The Dresden Files > DF Reference Collection
The YLC (Why Little Chicago) thread
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
--- Quote from: Cozarkian on November 05, 2012, 08:09:55 PM ---Gatekeeper would need to know a lot more than just the existence of LC to set up the accident-delay plan.
--- End quote ---
No argument there.
I would argue that everything you list can be answered by him looking at the future for the information in question. He doesn't have to insure the accident causes the right amount of damage if he can look at the accident, see how much damage it causes, and direct harry into the situation accordingly.
--- Quote ---Here's another problem with the accident-as-delay theory. Why didn't Harry's benefactor cause the accident and then immediately go fix LC?
--- End quote ---
Not causing a paradox because of seeing that that's the way things worked out ?
--- Quote ---Do we really think the Gatekeeper can secretly access Harry's apartment and fix LC but that he can't find a way to do it while Bob/Mouse are there?
--- End quote ---
Considering the sort of power levels Mouse is showing in later books, I can well see Rashid erring on the side of caution with regard to Mouse's presence.
--- Quote --- I realize we have differing opinions on Uriel, but I don't think we need to get into those here, because you are arguing for Gatekeeper, not Uriel, and I don't think Gatekeeper has the same level of knowledge as Uriel. Uriel, for example, probably knew about the Sanctum invocation.
--- End quote ---
For what it's worth, I think the most likely explanation for who actually fixed LC is somebody persuading or magically compelling Murphy or Thomas to use their keys to get through Harry's wards; I can see either Murphy or Thomas being persuadable on "if LC is not fixed harry will kill himself with it" grounds, but it takes Rashid or someone who is getting information from someone with at least Rashid levels of foreknowledge to know there's an issue in the first place.
--- Quote ---There is definitely evidence that greater powers are warring to use Harry as their pawn. The point is, if there are so many powers all try to use them, there ought to at least be competition where they can interfere with each other's plans.
--- End quote ---
Oh, I am sure there is. I'm less sure that the consequences of that competition will ever be unambiguously overt.
--- Quote --- If the eventual outcome is already defined and their competing efforts are futile to change it, then it's a math problem, not a story. The difference is, the math equation only has one solution regardless of whether you know it or not, while the ending of a story is subject to change until it is actually written, regardless of how unlikely it might be too change.
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure I'm buying that one; the end of a game of solitaire is a maths problem if you have perfect knowledge of where all the cards are, but it can still generate dramatic tension along the way, and given that we're getting the story through Harry, I can get quite enough tension out of Harry not knowing where things are going in the end regardless of whether Uriel does actually know to the last decimal place or not.
--- Quote ---Also, Harry might use his free will infrequently, but the case books are the situations where he is using free will,
--- End quote ---
To an extent, sure. But not all the time - it's very striking to me having just reread Changes how little Harry uses his free will in that book, he is determined all the way through to do whatever it takes to rescue Maggie and he doesn't shirk from doing whatever seems best in the moment to get him to that goal.
--- Quote --- so those are the situations where a person can't rely on a complicated accident-delay plan when simpler methods are available.
--- End quote ---
You keep talking about the putative plan here as if it were "set all these factors going that will interact in complicated unpredictable ways", and that is not what I am suggesting it is, which makes me feel like we are talking past each other. I am talking about a situation where the Gatekeeper as seen that if he does certain things Harry will, with absolute certainty, end up in the right place at the right time. Zero possibility of error. It looks fluid to Harry because from his perspective it's the future, but the Gatekeeper can see a point at which it has already happened, and is therefore, given the right start conditions, one hundred per cent reliable.
--- Quote ---They control Harry by predicting his emotional responses. Less emotional choices like "Do I call a cab, ask Murphy for a ride, walk, etc...." are harder to predict and can't be relied upon in setting up a plan.
--- End quote ---
I'd argue that they can be if you can look into the future and see in advance what value those variables have.
--- Quote ---That's a good rebuttal theory. However, if Demonreach can put a blind spot in Gatekeeper's knowledge, I would think some of the other players in PG could do the same.
--- End quote ---
No argument there, but I'm not seeing evidence for any other such player doing so in PG.
--- Quote ---How exactly does secretly fixing LC corrupt Harry's judgment without Harry realizing it?
--- End quote ---
Easing him into using something really rather powerful without the degree of thinking through its dangers than he otherwise might ?
--- Quote ---Secretly fixing it doesn't given Harry any reason to seek Lash's help in the future.
--- End quote ---
Which is why it makes sense to me that Lash would do it in PG, after being confronted in DB with precisely how stubborn Harry is and what extremes it takes to get him to ask her help, and as an element in the same strategy of corruption involved in his anger-management issues in pg and WN, which also do not involve him asking for her help.
--- Quote --- In other words, Harry's need to help Molly is the precise type of moment when he is most susceptible to temptation. If Lasciel had any bargaining chip to play in that situation (knowledge of the flaw) she would have played it.
--- End quote ---
Again, I flat-out do not believe that assertion. She tried that strategy in DB with innocent lives at risk and saw the limits to how much it would work.
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
--- Quote from: Orbweaver on November 05, 2012, 08:37:03 PM ---Then why has Uriel been taking actions that deliberately break the "rules of engagement" in order to "keep the balance", as he suggested he's been doing with Harry?
--- End quote ---
I think I'm seeing the rules of engagement at a different scale from what I may have come across as meaning, then, and I am sorry I was unclear.
I do not think Uriel is breaking any rules of engagement, ever. I think Uriel is quite clear about being permitted equal and opposite interventions to some specific class of actions from the Fallen - I don't think that's breaking any rule, I think it is a rule. And rather a specific one, down to the level of seven words for seven words. I also think it's clear that if Uriel ever did break the rules under which it is allowed to work, it would Fall.
karlmaier:
We have seen this before with the belt buckle power-up, Harry creates a tool and then never uses it again. I think the reason Jim got rid of Little Chicago is because it is too time consuming to maintain in a similar way to the belt buckle, both require Harry's consciously pouring power into them every day, unlike his rings which he just has to wear. For this reason I don't think we will see the crystal shield we saw in TC which we saw Molly use to protect herself from Thomas. As far as who fixed LC I think the only one who could have done so had to come in through from the Never Never, and Harry's Godmother has that end covered, so either she or Mab are the only ones who could have got in behind Harry's wards and fixed it.
Cozarkian:
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on November 05, 2012, 08:49:00 PM ---No argument there.
I would argue that everything you list can be answered by him looking at the future for the information in question. He doesn't have to insure the accident causes the right amount of damage if he can look at the accident, see how much damage it causes, and direct harry into the situation accordingly.
Not causing a paradox because of seeing that that's the way things worked out ?
--- End quote ---
There is a logical fallacy here. Part of your argument depends on the future being fixed and part of it depends on the future being changeable. If the future can be changed such that Gatekeeper can prevent Harry from using LC at the wrong time, then Gatekeeper can't look in the future and see exactly how much damage occurred from the accident, because that future could also be changed.
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on November 05, 2012, 08:49:00 PM ---Considering the sort of power levels Mouse is showing in later books, I can well see Rashid erring on the side of caution with regard to Mouse's presence.
--- End quote ---
I can too, but only because I don't think Gatekeeper is nearly as powerful as he would have to be to be the source of the LC fix.
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on November 05, 2012, 08:49:00 PM ---For what it's worth, I think the most likely explanation for who actually fixed LC is somebody persuading or magically compelling Murphy or Thomas to use their keys to get through Harry's wards; I can see either Murphy or Thomas being persuadable on "if LC is not fixed harry will kill himself with it" grounds, but it takes Rashid or someone who is getting information from someone with at least Rashid levels of foreknowledge to know there's an issue in the first place.
--- End quote ---
Interesting theory with a nice synergy to the Thomas was home theory.
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on November 05, 2012, 08:49:00 PM ---Oh, I am sure there is. I'm less sure that the consequences of that competition will ever be unambiguously overt.
--- End quote ---
The point is, if Harry's benefactor was depending on the accident to cause the perfect amount of delay, that plan leaves a lot of wiggle room for something to go wrong. Given there are multiple very powerful entities that might use that time to ruin the plan, it is far too risky for someone to use the accident as a delay mechanism, and if the benefactor could be certain the plan couldn't be ruined even by his peers, then there is no competition at all, because the outcome is inevitable.
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on November 05, 2012, 08:49:00 PM ---I'm not sure I'm buying that one; the end of a game of solitaire is a maths problem if you have perfect knowledge of where all the cards are, but it can still generate dramatic tension along the way, and given that we're getting the story through Harry, I can get quite enough tension out of Harry not knowing where things are going in the end regardless of whether Uriel does actually know to the last decimal place or not.
--- End quote ---
Unlike a math proof, solitaire has multiple different outcomes depending on how the game is played. It's possible none of them will result in victory or for there to be different paths to victory.
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on November 05, 2012, 08:49:00 PM ---You keep talking about the putative plan here as if it were "set all these factors going that will interact in complicated unpredictable ways", and that is not what I am suggesting it is, which makes me feel like we are talking past each other. I am talking about a situation where the Gatekeeper as seen that if he does certain things Harry will, with absolute certainty, end up in the right place at the right time. Zero possibility of error. It looks fluid to Harry because from his perspective it's the future, but the Gatekeeper can see a point at which it has already happened, and is therefore, given the right start conditions, one hundred per cent reliable.
I'd argue that they can be if you can look into the future and see in advance what value those variables have.
No argument there, but I'm not seeing evidence for any other such player doing so in PG.
--- End quote ---
Yes, this highlights my problem with your theory. It isn't possible for Gatekeeper to look into the future and know with zero possibility of error what will happen. Such knowledge would require either that the future is unchangeable (which would mean he couldn't change the future to save Harry in the first place) or he would have to have perfect knowledge of how every other entity of his power or equal is going to act. The mere possibility that another player might act to ruin his plan would prevent him from using a plan that leaves so much time for someone else to step in and interfere. In order for Gatekeeper to have 100% confidence, he would have to be so powerful it would be impossible for any of the other players to interfere.
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on November 05, 2012, 08:49:00 PM ---Easing him into using something really rather powerful without the degree of thinking through its dangers than he otherwise might ?
--- End quote ---
If that was the goal she could have not revealed how dangerous she was by threatening him with illusions. She would have been better served just to let him use it with nothing more than a quick plea and offer to help protect him if he picks up the coin.
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on November 05, 2012, 08:49:00 PM ---Which is why it makes sense to me that Lash would do it in PG, after being confronted in DB with precisely how stubborn Harry is and what extremes it takes to get him to ask her help, and as an element in the same strategy of corruption involved in his anger-management issues in pg and WN, which also do not involve him asking for her help.
Again, I flat-out do not believe that assertion. She tried that strategy in DB with innocent lives at risk and saw the limits to how much it would work.
--- End quote ---
So she tries a strategy, gives up on it when an even better opportunity arises, then returns to the same strategy (in WN) she previously abandoned? I doubt it. Lasciel plays long-term. She'll apply the pressure every time an opportunity arises until eventually a situation arises where Harry will take the bait.
Orbweaver:
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on November 05, 2012, 08:55:33 PM ---I think I'm seeing the rules of engagement at a different scale from what I may have come across as meaning, then, and I am sorry I was unclear.
I do not think Uriel is breaking any rules of engagement, ever. I think Uriel is quite clear about being permitted equal and opposite interventions to some specific class of actions from the Fallen - I don't think that's breaking any rule, I think it is a rule. And rather a specific one, down to the level of seven words for seven words. I also think it's clear that if Uriel ever did break the rules under which it is allowed to work, it would Fall.
--- End quote ---
No need to apologize, Neuro, I took no offense. I do think on a different wavelength than most other people seem to, which is probably why the miscommunication happened.
To me, it looks as though Uriel is allowed to commit actions that it would normally not be able to if, and only if, the other side did it first. As we haven't really had a good look at what determines the actions it may take in response, I can't conclude that Uriel hasn't broken a rule of engagement in response to another broken rule. It may be that TWG allows it to "break" or "bend" the rules under very specific circumstances- but to me, doing something it otherwise would not be enabled to do, in response to a stimulus from the other side, is still a bent rule.
It also helps to clarify what Nicodemus meant when he spoke about the Church having excellent propaganda. Consider Sanya, for example- Heaven allowed him to pick up a coin, in order to make him a Knight later on down the line. They let him run around with Magog's brute strength and the knowledge of a Fallen Angel, doing no small amount of harm to the other humans/creatures running around the planet, in exchange for what he would do as a Knight of the Cross.
Heaven not being above using evil to their own ends means that the "White" part of TWG's title has a bit of a scuff on it. Do I think the Denarians are going to use the actions of their counterparts in Heaven as "proof" that they are just as corrupt, or possibly worse in nature, to justify their own actions? Absolutely. Two wrongs very rarely, if at all, equal a right. So in order to "right" the other side's "wrongs", the lies, betrayal, stealing, loss of life, bending or breaking of Will, etc... well, you get the point, I think.
Their "trusting" TWG, or it's agents, to hold to their "word" just doesn't fit with what we've heard from Nicodemus, Lash, or even with what we've seen with regards to a current Knight.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version