The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
Murphy in Peace Talks (WoJ spoilers)
jonas:
--- Quote from: LordDresden2 on August 22, 2017, 04:18:23 AM ---Oh, they've noticed it, they just don't understand what it is that they're seeing. It's being chalked up to crime waves, gang violence, etc.
--- End quote ---
Like when the Red court fell nd it being blamed on a change In turf war. The night of bad dreams though... I've always wondered the why of that one? Anyone got any pressing idea's?
peregrine:
Side effect of the massive amount of energy dumped out all at once.
TheCuriousFan:
--- Quote from: Rasins on August 11, 2017, 07:24:44 PM ---Smaug,
In this summoning, you do need to name them.
Oh Serack and Schecky, please enlighten us.
--- End quote ---
Here you go.
--- Quote from: TheCuriousFan on November 05, 2015, 07:49:46 AM ---Tom: Joshua wanted to know, "in the Dresden universe, an ongoing theme is that most mortals do not believe in magic. One of the few exceptions is the Chicago Special Investigations unit. Are there other governmental groups out there who are clued in? As an example FBI, KGB, NYPD, et cetera. Do they have their own versions of Special Investigations, and if so, would we ever see them in the course of the novels?"
Jim: It was Joshua, you said, right?
Tom: Yes, Joshua asked that question, correct.
Jim: Joshua, if you go back, a detail that a lot of readers have forgotten is the end of Fool Moon where Susan Rodriguez, the reporter, actually got on videotape the werewolf and the big closing fight scene at the end. And then the videotape disappeared and most people kind of forget that the videotape just sort of disappeared. They just sort of put it down to oh, that's random background stuff. It's not random background stuff. Somebody made it disappear, and yes, there are people like that that exist and the difference is that most of them assume that anybody involved with the supernatural is the bad guy, they don't make contact. Not only is Dresden the exception because he's reaching across the aisle, so to speak to work with Murphy, but Murphy's the exception because she's reaching out to work with Dresden. There's something more going on there but the only side of the story we get to see is Harry's side of the story.
--- End quote ---
Mr. Death:
--- Quote from: LordDresden2 on August 22, 2017, 04:18:23 AM ---Oh, they've noticed it, they just don't understand what it is that they're seeing. It's being chalked up to crime waves, gang violence, etc.
--- End quote ---
Fair enough, but explosions would be bumped up the rank to "terrorism," which would get feds involved, and none of the parties involved want that.
Mr. Death:
--- Quote from: DonBugen on August 17, 2017, 04:11:06 PM ---Mr. Death,
Great answers; love your reasoning. I agree with a good amount of what you said above. I want to keep this a bit short, as I can’t keep writing gigantic essays. But I do want to say this for Karrin: assuming that my WAG isn’t correct and she isn’t being somehow subtly influenced by something else, I think that she’s a pretty amazing character. She’s human, like everyone else, and makes some mistakes, but every single one is done with the best of intentions. She goes through a great amount of personal growth, and Skin Game shows it. She’s probably in the top three or four of my favorite DF characters.
--- End quote ---
Cool, I think we're getting somewhere.
--- Quote ---One: I want to address a few of the things that you said about who should and should not have possession of the swords. Much of the responses that you’ve given state that Dresden shouldn’t be the custodian of the swords because a sword wielded for the wrong reasons is incredibly fragile. The one thing, though, is that after Grave Peril, Dresden has never, never, NEVER had any inclination to wield a Sword. He’s very vocally against it. When he talks about the Knights, it’s not uncommon for him to drop in lines such as “And that’s why I will never be a knight.” Even when his daughter is almost certainly going to die and he crosses every line in Changes, he doesn’t pick up the sword. He gives them to others who he thinks would best use them.
In Cold Days, Harry’s in a position that he might, in a rage, do some sort of violent thing without thinking. However, that kind of rash thinking doesn't put the sword in danger if it's sitting at home in the popcorn tin by the door. To go from custodian of the sword to wielder of the sword requires that Harry must be carrying it on him, or already be planning on using it. To do either would mean that Harry would have had to make the choice to suddenly be a wielder – something that he would certainly not do in Cold Days.
If you can show me where, post Grave Peril, Harry considers using one of the Swords in his possession, I’ll admit that there really is a danger here and that his custodianship would put the swords in danger. But I don’t believe such a thing exists.
--- End quote ---
You're right that Harry never seems to intend to use a Sword himself, but that's not the only way they can be in danger. He could give them to the wrong person (he blames himself for this at the end of Skin Game). Or he may hoard them and not give them out to use when they're really needed. Or he could jealously hide them, then get his ass killed for real and leave them lost.
It's not just the danger that he, himself, could use them wrong -- it's that under the mantle's influence, he's lost the perspective and mindset that made him a good choice for custodian in the first place.
Dipping into a bit of lore from an unrelated property, so this is in spoilers just to save space:
(click to show/hide)In Sentinels of the Multiverse, there's a lineage of heroes called the Virtuoso of the Void; they are magical musicians who largely have one job -- to stop a rampaging earth spirit from destroying humanity. Typically, previous generations will seek out and train later generations.
Until one ended up corrupted. He still did his one job of stopping the earth spirit, but he was power hungry. Instead of seeking out and training a new generation of Virtuosos, he sought them out and stole their power for himself. He was still able to do his one function, but he screwed over the next generation when he died, and the next would-be Virtuoso was killed before she could even come into her power,
and the modern one was laughably unprepared for his own bout with that earth spirit.
So that's the kind of danger that a custodian with the wrong mindset can have -- not necessarily immediate destruction of the Swords,
but something that could endanger their future.
--- Quote ---Two: You ask how I could believe that being a custodian of the swords is not dependent on one’s own actions and moral code. The difference is in how you define the word “should.” When we ask the question of “Should Dresden be custodian?” there’s two different ways we can take it.
You and I, and Karrin and Dresden, and any mortal can debate whether someone should or should not have something. The US debates all the time on whether people should or should not have firearms, and to what extent, and under what permits. There’s ultimately no right or wrong answer; only general consensus. To us, “Should” means “I judge that this is the best possible choice, given all we know.”
The swords, though, are artifacts which are powered directly by the will of TWG. They are effective when their weilders are on mission, ineffective other times. While TWG is not the same thing as the Christian God that people in the real world believe in, he has the same essential attributes and is intended to be a representation of the real thing. When we’re talking about a being who is omnipotent and omniscient, who has an ineffable plan for the world, “Should” takes on a different meaning. “Should” means “This is where TWG would want it to go.”
Dresden never is custodian of the sword on his own merits. He doesn’t earn the right to be keeper of the sword. Remember this bit from The Warrior, during the confrontation between Father Douglas and Michael:Dresden’s not custodian because he earns it. It even seems at some times, to some people, that it must be the working of evil that he has them at all. And I know that in this moment, it seems like Harry shouldn’t hold them, either. At least, it does to Karrin. But “should” for mortals is not “should” for TWG.
--- End quote ---
I'd argue that Harry is definitely custodian on his own merits -- fighting alongside the three Knights to stop the Denarians, for instance. Being able to get a shadow of the Fallen into a Heel Face Turn. Just generally being a good man standing against the darkness.
And whether one should have possession of the Swords isn't a permanent thing, whether we're talking custodians or Knights. Murphy, for instance, was apparently the absolutely correct person to wield Fidelacchius at Chichen Itza. But in a different time and a different place, she is not.
Just because Harry is the proper custodian at points A and C does not mean he is automatically the proper custodian at point B. The Harry in Cold Days is not the Harry we've been following for the previous 13 books -- he has to get back to that point, and before he does, there are things he is temporarily disqualified from.
--- Quote ---Three: You ask me about the difference between Sanya and Michael. The difference comes in their particular creeds: Michael is Catholic, and Sanya is agnostic. I don’t mean by this that Michael is somehow better than Sanya, but being Catholic means that he regularly goes to TWG in prayer and seeks his guidance on many things. Sanya, on the other hand, candidly states that the Archangel Michael and Uriel could be aliens or some sort of delusion. Obviously, he’s still a Knight; TWG is sponsoring him just as much as he is Michael. But Sanya’s actions do not reflect a proactive seeking of their will; rather, a reactive following of commands. He doesn’t pray for help and guidance and support; rather, he acts as he sees fit and remarks that if TWG has an issue with his actions, that he’s never come to him about it. This also reflects him giving the sword back to Dresden in Changes: Sanya believes that if Uriel has a problem, then he should step in.
The difference is small. But when we’re talking about angels, beings whose primary responsibility is to preserve the freedom of will and the ability to choose, there’s a big difference between a man seeking guidance and choosing based off of that guidance versus choosing first and assuming that divine intervention will step in and stop him if he chose wrong.
Oh, and here I went and wrote an essay again. *sigh*
--- End quote ---
The fact that Sanya is a knight I'd say puts him on equal footing with Michael. Just because he doesn't literally pray doesn't mean he is somehow out of the loop.
The three Knights operate differently, yes. But I don't see that as reason to discount what any of them say about the disposition of the Swords.
Or to put it another way, if Sanya was wrong in his assessment of Dresden, then Uriel should have said so.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version