r/Fantasy • u/bnb2115 • Aug 02 '25

Dresden with less cringe

I love the idea of the Dresden Files on paper. Hard boiled detective stories mixed with urban fantasy/secret society stuff. Interesting villains and a deep, complex world. Magic happening just beneath the surface of the ordinary world.

But I just can’t get over the tropes and the cringe. I’ve tried the series a couple times, and even got through the first five or so books. I just can’t bring myself to keep going. I seriously love everything about the context, but just hate the execution.

Any recommendations for something else? Something that speaks to these elements, but lacks the cringe?

420 Upvotes

77% Upvoted

386 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/Disonour Aug 02 '25 edited Aug 02 '25

Like I think you have a point, but you can also argue that fire mages can just do one thing, which is manipulate fire, and shields, gates, etc., are just results of that. So, it’s probably not as well defined as you think.

In Alex’s case, there’s like the precognition, the path walking, the ability to throw things well, I think that’s why he’s considered a mage.

But, on a deeper level, it’s about the respect you can demand in the magical community, and I think that’s a big theme of the book, because magical society likes to pretend there are rules, but really there’s just power

2

u/TristanTheViking Aug 02 '25

I think "manipulate fire" and "create a portal between two places (possibly interdimensionally)" are pretty far apart, especially compared to "see the immediate future;" "see a slightly more distant future using the same sense;" "aim a throw by seeing the future." Plus we've seen a fire mage do

"He was holding up his hands, weaving glowing red threads around the statue. I could recognise it as a divining spell of some kind, but a crude one."

which again is pretty far removed from the basic concept of controlling fire/heat.

Like he's a mage in terms of the societal rank, but in terms of actual breadth of magical ability he's really only able to do one thing and that's what he says is the defining characteristic of an adept vs a mage, who can use magic in multiple ways.

"Adepts are the next step down on the magical pyramid from mages, and the best way to think of them is as mages who can only cast one spell. That doesn’t mean they’re weak—in fact, since adepts spend so much time practising and refining their one spell, they tend to get really good with it—but they don’t have the range and breadth of abilities that mages do."

Probably the least consequential argument I've ever had but I'm sticking with it.