The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers

The Placard

<< < (5/10) > >>

The_Sibelis:

--- Quote from: BrainFireBob on September 24, 2020, 04:29:12 PM ---In universe?

The interdiction effect is incidental. It marks the owner of the placard as the proxy for the property to which it is affixed- Mac is the sacrificial lamb in place of all those who are within his delineated demesne now. They, magically speaking, are invalid targets because they "really" exist within the super-threshold of Mac's being.

You can see the line of thought. Like a video game where the cursor won't go active on invalid targets.

--- End quote ---
well said.

Yuillegan:

--- Quote from: BrainFireBob on September 24, 2020, 04:29:12 PM ---In universe?

The interdiction effect is incidental. It marks the owner of the placard as the proxy for the property to which it is affixed- Mac is the sacrificial lamb in place of all those who are within his delineated demesne now. They, magically speaking, are invalid targets because they "really" exist within the super-threshold of Mac's being.

You can see the line of thought. Like a video game where the cursor won't go active on invalid targets.

--- End quote ---
A valid enough theory. But it isn't the mechanics of how the Placard works that I am questioning, but how Harry comes to possess that knowledge.

I say in-universe because as far as I am aware, the Placard is not known to do such things in our universe or any other (fictional or otherwise). I am looking for the explanation in the text, or a WOJ at the least.


--- Quote from: Mira on September 24, 2020, 02:16:57 PM ---Which I don't think you will get, simply because it is based on faith and not actually quantitative evidence.  It is universally believed among Christians that Jesus died for our sins and the importance of God's forgiveness.  There is no concrete proof of any of that, but that is the belief.  You will notice that "faith" is an important theme in the series as a whole.  Example, the bogus Shroud in Death Masks, Harry could feel the power it held.  Later in Skin Game we learned that it was fake, but it was speculated that it had become powerful because people believed it was real.

As far as the Placard goes, there is no real world explanation for it that I can find, other than if it were found and authenticated, it would be treated as a Holy Relic, not unlike fragments of what people believe is the "True Cross."  Jim has made up his own facts about what the Placard if found would mean, partly based on the original concept of why Christ died on the Cross, and what he needs to make up, to further the story. 

--- End quote ---
Why on Earth wouldn't we? We have had explanations and exposition for the Swords of the Cross which are artefacts of faith. We have in-universe quantitative evidence of them. Same with Soulfire. Harry has been shown, told about and mused on these things. The Placard is very new in the piece and all of a sudden Harry knows exactly how it works with no one showing him or him discovering that information? Even the Noose that Nicodemus wears gets explained by Shiro and we see evidence of how it works.

Even that "fake" Shroud has exposition. So your argument about real world knowledge that the reader has or brings in isn't really relevant. We are discussing writing techniques and narrative structure.



--- Quote from: The_Sibelis on September 24, 2020, 06:53:29 AM ---back up, take a breath, and remember you are not required to argue against ANYTHING here. Addressing me in such a manor is way beyond any presumed rule breaking you'd claim of me. I asked you to pls not do something you did appear to be doing. And your reply coming so strongly implies to me you were indeed doing that and don't appreciate being called out for it. If it's a non issue then me thinks doth protest too much and all that... But let's move on to your supposed points against it shall we?
1 by the fact TWC could conceivably even use the placard to bear the brunt of humanities sin, the DF tends to parallel and respect irl religion in so much as Jim is capable. For harry to go out of his way to state that's the kind of thing TWC used it for is very much a statement to what it was used for and how TWC literally saved us from Sin. Jim didn't have to throw that in there anymore than say, that Santa is a summonable fae, but he did. And it he did with INTENTIONS. To imply that it's even possible shows sin as a quantifiable force. Something which can be given a vector of direction and magnitude using the placard.
Everything else is just as much supposition against it as the idea for it. When one theory exists based on something in the books, someone else gain saying it by simply not agreeing isn't actually a thing, no matter how much it might be wished to be. Otherwise I'd blast that three walkers/who walks between outta the water there.

--- End quote ---
SIBELIS
I am not arguing against anything. But I do have the right to use the forums without aspersions being cast on my beliefs and speculation about what I am supposedly doing.

Just so you understand:

--- Quote ---Member Responsibility:
Members should always strive to practice positive attributes:
--Acknowledge other people, assume good will, be quick to praise and slow to criticize, add knowledge, offer help, be slow to anger, apologize when wrong, politely ask for clarification, and exercise patience when your temper flares.

Forbidden Discussion Items:
Religion outside of  Book Canon
Personal Attacks

--- End quote ---
I have bolded the relevant sections that apply to you. None of what I have done or said so far has violated any forum rules (as far as I can see). You have made assumptions, personal attacks on me about what your perceive to be my beliefs.

I am asking, again, that you steer clear of that. It is isn't relevant, it's impolite, uncalled for and it's against the forum rules.

YOU don't have to respond on this thread. It's open to everyone provided they are respectful. But there is no need to comment if you don't have anything positive to say. There is a whole thread on the Rule of Don't. One of the main things is Don't Bait. By assuming my beliefs and attaching them to my arguments you are baiting. Particularly when it involves religious beliefs. Whether you intended to or not, it's bait.

It doesn't matter whether you believe I was doing something or not. If you have an issue you can PM me or report to a moderator. But you instead baited me. And now you're attempting it further by saying things like:
--- Quote ---And your reply coming so strongly implies to me you were indeed doing that and don't appreciate being called out for it. If it's a non issue then me thinks doth protest too much and all that...
--- End quote ---
That's deliberately baiting me. I am taking issue with the fact that instead of debating my arguments, you chose to bait me by speculating on my personal beliefs. That's not on. I won't stand for it.



Now, to the arguments and the debate.
1. You haven't answered my question. Where does it show (as in: reveal by exposition in the text) sin? Which bit described what Sin was or how it works? The answer of course is that it didn't. Secondly, there isn't evidence in that passage to say that the Placard did anything for Christ. It was Christ who had the power, not the wood. None of the items in the Crucifixion (even in real world dogma) were special on their own. It is the association with Jesus and the Crucifixion that made them special. So how exactly did Christ use the Placard? How is it even shown? Harry only guesses (and not a confident guess at that) at how the Crucifixion made the Placard special. But Harry isn't recounting the events of the Crucifixion (he wasn't there and he hasn't got first hand information). Christ wasn't in that scene (as far as we are aware).

Why Jim may have put something in the text or left it out is worthwhile discussion but without his input all we can do is guess. Perhaps he wanted us as readers to think Harry understood how the Placard works. Perhaps he thought it was the kind of guess Harry would make. But we simply don't know. It's not fact.


--- Quote ---When one theory exists based on something in the books, someone else gain saying it by simply not agreeing isn't actually a thing, no matter how much it might be wished to be. Otherwise I'd blast that three walkers/who walks between outta the water there.
--- End quote ---
There you go again, trying to bait me by implying I don't wish Sin or religion to exist. Again, you don't have any idea of my personal views so I will ask for a final time that you refrain from doing so. I am debating what is in the text, so let's stick to that. I am not disagreeing for the sake of it. I am disagreeing because so far, there has been no textual exposition of Sin or how Christ redeemed humanity or how Harry became aware of the mechanics of the Placard.

morriswalters:
There are two possibilities, he will explain it in Battle Ground, or he won't.  However the placard itself named Jesus for the crime he was crucified for and Jesus died for our sins.(This for anyone who holds with this tradition). And this is literally what Jim has it doing. He may consider this explanation enough.

Yuillegan:

--- Quote from: morriswalters on September 25, 2020, 12:09:19 PM ---There are two possibilities, he will explain it in Battle Ground, or he won't.  However the placard itself named Jesus for the crime he was crucified for and Jesus died for our sins.(This for anyone who holds with this tradition). And this is literally what Jim has it doing. He may consider this explanation enough.

--- End quote ---
I'm aware of those possibilities.

But that doesn't explain how Harry knows mechanics that afaik are Jim's creations i.e. how the Placard can be used. There is no tradition I am aware of that says the Placard can be used to create a super-threshold. So naturally, this is Jim's invention. Harry is aware of this but no other character apart from Mac seemed to be. But how would Harry have come by such information?

I have not once said that Christ didn't die for anyone's sins in either our universe or any other. That's not what this discussion is about. I questioned how that scene showed Sin as a quantifiable force and how the scene showed that Christ died for the sins of humanity in the Dresden Files. Because the scene in question doesn't show either of those things.

And for merely asking I have had my beliefs speculated on and been attacked personally. Which is inappropriate.



This discussion has gone off the rails. Clearly it's too much to ask to get everyone to answer the central question in the OP i.e. How does DRESDEN know how the Placard works and how to employ it when there is no in-text exposition or explanation and no real world common knowledge to support these apparent epiphanies? How does Harry even know about the concept of 'embodied intercession'? These are serious writing plot holes

The_Sibelis:
@yull
1show me, in text, where I claim that scene shows what sin is or how it works?
Let's see what I actually claimed 1 Sin exists, period. I said sin exists as an actual force in the DF. Something quantifiable. This is directly correlated by Harry speaking of it as a force that could be set to a vector 2 TWC saved us from it. Which is not in any way shape or form a stretch if mythology or in no way conflicts with anything presented in the DF, quite the opposite. The redeemers blade could have saved Michael from a pact to give himself of to a fae creature in GP. TWC does that indeed have some supernaturally strong ability to save ppl from the fate of their own actions.
Everything else is not worth answering back to...
Perhaps it would make you more comfortable if I said "from my perspective" this makes sin a quantifiable force in the DF and "it appears" TWC saved us from it in a literal manor. Because that's precisely what my day original post said.
I don't have to respond, but if your going to directly quote my post and then say it's not true based on nothing but your own reasoning it's not true, despite me simply applying meaning to something DIRECTLY quotable in the book, then of course I'm going to be baited into a response. Nobody is required to try to unmake someone else's opinion, and yet that seems to be all that it is most of the time...  Little need to debate you on your perspective, you have a different one, I have one based on in book references to an idea. If someone disagrees, I'll require actual in book references for me to refute and not just "I don't think". I'm not interested in such debates. The I'm right your wrong archatype comes out strong. Let me be clear, my idea exists based on a correlation found in the books, nothing stated will gainsay that correlation ergo it can't be proven wrong by default it will continue to be just as valid as the next theory.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page