Skip to main content

Harry Dresden

I've said before... the Dresden Files is a great show. The writing is fabulous. The actors are perfect.

So now I've read one of Jim Butcher's Harry Dresden books.

They aren't the same. There's a bit of difference in the set-up, but not much. There were changes made in the setting that really were necessary to bring this from book form to television. For example, in the book he's usually in his apartment, which does have a basement. But it's really small. On television he has an office with a kitchenette and a basement and a loft where he sleeps. It doesn't open into a hallway but opens out to the street. I think that was necessary.

Anyhow, I read _Proven Guilty_ which seems to be well along in the chronology. Even without reading the earlier books it worked. There were lots of references to earlier stories but I think the reaction, when I read them, will be "way cool, this is the one with Thomas in it" rather than being annoyed that I already know what happens.

We will see. I will certainly read more of them.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

 

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...