The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers

Souls and Ghosts.

<< < (29/29)

Avernite:
On the subject of shades versus spirits versus ghosts, I recommend rereading the conversations between Harry/Morty/Stuart up to Stuart's gun being handed to Harry. To me it seems like they (especially Stuart and Morty) are basically using the terms interchangeably.

Bad Alias:

--- Quote from: morriswalters on May 20, 2020, 09:05:36 PM ---In the case of souls and spirits it makes absolutely no difference in how you parse them.  They are interchangeable in effect, if not in fact. They are different only because Jim says they are, even though, when he writes, there are no markers that would let you analyze what each is. So for instance, if Harry is a soul wandering in the world without a body, is there any difference between him and Sir Stuart as a pure spirit?  You might also ask if Harry's spirit is wandering and not his soul, where is his soul, and what's it doing while his spirit is out on the town?  And in terms of spirits he has created at least four who can manifest, the Archive, Bob, Bonea, and evil Bob. Not to mention Lash who is a !!!Shadow!!!.

--- End quote ---
We need a Venn Diagram to really illustrate this. My take is that all ghosts are spirits, not all spirits are ghosts, shades and ghosts are just two words that have the exact same meaning, and souls have many of the properties of spirits, but are somehow different in a few particular ways. I'm not sure where to put them on the diagram.

Harry did a lot of things a ghost wasn't supposed to be able to do. He possessed Mort and Molly without permission. Ghosts can't do that. (Except the Nightmare did to what'shername with Cassandra's Tears).


--- Quote from: Yuillegan on May 21, 2020, 08:29:35 AM ---BA - Quite right, it isn't established that Ghosts are a byproduct of the soul. At least, not stated explicitly. But it is stated that ghosts are the footprint and the water that fills it (on the hypothetical beach), not the foot. So I think that Jim has at least inferred it. What isn't clear is whether souless beings can have "ghosts" like mortals. I don't believe so based on the fact the mortals are a soul, but have a body. We haven't yet seen the ghost of an immortal, although it is theorized a Demon could leave a ghost. Perhaps the Dinosaurs did have souls. Who knows? I would say when it comes to animals though, it is merely the magical part of the being that all physical beings seem to have. I have yet to see a being in the Dresden Files that has no "shadow" in the spiritual world (that is to say, entirely untouched by magic).

As for the "Death of the Author"...it was a literary essay, and one that didn't escape critiscm. Whilst it is perhaps used as a lens it isn't an objective truth. It might contain elements of truth, but that isn't the same thing. You can use it if you wish, I won't stop you. But as far as I am concerned if we are discussing theory we all have to share a basic set of rules. If we all just get to decide which rules apply and which don't because we are all special snowflakes it rather defeats the purpose of these discussions. How can any argument be presented if we can't even agree on what the facts are? How can we develop a strong theory, too? Alternative facts, are in my opinion, a lazy mind's excuse for not using critical thinking. Why even read the books if you don't accept what is in them? Might as well write your own and make another forum to go with it.
--- End quote ---
I simply acknowledge that the "dead author" framework is an existing framework. I don't subscribe to it (especially when the author's not done writing books), but I don't demand everyone reject it either. I'd also note it is very much not rejecting or not accepting what's in the books. It's explicitly rejecting what's not in the books. As to shared facts, I'm not so sure we as a community share facts, even the ever so obvious facts from agreed sources,  :-[.


--- Quote from: Yuillegan on May 21, 2020, 08:29:35 AM ---[A basic tenet that we have to agree on] is that if it is written in the novels, or said in a WOJ etc, that's the gospel.
--- End quote ---
I disagree. I think it's fine to say that WoJ isn't gospel. I think it's fine for everyone to ascribe different levels of authority however they like to different sources. For example, I find evidence from the earlier books, especially the first three, less persuasive than most other sources, I don't put too much faith in anything from the comic books, I put a bit more faith in the Paranet Papers, I value (as canon) the short stories basically the same as I do the books, and I find WoJ to be mostly reliable. And none of that is taking the reliableness of the narrator into question. Taking the reliavleness of the narrator into question, I think the closest thing to gospel we have is whatever angels have said in the books, premised on angels being unable to lie without falling and having intellectus. I'm positive others disagree and some don't even understand why I value things as I do.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page