The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
Kincaid microfiction "Goodbye"
Dina:
I thought the point was that the king was always aware. A sort of "we are watching you"
Bad Alias:
At least according to the Wikipedia page, the sword was a metaphor for the king's, Dionysius, situation. He had secured his power through unjust actions. As such, he could never rule justly because, if he did, he would be killed. He had to be a tyrant to maintain his own security. Damocles wanted to experience the riches and pleasures of being king for a day. The sword that may fall at any moment is the cost of the throne and all it's benefits.
One of the main points of the parable is that tyrants are never safe because they have wronged so many people. The Wikipedia page cites to many examples of this interpretation. Another point may be that jealousy is often misplaced.
Here's a link to the story itself: http://whisperingbooks.com/Show_Page/?book=Classic_Greek_And_Roman_Myths&story=The_Sword_Of_Damocles.
Here's a link to a going into how the saying is often misused and the point is my "another point": https://www.npr.org/2011/08/19/139799434/sword-of-damocles-reference-sometimes-misused. I'd argue that America's debt crisis does indeed fit the professor's interpretation of the parable. He also has a slightly different telling of the story than the previous link.
morriswalters:
--- Quote ---Sword of Damocles
According to the story, Damocles was pandering to Dionysius, his king, and exclaimed to him that Dionysius was truly fortunate as a great man of power and authority, surrounded by magnificence. In response, Dionysius offered to switch places with Damocles for one day so that Damocles could taste that very fortune firsthand. Damocles quickly and eagerly accepted the king's proposal. Damocles sat down in the king's throne surrounded by every luxury, but Dionysius, who had made many enemies during his reign, arranged that a huge sword should hang above the throne, held at the pommel only by a single hair of a horse's tail to evoke the sense of what it is like to be king: though having much fortune, always having to watch in fear and anxiety against dangers that might try to overtake him. Damocles finally begged the king that he be allowed to depart because he no longer wanted to be so fortunate, realizing that with great fortune and power comes also great danger.[1][2]
King Dionysius effectively conveyed the sense of constant fear in which a person with great power may live. Dionysius committed many cruelties in his rise to power, such that he could never go on to rule justly because that would make him vulnerable to his enemies. Cicero used this story as the last in a series of contrasting examples for reaching the conclusion towards which he had been moving in his fifth Disputation, in which the theme is that having virtue is sufficient for living a happy life.[3][4]
--- End quote ---
Here the Wikipedia version of the story, complete. Regardless of it's meaning in context, the story itself is my metaphor. Kim was never in a position to correctly gauge her danger. She was ignorant of the risk. She is Damocles, with Harry as Dionysius. The only person who understood was Harry. Anyway the idea has been lost through too many explanations by me. Under the spoiler is a short explanation of what is in my mind as I read.
(click to show/hide)Harry's a man of power. Continuously, as Jim has exposed us to the plot, his stakes have increased, along with his power. He is a force of nature. When he moves, events move with him, and people end up getting dragged into his wake, not really understanding the underlying peril. Jim spends considerable narrative time after a point, having Harry bringing his allies in fully as danger builds. He does this with Murphy, Will and his pack, Molly and the others in his life. He leverages the errors he has made when he didn't consider the ramifications of his actions, when he either said too much or too little. This is best illustrated in Turn Coat after the werewolves get mauled.
--- Quote ---“Then if you want my help, things are going to change. I’m not charging ahead blindfolded again. Not ever.”
“Billy,” I said quietly. “This isn’t stuff you can unlearn. Right now, you’re insulated from the worst of what goes on because you’re . . . I don’t want to be insulting, but you’re a bunch of amateurs without enough of a clue to be a real threat to anyone.”
His eyes darkened. “Insulated from the worst?” he asked in a quiet, dangerous voice. “Tell that to Kirby. Tell that to Andi.”
I took several steps away, pinched the bridge of my nose between thumb and forefinger, and closed my eyes, thinking. Billy had a point, of course. I’d been careful to control what information he and the Alphas had gotten from me, in an effort to protect them. And it had worked—for a while.
But now things were different. Kirby’s death had seen to that.
“You’re sure you don’t want to back out?” I asked. “Once you’re part of the scene, you aren’t getting out of it.” I clenched my jaw for a second. “And believe it or not, Billy, yes. You have been insulated from the worst.”
“I’m not backing off on this one, Harry. I can’t.” Out of the corner of my eye, I saw him fold his arms. “You’re the one who wants our help.”
I pointed a finger at him. “I don’t want it. I don’t want to drag you into what’s going on. I don’t want you walking into more danger and getting hurt.” I sighed. “But . . . there’s a lot at stake, and I think I might need you.”
“Okay, then,” Billy said. “You know what it will cost.”
--- End quote ---
Without the punch of the emotional costs of Harry's early mistakes, like Kim, then the narrative tension doesn't exist. It's important in my book that Harry realizes the cost of what he is doing to both friends and allies. This means either bringing people fully in, or isolating yourself so that innocents don't die. Taking away Harry's home is about that. The realization going forward that he can't live that life.
@Bad Alias
The one certain thing that is true about wizard towers is that the wizard is always alone.
Avernite:
--- Quote from: Mira on March 26, 2020, 05:43:23 PM ---I cannot find it at the moment, but the responsibility for the apprentice under the Doom, if the apprentice back slides goes on the master as well, so it is death for both.. That is one reason why there is a shortage of wizards willing to step up for kids that can be salvaged, since if left unchecked they go full warlock, easier to lop off their heads instead.
--- End quote ---
That's exactly the salient point though - IS that how it is, or is that only how it is if the Council doesn't trust the wizard-master in question to do the chopping?
After all we know the Doom first from Harry's case... who was no longer an apprentice at that time, and had a parole officer tasked with chopping his head if he stepped out of line; surely Morgan wasn't under the Doom at that time. If this is a possible option during full wizardhood, why not for an apprentice who is likely less strong (so easier for even not-Morgan to subdue)?
I mean it's still mentally harsh, as in you may have to kill someone you cared for, so it still argues for not wanting the job for most wizards...
Bad Alias:
--- Quote from: morriswalters on March 26, 2020, 08:27:02 PM ---@Bad Alias
The one certain thing that is true about wizard towers is that the wizard is always alone.
--- End quote ---
When I was researching wizard's towers, best I could tell is that they are a pretty recent fantasy trope. I wouldn't go so far as always, but one of the main points of a wizard's tower is isolation. The wizard is usually alone. Most of the time when the wizard isn't alone, the company is more familiar than companion. Think Bob and house elves from Harry Potter as examples of this kind of example. Sometimes it's the apprentice. Sometimes it's one or a few regular old human servants.
I see what your saying and think that may well have been Jim's intention. Harry's slightest of actions can have far reaching consequences. Harry dwells on this often. I think the best example of negative consequences is from White Night when Harry trashes the garbage can and Murphy drags Harry through the obvious consequences of his actions. They aren't the most severe consequences, but I do think they're illustrative of the point. The point is even reinforced when Harry throws Murphy's past behavior in her face. Even the comparatively little power she has must be used carefully. The best example of positive consequences is from The Warrior short story.
But I think the things Harry points to and feels the most guilty over (at least some of them) are the worst examples of this. The reason I think this is because I ask what specifically could Harry have done differently that would have changed things for the better and what would likely happen if he didn't act at all? In the examples Harry provides, it's usually not much and something worse.
Wizard's "are [supposed to be] subtle and quick to anger," whereas Harry is just quick to anger. Perhaps if Harry had been subtle or had not been quick to anger, he would have had come to better results with Kim. I can see that. But given Harry's age and history, that wasn't ever going to happen. There's a reason the White Council is a gerontocracy. There's a reason the don't have much respect for a wizard who isn't already a century old (at least).
My views of responsibility for ones actions are probably best described by the legal concepts of foreseeablity and causation. Were the results reasonably foreseeable? Did the actions actually cause the foreseen result? Was it the proximate cause, i.e., were the two so factually remote that responsibility shouldn't fall on the actor. Additionally an intervening cause can severe the responsibility. This is the idea that one is responsible for his own actions (unless his will is so overridden by the acts of another that he didn't really have any or much choice left). [Person Harry knew] made a choice. [That person] had enough information to act at least safely, if not wisely. The person does not act safely, and sometimes outright foolishly, and comes to great harm. Harry blames himself, but it's person's choice that led to the results, not Harry's.
It's like teaching a child to swim to avoid the danger of drowning. A foreseen consequence is that the child will be comfortable with water and may swim without proper supervision and drown. Does that possible risk make a parent teaching their child to swim negligent? Note we could substitute any number of things here that parents commonly teach their children that avoid corresponding costs and have corresponding risks. Cooking, transporting themselves, gun safety, bathing, the birds and the bees, reading, etc.
But what about responsibility for not acting? Does Harry have any responsibility to act in the world? Or is it his responsibility to bury his talents in the desert?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version