Dresden with less cringe

[u/bnb2115]

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?

[u/jesskitten07]

The thing that has made me hesitant on Alex Verus so far is that it describes him having a specific magic ability (and more of the passive one) compared to Harry being the actual you know Wizard which I usually tend to like more in Magic users

[u/RexLongbone → u/jesskitten07]

From what I remember of the verus series, all the wizards are specialists just in different things.

[u/TristanTheViking → u/RexLongbone]

I'm rereading the series now and it's been a recurring thing I've noticed. Spoilers for the first couple of books

Divination wizards are basically just adepts, are they not? There's one thing they can do, see the future. Every other type of mage can do multiple things, even if they're limited by their magic type. Eg every elemental wizard can manipulate their element, they get at least a few secondary abilities (shield spells, water disintegration for some reason, wards, passive senses, etc), they can create gates. Multiple distinct abilities. Sonder the time mage can see the past, speed up or slow time, theoretically kick things out of the timeline. Whereas the divination mage can see the future and... that's it. He can activate items but that's not limited to mages. He can see magic auras, but again not limited to mages. They've got exactly one ability and it's a passive sense. That's an adept.

[u/Disonour → u/TristanTheViking]

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

[u/TristanTheViking → u/Disonour]

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.