The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
Best question answer at the Virginia book signing
Griffyn612:
--- Quote from: Kindler on June 11, 2018, 02:04:49 PM ---Can you recall his answer? I love when authors remind readers that they aren't obligated to write characters from every conceivable background (and why it's often a bad idea for them to even try).
--- End quote ---
He didn't come across as scornful to me, nor did he seem to be glaring. I thought it was pretty polite rebuff to the question. But everyone interpets things differently.
Garrett filmed the session, so it should be posted soon.
jonas:
--- Quote from: Quantus on June 11, 2018, 01:56:25 PM ---I have to think this is too simplistic a description. His whole purpose is to Utilize his Mortal Free Will to do things for the Queens that they cannot do for themselves. The fact that Winter traditionally interprets that to mean "Kill the Unaffiliated for Me", there are a bunch of other uses that could come up. And in the case of the Mother, I have to think she's got more important things to worry about than the killing of any One being (that Harry could actually take).
--- End quote ---
His technical purpose is being able to violate free will as a mortal himself(also maybe creating insulation from Mab being mortal) They use him to do anything they see needed they cannot directly do themselves. I'm sure there's even more to it, But what they've used him for is to effect their Will on reality by proxy of a Willful Cat's paw.
Quantus:
--- Quote from: jonas on June 11, 2018, 03:20:27 PM ---His technical purpose is being able to violate free will as a mortal himself(also maybe creating insulation from Mab being mortal) They use him to do anything they see needed they cannot directly do themselves. I'm sure there's even more to it, But what they've used him for is to effect their Will on reality by proxy of a Willful Cat's paw.
--- End quote ---
Precisely.
Slowpool:
--- Quote from: Griffyn612 on June 11, 2018, 02:36:55 PM ---He didn't come across as scornful to me, nor did he seem to be glaring. I thought it was pretty polite rebuff to the question. But everyone interpets things differently.
Garrett filmed the session, so it should be posted soon.
--- End quote ---
It's entirely possible I was reading too much into it, granted. And perhaps scorn isn't the right word; maybe defiance? He was very measured and polite on the surface, but to me this seemed like a very pointed question (to my ears, the lady might as well have thrown the glove down) and Jim responded with just as much, but much more effectively veiled sass. "I don't try to inject my politics into my writing, and I don't like it when people do that". That's how I remember his words (paraphrased, of course), and at some point I could swear I saw him squinting back at her with something like annoyance. That final look he gave the crowd when he was done, that shrugging "so yeah, wadda ya gonna do" face really sealed it for me.
Again, I might be projecting; I hate it when people inject politics and social commentary into stories for its own sake, especially when it detracts from the narrative. Hearing Jim say what he did tickled me to no end. If I catch the video and it turns out not to have gone down how I remember it, I'll be sure to amend my statement.
Kindler:
That sounds about as right an answer as you can give to a question like that.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version