sure is pretentious up in here

[luciazephyr]

Okay, so a long time ago I wrote a short post about Harry and his Issues. I was thinking about posting an extended version of that to the official forums to gauge fan reaction and see how others interpret the series.

So here is the revised version of that post. I want to make it as... friendly as I can, while still being critical. If anyone can think of improvements I could slip in, I'd be open to them.

A Critical Look at Harry Dresden's Capital I-Issues

Disclaimer: I love these books. I really, really do. That said, I am a very critical reader and enjoy extrapolating text and subtext to get a clearer image of the universe inside the story and what it says about the world. I'm also a big believer in the Death of the Author (ie: the text is the only resource, all Word of God is moot). This is going to be critical of the books, but that does not mean I'm being critical of Mr. Butcher or of anyone who disagrees with me. All interpretations all valid, I believe. And everything to follow is just my interpretation.

Okay? Cool.


Harry has got serious issues with sex and gender. This is something acknowledged in the text, but not to the extent I think is warranted. Then again, Harry Dresden is not one for introspection, is he?

But that does not preclude us looking at his issues and trying to piece together why they exist. In doing so, I have what I think is a pretty good theory on the topic. I'm not sure if it was Mr. Butcher's intention of writing Harry this way, but everything does fit together rather neatly.

So lets outline what I'm talking about here:

-Relentless heteronormativity, even given Harry's habit of appreciating the physique of men
-A negative view of sex
-A deep want for a stereotypical monogamous relationship

Let me give an example of each.

Heteronormativity: Chivalry is just a fancy word for sexism, and Harry is confronted with this by Murphy and others throughout the series, but never gets better on the issue. Harry treats people very differently due to their gender and throws around a lot of "bitch"es and indulges in some skeevy attitudes. For a good example of this, look to Proven Guilty, where Harry remains fixated on Molly's body and clothing choices for a good half of the book, going so far as to call her "frankenhooker," which was a bit beyond the pale, even for him. At the same time, Harry is rather... complimentary to his male friends. When he's always ready to let the readers know how ripped Billy, Michael, and Sanya are.

Which is not be saying Harry's gay. Not at all. I think he reads as a rather repressed bisexual, but as being heterosexual is a big part of his personal identity, he doesn't show interest outside a wandering, appreciative eye.


Negative view of sex: All over the books. Thematically, in the series, sex is a bad thing. One of the earliest instances of this is when Harry witnesses Bianca and her lover in Storm Front. The scene is play very much for titillation, but Harry's reaction is one of disgust and discomfort. In Harry's world, sex is a Bad Thing with few exceptions. For a male protagonist, he is often menaced by women in a sexual way. The Red Court and White Court are both deeply rooted sexual predation. The Winter Court also gets in on this with Maeve and Lea. Lea in particular, actually. Lea doing bad things is often given a squicky sexual twist (see: Grave Peril) that Harry finds off-putting.


The White Picket Fence Ideal: Harry is deeply monogamous. Recall that in Proven Guilty, Harry and Murphy actually have a very serious Relationship Discussion, and Harry's hesitation stems from his need for a stable, comfortable bond that's rooted in stereotype. His wants are so transparent, Murphy is fully aware of them and lets him know they wouldn't work out because of his inability to compromise in this.


That's what I'm talking about. These are all just small examples of Harry's attitudes on things. None of the above are really healthy outlooks for him.

But here's the kicker. Each and every one of them makes perfect sense when you evaluate them with Harry's past history in mind.


Harry's origin story, particularly his time with Justin, is rooted in betrayal of consent. Justin took Harry in and gave him a home and manipulated Harry and Elaine to be bound to each other, pretty much setting Harry up with his adoptive sister. Harry's story really kicks off when Justin violated his trust and attempted to invade and change his mind.

As we know, Harry ran to his Godmother for aid, and she did a ritual on him (sort of, it's complicated). In the flashback to this, it's also heavily implied she took advantage of Harry while he was bound, bleeding, and assaulted with glamour.

(This is further evidenced by Mab's initiation of Harry as her Knight later, which sets an unsettling precedent about how soul-binding deals are forged between humans and Fae.)

So three major things happened in a very short amount of time. His surrogate father tried to invade his mind, his surrogate sister and lover was turned against him and he was left believing he killed her, and his Godmother took advantage of him when he was defenseless. He was hurt sexually, emotionally, and mentally. These character defining events code heavily as rape. They took away his free will and agency, and with Elaine's "death", he lost everyone he loved. Not for the first time, either.


Let's add that back up with his issues, detailed above. Harry gets incredibly hostile when his autonomy is threatened. His language describing sex around him is often negative. He looks down on promiscuousness, especially with Molly and with the Alphas in "Day Off". He clearly and plainly wants love and affection throughout the series, but is absolutely unwilling to compromise his boundaries to get it. At the same time, he does have subtextual attraction to men occasionally and could read as a closeted bisexual to some (myself included, but I understand not everyone agrees there).

His backstory revolves around a rape metaphor, and his lingering issues regarding that past are not aided by later events. He is gangraped by the Red Court in Grave Peril. "Shelia" takes a leaf out of Justin's book and invades him mind in a sexual manner in Dead Beat. The White Court's attempts to feast on him go without saying. When he finally breaks out of his mold and starts a relationship with Luccio, it explodes in his face and has him used as an unwilling accessory of rape against her. (Which has interesting parallels to his previous relationship with Elaine.)


In my opinion, it's no wonder Harry has these issues. Sex is a dangerous thing to him, and he's been violated in many different ways in his past. He's part of a society that touts Free Will as paramount, but when he's taken on the Stone Table by Mab in Changes, he doesn't even register it as a violation. Hell, by then, he'd been wronged in plenty of worse ways, right? He talks about mortal free will with reverence, but when his own is compromised, he often brushes it off as a fact of life. To him (and to much of the supernatural community), the loss of free will is the cost of doing business in their world.

It's no wonder that Harry seeks out heteronormative, monogamous relationships. To him, it must seem like they are in a way "safer" and put him in a dominant role where he's less likely to be hurt for the umpteenth time. That's not to say he wants to dominate his partner, but he's afraid of being subservient in any way. Of course he aims for that "perfect" man-woman relationship that he codes as the norm. In reality, such a relationship doesn't often exist. By seeking out an ideal instead of a reality, he protects himself.


Those are my deep, thinky thoughts on Harry Dresden. I hope some of you found them interesting food for thought, even if you don't agree with them. I find analyzing the issues of The Dresden Files really interesting, and Harry is just the tip of that iceberg.

Well? What do ya'll think?

Comments

[everbright]

You might want to make it clearer that being a 'critical reader' is akin to being a critical thinker, and not a just a picky person. I read it the correct way, but it would be easy to misinterpret.

Otherwise, AWESOME. Some people are going to find just the mention of Harry being Bi threatening (Insecuuuu~uure), but that's just life and that observation a integral part of your analysis here. I like it!

[polarisnorth]

The scene is play -- should be "played."

I think it's a good post and there are a lot of valid points here (and you know I agree with your interpretation), but I can't help worrying that the forums are going to be a lot less friendly to an approach like this. *sigh* I hope it goes down all right.

[samjohnsson]

Pretty much agree with all of it.

That said? Hostile audience go!

[schneefink]

Definitely interesting food for thought. Thanks!

Iirc, Harry didn't realize until Summer Knight that he and Elaine had been set up by Justin, right? As far as I remember he still saw Elaine as his romantic love ideal from the past until they were betrayed by Justin, so basically what he's still looking for. Only it's not Elaine anymore, even though she's alive. I'd have to read that book again.
I hope we get the second part of the backstory one day, I'm sure it'll be very interesting.

[randomcat]

Just wandered in trying to re0find my link to MOC, and thought this was interesting.
Did you ever post it in forums?
For the record, I agree with most of it.
I get that Harry doesn't ping bisexual for a lot of people, but then, this society doesn't acknowlege bisexuality to the degree that it occurs anyway. Given that most people are in the gray area between hetero and homo, and very few actually believe that, making up other trendy fad words to explain the natural impulses that come with it, that's not surprising. It's a cultural thing to do with loaded labels, rather than an expression of sexuality. oh, well.

I do disagree with your definition of chivalry as sexism. I believe the two to be discrete attitudes. Not that it can't or doesn't often act as a cover for sexism, but chivalry is essentially an urge to protect, please and serve, so an outer focused impulse, or social behavior; but sexism is essentially defensive, even when it's expressed as an attack, so it's an expression of egocentrism, or antisocial behavior. imo.

The last is a little more complicated.
"going so far as to call her "frankenhooker"
I disagree, categorically. The reference didn't describe Molly, but her style. The distinction is important for several reasons involving Harry's issues with sex, sexuality, and his chivalry.
Harry has real body and exposure issues; he wears layers. Like many abuse victims, he does not try to project an attractive physical image; He appreciates physical attractiveness, but tries to reduce/hide/obscure his own, and doesn't like seeing other people flaunt it. Not because he disapproves, but because it really worries him. I think, to some extent, enhancing or just playing up one's physical attractiveness feels dishonest as well as dangerous to him. Probably because projecting an attractive image seems to include an offer, or a willingness, that to/for him, isn't real, and because, like a glamor, it obscures part of the truth about oneself.
Dunno, but I do think it's important to separate his opinions on appearance from his opinions on the people themselves.

[luciazephyr]

Oh wow, okay.

Chivalry, as used as an excuse in modern society and in the Dresden Files, is treating women differently by the virtue that they are women. It is inherently sexist, because it is all about unequal treatment due to gender. It is not a good thing, it perpetuates the idea that women are somehow inferior and needing special treatment. When it is not that (or, in addition to that), it's Nice Guy Syndrome, wherein men expect that if they do Nice Things, women are obligated to pay attention to them and, in some extreme but common instances, have sex with them. see: essays written about women lacking agency and being considered public property.


Harry's actions in PG enrage me in a way I can barely textually convey. It was not fucking okay for Harry to call a young woman "Frankenhooker". And do not hide behind the idea that he was talking to her clothes and not her. That's akin to say that "you're dressed like a whore" is not a personal attack, which it is. The idea that projecting an attractive image being an offer is Rape Culture, and while I don't disagree that TDF has a lot of massive issues perpetuating Rape Culture, if you think for a moment that it's in any way okay to not judge the shit out of that attitude and be angry about it, you are categorically wrong. Harry's backstory does not and never will excuse slut-shaming, rape apologist language like that, and I'm deeply disturbed that this somehow isn't obvious.

[randomcat]

oh, wow, ok!

Your response re chivalry is exactly why I don't like to see the two conflated. Chivalry is not solely directed at women, not even in TDF, where it's directed at just about everybody that isn't Harry.
As long as people are allowed to call sexist behavior "chivalry", men will continue to feel free to denigrate, sabotage and disempower women under the guise of good manners, and women will continue to feel bad about objecting.
As a longtime radical feminist, I prefer to use the real definition of chivalry, so I can call any asshole misusing it to excuse his offensive and unchivalrous behavior on his error. YMMV, but please don't fall into the trap that says any courteous/chivalrous behavior is sexist: (it's not, both sexes can and do behave chivalrously and appropriately) or that sexism is ever courteous or chivalrous. It's not. That's not what chivalry means. Doing Nice Things for people should get positive attention, but that's not why we practice chivalry. We do it because people deserve a little help and kindness when they need it, and because it makes us feel good to give that. Full stop. Sorry, but I'm not going to attack the symptoms when false chivalry pisses me off, I'm going to try to eradicate the underlying causes, because that's what needs to be done.

I did not hide behind anything when I stated, very clearly, that he insulted the image she projected through her style, not herself. I believe it to be an important distinction. People have the right to project any image they please, and they should not kid themselves about how that image will affect the reactions of other people to them. You can be enraged about it all you want, but Dress for success, dress to fit in, dress to blend, and other sorts of advertising and camoflage via costume are all valid psychological tools that work to elicit certain reactions from others.
This is why a lot of abuse victims, or people that feel harassed, are not comfortable in revealing clothes and often go to some effort to disguise their attractiveness- Because it's a valid way to avoid or reduce negative attention, and the reverse is also true. Do such people project that onto others? of course they do. Is that in and of itself a validation of Rape culture? Hell no. It's a valid reaction to past experience. Should such people be required to expose themselves to their fears by dressing outside their comfort zone? I'm not a therapist, but I'm going to say they have a right to feel how they do. They also have a right to get over it at their own pace.

"That's akin to say that "you're dressed like a whore" is not a personal attack, which it is."
No, it's really not akin at all. Nor is that statement always a personal attack, however it may feel. It can be a simple statement of fact, or it can be a clumsy expression of concern or warning, based on the projected persona and probable reactions to it, or it can be a fucked up way of saying "I wouldn't be comfortable with that". Does it mean one should not dress that way, or that one should be punished for it? Hell, no. Does it mean that Harry's reactions to dress (which imo are mostly based on his personal issues) should be judged on a culture wide basis as "slut-shaming, rape apologist language", but yours and mine should not? Hell no.
Harry's only a fictional character, but I know enough women and men like him that I don't feel comfortable ascribing their valid reactions to a desire to attack another, as you do.
I've had friends and coworkers try to judge me, maybe even control my choices, by saying my work-appropriate attire made me look like an office drone, like a tramp, like trailertrash, redneck, city girl, granola, wannabe, Yuppie, construction worker, tree hugger, blah blah blah. And you know what?
It's not about me. It's about their issues. Good to know what reactions you're getting, imo, so you can be aware when you choose clothing for the day, and dress appropriately for the image you want to project and the reactions you want to evoke.
Call it slutshaming etc. if you want to internalize their opinions, but imo, we choose our clothing knowing very well what the likely reactions are, that reactions will be mixed, and we'll never please everybody. There's a certain sense of personal responsiblity that we need to incorporate into that decision-making process. We do it knowing some people will feel uncomfortable about our choices, and we may get negative reactions. The only thing we can do wrong in that case is go into it ignorant or in denial of what those reactions might be, so that we are unprepared and vulnerable. Dressing like a "hobo" or "slut" or "office drone" are all appropriate choices in certain circumstances, and nobody has the right to judge the results, either way.

[luciazephyr]

You are categorically wrong. Harry says in canon that he's the kind of guy that thinks women should be treated like ladies. That's his definition of chivalry and the one I'm talking about here. We don't have many examples of classic lit chivalry in society anymore, so let's not confuse the two. If you wanna call it "false chivalry", fine, but it's what we're talking about here and it's what a lot of sexist people think is okay.

and nobody has the right to judge the results, either way.

And yet they do.

You do realize that we live in a society that honestly believes that if a woman is dressed "like a tramp" or a slut or what have you, she's asking to be raped and it's her own fault? We judge women by their clothes and assign derogatory terms to them because they dress a certain way and that depreciates their value in society's eyes. A woman in a tight top and boyshorts is already giving it away, why should we care if she got assaulted. She took the risk right?

I'm so fucking glad you can let people's remarks roll off you but those people's issues? Are informed by society and are symptomatic of how society mistreats women. And I don't take it lightly.

[randomcat]

lj ate my response again. grr.
"he's the kind of guy that thinks women should be treated like ladies. That's his definition of chivalry"

No, sorry, you're wrong. That's Harry's definition of manners. Manners, good or bad, are not chivalry. Sexism is not chivalry, either. Harry practices actual chivalry, which is not sexist, and has almost nothing to do with his oldfashioned manners or his intermittent sexism.

Harry can open all the doors for Murphy he wants, but he doesn't undermine or sabotage her in a fight, with her employers, or with her family and colleagues, because he isn't sexist about that. He acknowleges her own chivalry too. And that's not sexist.
I don't think I'm going to get through to you, but this attacking courtesy and chivalrous behavior patterns just because they sometimes conceal sexism, rather than attacking offensive sexist behavior because it is sexist, is really counterproductive. AND it means that any woman dealing with actual sexist behavior first has to waste time and energy cutting through your bullshit smokescreen to set people straight on what's objectionable about it.

Be aware; I spent 20 years having that conversation with coworkers again and again, so I'm not inclined to let you slide on perpetuating it. It goes like this;
No, shitforbrains, offering to do X for her was not chivalrous or polite, because implying she can't or won't do her job is a fucking insult, and doing so in front of her boss/trainees/colleagues is a blatant personal attack deliberately undermining her abilities, authority and professional competence. And you know it. So quit lying and blaming your Momma and whining to everybody about how feminists attack you just for being polite. NO, her response was neither rude nor unreasonable, because every single person you know would tear you a new one for pulling a stunt like that.
That is not what your Momma taught you, and she would not approve. Ok, How bout we call your Momma up and ask her if she approves of you deliberately embarassing your coworkers in public and sabotaging their work? I didn't think so." eyeroll. It gets old.
Women are still out there suffering real sexism.
But. As long as you and other so-called feminists allow and encourage these assholes to pretend there's no difference between sexism, courtesy and chivalry, we'll have to go on fighting sexism and sabotage without even the slight alleviation of common courtesy, because your confusion allows them to pretend feminists object to the courtesy, not the sexist behavior.
And I am not fucking okay with that.


"we live in a society that honestly believes that if a woman is dressed "like a tramp" or a slut or what have you, she's asking to be raped and it's her own fault?"
no, we don't. We live in a society where some people think so, in spite of what the law says. These same people claim anybody welldressed with a fat wallet is asking to be robbed, and anybody with unguarded valuables is asking to lose them, and any woman on her own is asking to be raped no matter how she's dressed.
And they get away with it because they're partly right, because bad stuff happens when you're not aware and don't accept responsibility for increasing your own risks. That's not right, and we all know it, but you won't change it by pitching a fit.
Here's the truth: we live in a society that both evaluates and judges people by how they dress. I live in a society where, if I attend a hearing on resource management, I may not be admitted and my voice will not register if I dress like an environmentalist rather than like a corporate consultant. Yet, if I dress to be heard and taken seriously, most of what I say will be suspect to half the audience anyway.
I know that. I don't like it. Wah fuckin wah. That's how it is. We can't change that by blaming people for judging because that doesn't work. The only thing any of us can do is know it, challenge every instance of it, and make those assumptions invalid every fucking day.

[luciazephyr]

You think dressing a certain way increases someone's risk to be raped. It fucking doesn't. Rape happens because of rapists, not because a woman dresses provocatively. Tell, me, do little old ladies who get taken advantage of dress to be raped? Do girls who wear lighter clothes because of hot weather?

Did I when I was ten years old and was raped my mother's boyfriend?

Get the fuck out of my journal. You want to spread your rape apologism, do it elsewhere. You're banned.

[randomcat]

also? This isn't the first time you and I have gotten into a blazing argument. It's kind of funny that we agree on so much, on a very fundamental basis, yet get so passionate about the points where we disagree.
Just fyi, I respect your opnions and yourself, even when I don't agree.