The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
morriswalters:
--- Quote from: Bad Alias on June 10, 2019, 06:19:56 PM ---I wouldn't argue that Harry hasn't hurt people. Harry is arguably a murderer. He has killed a lot of people and not people. My argument is very specific. Harry withholding information hasn't hurt anyone (in the short term because we can't predict long term effects) with the exception of not telling Murphy about the White Council and the Doom in Storm Front.
What he did in Changes doesn't really matter to that point.
I don't see the point of citing page numbers. There are so many different versions of the books it's basically pointless. I use fbreader, in which the page numbers are determined by the font the user selects.
--- End quote ---
They asked for page numbers and chapters, I supplied them.
There will never be a point, where you can definitively say Harry withholding X led to Y. If that is your argument, it's unimpeachable. You can impeach the reason that he uses for withholding information, by looking at outcomes against the times he's used it. He trying to protect Kim. She dies. He's trying to protect Susan, he ends up cutting her throat. He tries to protect the Alphas, Kirby gets killed Andi almost so. As a strategy it appears to not work very well.
--- Quote from: kbrizzle ---To be honest, I believe that Harry is correct in keeping info from people on the lower rungs of power in the DV.
--- End quote ---
There an old saying, you can't be a little bit pregnant. Either tell everything you know or tell nothing at all. Harry straddles the fence, and that just makes you sore.
Mira:
--- Quote from: kbrizzle on June 10, 2019, 08:02:50 PM ---To be honest, I believe that Harry is correct in keeping info from people on the lower rungs of power in the DV. It is not his fault that they (Susan, Kim etc) are independent & proud - they certainly deserve most of the blame for explicitly doing things Harry tells them not to - & they pay for it. They do this because being a go-getter in the mortal world has worked out for them, but the supernatural world plays by different rules where one’s power level generally unlocks appropriately dangerous knowledge. Kim & Susan don’t understand this - Murphy is more situationally aware from her police work & I don’t recall Molly getting hurt from Harry withholding info (he hurts her unintentionally). Blaming Harry for this removes his agency, not theirs.
Most of the arguments I’ve read in this thread seem to focus on Harry not going out of his way to explain the rules & dangers of the supernatural world appropriately to the noob ladies in his life, but I disagree - no one is forcing Kim to build a circle that Harry would have trouble with or Susan to come to Bianca’s shindig where Harry is unsure he’ll make it out alive -they made these decisions with his express disapproval. Additionally I don’t think for a second that if Harry turned them down, they wouldn’t have looked elsewhere (more dangerous places) for that info which might’ve worked out even worse for them. I don’t understand the commenters who think that without Harry, Kim & Susan wouldn’t have figured out a way to dabble in the supernatural world. They are smart, dogged & connected enough to make this happen regardless of Harry - he just made it easier since he’s a good person.
It’s kinda like abortion or teen sex - whether you agree or disagree about the morality of the acts, it’s not going to dissuade the determined from going through with it even if they’re aware of the dangers.
--- End quote ---
I agree with most of this...
--- Quote ---I wouldn't argue that Harry hasn't hurt people. Harry is arguably a murderer. He has killed a lot of people and not people. My argument is very specific. Harry withholding information hasn't hurt anyone (in the short term because we can't predict long term effects) with the exception of not telling Murphy about the White Council and the Doom in Storm Front.
--- End quote ---
Harry has killed people, but that doesn't make him a murderer, no more than a soldier under most circumstances is a murder in war. Harry doesn't deliberately kill innocents.
--- Quote ---
There will never be a point, where you can definitively say Harry withholding X led to Y. If that is your argument, it's unimpeachable. You can impeach the reason that he uses for withholding information, by looking at outcomes against the times he's used it. He trying to protect Kim. She dies. He's trying to protect Susan, he ends up cutting her throat. He tries to protect the Alphas, Kirby gets killed Andi almost so. As a strategy it appears to not work very well.
--- End quote ---
It would have made no difference as others have pointed out to tell Kim everything about that circle or not... She was determined to make it in spite of Harry telling her she didn't have the experience and training to do so... He might have known she was lying, but he couldn't force her to tell the truth either if she was determined to be the one to create the circle.. As pointed out with Susan, she wanted that damn scoop, she stole the invitation, she then forged it, how do you protect against that? She sowed the seeds of her own fate, not Harry. As to Kirby's death, Harry didn't try to protect the Alphas when that happened, he told them what he knew, which wasn't much save it was bad and powerful... It was Will who made the decision to send his team in even though they didn't have a whole lot of information as to what they were up against, and as he told Harry, they'd do it again..
--- Quote ---There an old saying, you can't be a little bit pregnant. Either tell everything you know or tell nothing at all. Harry straddles the fence, and that just makes you sore.
--- End quote ---
And then there are secrets that must be kept, they are not Harry's secrets, but still as a member of the White Council he must keep them....
Bad Alias:
--- Quote from: morriswalters on June 10, 2019, 08:25:37 PM ---[1.] They asked for page numbers and chapters, I supplied them.
[2.] There will never be a point, where you can definitively say Harry withholding X led to Y. If that is your argument, it's unimpeachable. [3]. You can impeach the reason that he uses for withholding information, by looking at outcomes against the times he's used it. He trying to protect Kim. She dies. He's trying to protect Susan, he ends up cutting her throat. He tries to protect the Alphas, Kirby gets killed Andi almost so. As a strategy it appears to not work very well. [4.] There an old saying, you can't be a little bit pregnant. Either tell everything you know or tell nothing at all. Harry straddles the fence, and that just makes you sore.
--- End quote ---
1. That was more of a response to the conversation about page numbers than to you answering the question. Also an explanation of why I'm never giving anyone page numbers.
2. My argument, especially with Kirby, which I've explicitly stated before, is I don't see how him withholding information led to harm.
3. Harry specifically said it worked "until now" about Kirby, and it seems to be working with the Asian lady who replaced Susan at the Arcane. But if I'm being honest, I don't think it's a good general strategy for those "in the know" already.
4. I completely disagree with the whole "either or" view of sharing information. Harry hiding Bob from Molly when there's the chance she's going to go warlock is probably a good idea. Not telling the White Council about Elaine is probably a good idea. Not telling the White Council about Bob is probably a good idea. The majority of members of the Senior Council decided it was either a good idea to not tell Harry about Demonreach or that it wouldn't matter if they did. Eb only informs him that there is something they aren't telling him. Rashid agrees that there are some things the Council doesn't need to know.
--- Quote from: Mira on June 10, 2019, 11:53:53 PM ---[a.] Harry has killed people, but that doesn't make him a murderer, no more than a soldier under most circumstances is a murder in war. [b.] Harry doesn't deliberately kill innocents.
--- End quote ---
Well, I said arguably because it is arguable. And since it seems you want to argue the point, I'll make the case.
a. Murder is the [1.] unlawful killing of [2.] another [3.] human being [4.] with malice aforethought, expressed or implied. 1. Harry killed Cassius. 2. Cassius is not Harry. 3. Cassius is a human being. 4. Harry meant the action that killed Cassius. I'm aware this isn't a full explication of my case, but figured it was best to leave it simple and see which points you don't agree with instead of typing up a couple of weeks of law school classes for no reason.
b. The innocence or guilt of the person killed is irrelevant.
morriswalters:
--- Quote ---1. That was more of a response to the conversation about page numbers than to you answering the question. Also an explanation of why I'm never giving anyone page numbers.
--- End quote ---
Mea Culpa. My apologies for being harsh.
Bad Alias:
I only took it as confusion as to who I was addressing as I was unclear.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version