresden Files , And I'm new at the Wiki so I dont feel comfortable at editing the page yet, so If some one could add one It would be great

The Author Bio wouldn't be in this article. See the article on Jim Butcher.

Hi I was going to add the ISBN for Wizard at Large the book club edition and I couldn't add it because of the chart. Here is the ISBN13 (9780739476581) October 2006. If the creator of the chart could please add this to the list I would be greatful. --Sandpanther 01:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone added An ASIN Number to the chart the ISBN Number Is Listed in the previous post. The ISBN is in the new ISBN13 Format. If someone could the ISBN to the chart I would be greatful --Sandpanther 03:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a chart, it's a template. You can edit it by going to Template:The Dresden Files bibliography. - Debuskjt 00:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breakout of Characters

I'm going to breakout the characters into a separate article. Reformatted and reworded them a lot to fit better with Wiki, too.


Yes, they really should be seperate. It couldn't hurt to be more consise in the introduction either, it doesn't read as well as it might. - On a side note, I've read the first three books myself, they're fairly interesting but nothing to go crazy over. -

They get better. Read 5-8

You mean "Bob explains that the Norse berserkers were lycanthropes." isn't anough of a description of who Bob is? I haven't read any books and I notice the TV show doesn't do much to explain who BOb is... at least they do a better job than wiki. Who the hell is Bob?

Bob in the books is totally different from Bob on the TV show. In the books he is a genius air spirit bound to a skull. On the show he is the ghost of a long dead wizard.

[edit] Rewrites

This article needs serious revision in the writing department. I plan on going over the vampire court articles specifically, when I find the time. Probably when winter break comes around in two weeks. Oneangrypirate 12:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC) oneangrypirate

Starting on the revision. Revamped the Black and Jade court pieces for now. Just basic reorganization and diction changes, and I added a little bit. Oneangrypirate 22:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC) oneangrypirate

I believe that there is an error in the description of the Red Court. It describes them as being organized in a feudalistic caste system. However, caste systems are hereditary with little social mobilitity. In the books the vampire Bianca is promoted into the nobility which seems to imply that they have a purely feudalistic organization.

[edit] Constantine?

Is this series at all related to the DC comic character John Constantine, a recurring character primarily in the vertigo seies of books with large roles in Hellblazer the primary book featuring that character as well as minor roles in sandman, shade the changing man, the books of magic, etc. I'm just asking cause the concept of combining hardboiled detective with a wizard seems characteristic enough to note the similarities? Has the author ever commented one way or the other on a similar question?--72.200.80.15 01:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

They are unrelated. - Debuskjt 02:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Talking of which, there really should be a Trivia section. Jim Butcher himself said that there is many homages in his books(Characters having names similar to "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", quotes from the "Evil Overlord List", homages to "Star Wars" and "Lord of The Rings") —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.118.105.52 (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
More exactly, they are unrelated, save that Butcher has no qualms about making literary allusions to other works... which, yes, may well include John Constantine. Abb3w 23:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't be the first time someone replicated an existing character and altered them slightly for their own stories... For some reason James Bond/Jason Bourne comes to mind most vividly. (StarkeRealm 07:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] New Section

When someone does the cleanup for this article, they may want to consider putting in a section on how magic and paranormal zoology differ from other universes. The use of swords and guns by magic users, for starters, is not often seen in other universes. The Taped Crusader 09:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Gatekeeper

The following sentence does not seem justified to me: He is the keeper of the Outer Gates, and has the power to see the past and future. The part about job is specualtion as is the suggestion that he knows the future (especially given it could be a violation of the 7th law of magic). I've moved it here unless we can justify it. RJFJR 21:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In the eighth Dresden novel, Proven Guilty, pp. 39-41, Bob the Skull talks to Harry about the Gatekeeper giving Harry a warning about black magic in town that he, Harry, needs to put a stop to, and the possibility of temporal paradox. Here's the portion of the conversation that relates to the Gatekeeper's possible powers:

"[The Gatekeeper] got this from hindsight, he had to," Bob said.

"Hindsight," I murmured. "You mean he went to the future for this?"

"Well," Bob hedged. "That would break one of the Laws, so probably not. But he might have sent himself a message from there, or maybe gotten it from some kind of prognosticating spirit. He might even have developed some ability for that himself. Some wizards do."

So while we don't know what the Gatekeeper's powers are, it seems to be canon that he has some method--although we don't know what it is--of foreseeing future events. --Rhysdux 00:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the description is not really ability to see events of the future and past, but more the ability to communicate through the stream of time. From the quotes of Bob, it seems he looks back at the past, then sends the message to himself in the past. I think of the following analogy, passing a note in class, its trecherous to get it from the front row to the back row, but sometimes you can see some things up front that you can't in back. The actual medium for this kind of communication is unclear, if he sends it to himself in a manner he will recognize as something from the future. Or the way it sounds more likely to me is the prognosticating line. Meaning that he looks at the current state of affairs and INFERS possible future scenarios, then goes about preparing for them. When one is no longer viable then it obviously will not become the future. Bob leaves this open as either his' (the gatekeeper) ability or that of a spirit he employs. --Trs8200 10:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive/conservative

Whoever keeps changing the info on the council to say that Dresden et al. is more on the progressive side of the council you have it backwards - changed it back with more clarity. The progressive/modern approach is that of the Merlin and his flunkies... If the Merlin had been more conservative Dresden and him would get along a lot better :)

The whole dichotomous labels should be removed as it's POV. You can describe their position on specific stances without resorting to either side being progressive/conservative. - Debuskjt 03:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

We need to create, at the very least stubs, articles for the books and appriopriate edits to the disambuigation pages.--Thanks, Yossi842 00:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the vampire, werewolves, etc portions should be moved to there own respective articles, just a suggestion, seems as how this article is extremely heavy on text, and yes, lol, I know this is an encycolpedia but it should still have pictures and the like.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The Vandal Watchman (Talk) 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Pictures of what? The Dresden Files universe is entirely textual. There's nothing to post pictures of. - Debuskjt 03:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
There is, actually, book illustrations, some featuring the creatures listed above(well at least illustration of newest book had ghouls in it).as for different article - All of Organization stuff should be moved into new articles (Creatures of Dresden Files or Organizations of Dresden files) With the possibility, on latter on, when more books are released - to divide it even more(Like article for White Council, Article for Vampire Courts and so on), its just too much stuff for main article...and it will increase as the new books are released...--88.118.105.52 17:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Audiobooks

On the listing of Audiobooks, #4 is listed as Fool Moon. It should be Summer Knight. Not sure if the ISBN number is correct. I'd change it myself, but I'm not sure how. The WikiForce is not strong in me (yet) NotThatKat 22:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. - Debuskjt 03:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK editions

Is it worth listing the UK paperback editions separately? They have different ISBN numbers (my copy of Dead Beat is 978-1-84149-528-6), different cover art, and the latest book, White Night, is out in paperback here.

Edit: No it isn't; It was Proven Guilty I found.145.8.171.98 13:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knights of the Cross speculation

There is a paragraph that has been added twice to the section on the KotC. Personally, I believed it to be speculative, and outside of the bounds of the article, but it was added again. Here is the text of it:

There is also the possibility of a fourth sword considering that 4 nails were most likely used in the crucifiction due to the fact that either 2 nails or one long one would need to be used for his feet. Also, due to a possible equality of power among the nights, a bigger, stronger, or longer nail could prove to have stronger effects upon the sword.

From my reading of the books, nothing about this is in there, and as such, such speculation is not appropriate for this article. Please add your imput. --Donovan Ravenhull 07:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation, this does seem to be purely speculative. Only actual canon or prominent theories from fandom (explicitly mentioned as such) should be presented in the article.
Mrobfire 22:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The same IP address (70.88.195.141 (talk)) that added the previous text seems to have made another, similar unfounded claim:
It is also possible that Excalibur is a fourth sword, or one of the swords itself.
My recollection of the books is that there is also no mention of this tidbit, and therefore I've removed it. If I'm wrong, please feel free to add it back in with a citation of the appropriate novel. -- Elch Yenn 19:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I seem to remember Micheal commenting that Merlin (i.e., the Athurian legend) kept his sword at one point. I will have to dig for my books to see if he made the direct reference to his sword having been Excalibur. I believe this was in the same conversation where Micheal tells Harry he knows about Harry's exposure to the Denarian. If I'm alive enough when I get home (I work midnights), I'll see if I can dig up my copy. --Donovan Ravenhull (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I used Amazon's "Search Inside" feature to look up all references to "Merlin" in "Proven Guilty". p.383-384 of the hardcover edition has the conversation between Michael and Harry where Michael states that the original Merlin was briefly the custodian of Amoracchius. Although the name Excalibur is never specifically mentioned, the text does suggest it:
"Wow. You mean ... that sword right there. Your sword is ..." I left it unsaid.
"Probably," [Michael] said, nodding. (Proven Guilty, pp. 383-384)
I notice that the original text I removed speculating that Excalibur is a 4th sword was added back in. I'll reword it assuming that the contributor was referring to this passage. -- Elch Yenn (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Going to edit the article, I noticed that the point about Excalibur possibly being Amoracchius was already in the description of Amoracchius in the same section. I've made a minor edit clarifying that Merlin's possession of Amoracchius was stated as fact, so the article now retains the suggestion that Excalibur may be Amoracchius. I've also again removed the unsourced statement that Excalibur was a 4th sword separate from the three revealed in the books. -- Elch Yenn (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Street Wolves

I have deleted the section on the street wolves since I felt it was lacking any useful content. Furthermore this section only pertains to a very minor group of characters in the novel that don't deserve treatment in their own section. Mrobfire 22:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gold Denarius?

I don't recall mention of this; source book? Abb3w 18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing text (below)

There is also one more angel that is bound within a burned gold Roman denarius.

pending someone providing a source; I'll be rereading from Death Masks on looking for it. Abb3w 22:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've found no reference to this anywhere in the books I have. I can't rule it out appearing in White Night, "Something Borrowed", or "It's My Birthday, Too". However, I saw no reference to it in Death Masks (novel), Blood Rites (novel), Dead Beat (novel), or Proven Guilty (novel). Abb3w 11:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Minor update: it's not in "Something Borrowed" (dealing with Fae and Werewolves), "It's My Birthday Too" (dealing with Black and White Court vampires LARPing), or "Heorot" (dealing with Mac, Ms. Gard, a spawn of the Grendel, and a few psycho fae kitties). If there's reference anywhere, it's probably fanfic, board speculation, or yet-unpublished material subject to revision. 69.68.185.70 (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Source address for the originating edit seems to be from the same unsubstantiated "4th sword" speculation above. Abb3w (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Omnibus

What are "Omnibus editions" - how about explaning that. --IceHunter 13:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a common Book Club tactic; reprints under a single cover of two or more previously published shorter volumes, with (generally) a new title. A quick glance at my bookshelves turns up MZB's "The Children of Hastur" for a non-Butcher example. Someone ought to do something about the redirect at omnibus edition to indicate its meaning in the world of dead trees. Abb3w 11:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup and Rewrite

I've been thinking of cleaning this up, and the addition of the Wikipedia:Notability tag has pushed me into making an attempt. I like the content here (and loved the novels), so I'm not inclined to kill anything, but the vast majority of the information is clearly in-universe. I'm thinking that the article needs narrative, publishing history, plot summary (of the series - more detailed plots should be on the individual book pages) and should acknowledge the TV series and RPG as well as giving greater precedence to the novels. I would like to see sections such as Organizations spun off into separate pages, but I figure that this is something that should be discussed here first, so I won't be touching them. My biggest lack at the moment is decent articles discussing the series of novels (TV series easy, novels hard) although I'm planning to reference a few of the interviews floating around. Any help would be much appreciated, and let me know if I'm stepping on any toes. Bilby (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The only note I would put in is that unless written in an extrodinary manner with 4000 refs and such, any spin-off articles would probably get nuked in current enviroment around here. Seen it happen with some other similar material. Other than that, I'll support you in your efforts here. --Donovan Ravenhull (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I can probably do the 400 refs (unfortunately, I have lot of experience), but I know what you mean, especially at the moment. :) However I think we have a quandary - as things stand the article is very much in-universe, but the material is still very good. It was great when I was reading the novels. So I don't want to delete it. However, I can't see the in-universe, cleanup and non-notable tags being removed while it is there. Would Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter be a valid model, with the subpages such as Anita Blake mythology? Bilby (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

i have no idea how to edit this but I JUST finished White Night (Dresden Files Book9) and the paperbacks ISBN is 978-0-451-46155-1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuhlenkott (talk • contribs) 08:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if any body's still reading this, but I did a bit of work on the article today and wanted to mention it in case anyone else wanted to work on improving it.

I've done a little bit of copy editing and formatted the article to get related sections together. For the sake of organization I placed the plot related elements first (as recommended by the novels wikiproject). Some of this could probably be merged or trimmed but I don't feel confidant enough in the material to do that since I'm only up to book 3 yet. The 7 rules of magic would probably be deemed unencyclopedic fan material but I left it there for the time being. Same goes for the pop culture reference article. The description of the staff glowing on the cover of each book was definitely unencyclopedic so that I did remove it, but if anyone wants to write about the art from a real world point of view -- how the artist came on board, methods and style, ect -- that would be fine.

Next publication information, which at the moment is just a list of different formats of publishing it. I didn't change anything major, but some improvements could be made. The list of books released could be expanded to include a one paragraph summary each, like some TV seasons do. Other media is fine where it is. I did like the section about the comic book adaptation and how the series itself came to be. Any chance we could get more citations in here?

One thing that is missing from this article is critical response. Have there been any reviews from major literary critics? Any sales records? This would be a good place to add "real world information" and citations. Hewinsj (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds good. I've got a lot of critical response references to build in (I've been collecting them for a while now), so, if things go well, I'll see what I can do over the weekend. - Bilby (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Awesome. I'm not sure how much you have, but take your time and do what you can. It could probably go after the publishing history section. I'm going to take a look at some other literary articles when I have time time to see how they are laid out. Hewinsj (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)