The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
Vampires and Evil, a philosophical rabbit hole.
Shift8:
--- Quote from: Con on September 25, 2017, 06:44:43 PM ---I said a little racist and I thought I wrote something about being progressive for his time, but I must of deleted it.
At the very least Tolkiens treatment of Eastern peoples and "Black Numenoreans" are a lil suspect as a race war against all the "white races."
However I do agree that the said white races have a diversity of cultures that have diversity of cultures within their cultures.
Theirs also evidence to suggest Numenor the Tolkien Atlantis was predominantly Black.
I just think within the books themselves their is a very west vs east attitude, which you can make arguments about the morality of the Ottoman Empire all you want but thing is Tolkien fought the Germans and came to respect them not hate them. Why couldn't he apply that to eastern peoples?
Though again it's implied that Aragorn himself gained respect for said eastern peoples when her travelled their fightin with and against them going as far south as Haradrim.
--- End quote ---
For some reason you seem to think that cardinal directions and cultural differences that happen to be on opposite ends of a narrative MUST have some evil motive.
There is a much simpler explanation: Tolkien was English. He started his world building from a English/European setting. It makes complete sense to write from things you know. When you design nation that are hostile to the nations your heroes are based in, it makes perfect sense that their cultures would be different from the ones you started with. And it in turn makes sense to draw from real world cultures to help make them seem authentic.
And in the light of the values system espoused in the LOTR, insinuations of racism are asinine. Essentially nothing more than witch hunting.
Shift8:
--- Quote from: Kindler on September 25, 2017, 06:36:06 PM ---I tend to agree; I really don't like the way false moral equivalency has spread through much of modern fiction. Functionally, I understand the need to have a heroic protagonist agonize over killing a bad guy—because emotional torment is useful to the narrative—but, really, too many characters make outright idiotic decisions because they simply refuse to recognize evil when they see it.
Dresden is a good compromise. He makes the hard choice, but feels bad about it. For reference, see his emotional state in Proven Guilty, after killing Corpsetaker. He's still guilty (pun unintended) about it—funny enough, not so much with Cassius, which he should feel guiltier about, considering the guy was down for the count when he had Mouse off him.
As for morality and vampires... well. You know. Murderers, seducers, and so on. There are likely outliers in terms of moral code, like Thomas, but they're functionally evil, because they do evil things. You don't have the right to someone else's life or liberty. Being born or forced into taking it doesn't relieve culpability in my book.
--- End quote ---
I agree with this wholeheartedly. There is altogether too much moral fiddle faddle in modern fiction for the sake of being "edgy." IIRC, Jim made a comment a few years back about not being very much into a Song of Ice and Fire because he felt there was no one to root for. I hope I am not misquoting him, it has been a long time since I recall reading that.
One slight nitpick :): I dont remember the details of Cassius really. But a enemy who is down is precisely where I want my enemy. If Dresden finished off Cassius, it was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. You dont shoot to wound, you shoot to kill. Once lethal combat is engaged, it is justifiable to end it lethally. The only enemy who is not a threat is a dead one.
Snark Knight:
--- Quote from: DonBugen on September 25, 2017, 02:54:29 PM ---Don't look at me that way when I mention Whampires eating animals. It's icky, sure, but no more morally wrong than foie gras. Which is ALSO morally wrong, sure, but we don't arrest and kill folks coming out of French restaurants.
--- End quote ---
In general, they would probably get something, but very little compared to a human. Like, sure, we can eat lettuce and get some nutritional value from it, but if you try to subsist on lettuce alone for years at a time, you're going to starve to death. Probably roughly proportional to how animals are next to useless for necromancy compared to humans, unless you go to absurdly old specimens like Sue.
In specific, I would also expect some variance by feeding mode. Relatively few species (bonobos and a few others) have sex for fun, so the Raiths would probably be hard pressed to survive on animals (also, yeah, yeck). Despair requires higher cognitive function - animals just don't commit suicide - so the Skavis' are right out of luck. House Malvora is probably the best off since plenty of animals feel survival-based fear when put in danger (still also yeck, albeit of a different variety).
Con:
Bunnies screw for fun. Elephants and Wales commit suicide so big meals for Skavis. Deer for Malvora.
The problem isn't the emotion. It's the Soul.
Arguably Elephants and Wales do have enough of a Soul in every definition that counts, but Whampires need to feed on souls that will fuel their soul so that thei darkness can feed off their soul.
I think thats what causes the slow descent into evil for White Court. Their soul is being fed on, just as they feed on other souls.
Think of Ghost Story the entire book is about Harry's Soul. At the end Uriel comments it's hard for half born half immortals. They deal with the pressures of immortal, along with the free will and soul of a human.
Humans souls have both good and bad in them (which is WOJ btw). We can make the choice of good and evil.
White Court have demons inside them that feed off of souls, particularly when they haven't fed on someone elses soul.
Having a soul eater in your body that either nibbles away at your soul or you feed it others. Thats bound to have an effect on someones morality.
Apply it to real world addictions all of which arguably tear at a person soul. Drug addiction you become a shell of who you are and evantually die. Sex addiction your incapable of forming relationships with fellow humans on a funcional level, which is damaging to the soul as humans need to interact to feed their soul. Just ask Bob.
Finally the big one Killing. Killing does become an addiction and sooner or later life holds little value to you. At best you have a callous disregard for it. At worst you actively seek to end life to feed your addiction.
All of these are damaging to the soul and result in a corruption of morality.
Snark Knight:
--- Quote from: Con on September 25, 2017, 08:35:50 PM ---Elephants and Wales commit suicide so big meals for Skavis.
--- End quote ---
It's ... extremely debatable ... whether that's deliberate self-destruction because of despair in the sapient sense of suicide, or a result of sickness.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version