Psychopath and sociopath are not as clear cut psychologically as people expect, it's actually easier to understand in some ways from a brain chemistry perspective. Webster's gives an overly simplistic definition for an extremely complex area. Those kind of definitions are really to help people understand what the word means - particularly those learning the language. They're not really meant to be an ultimate summation or comprehensive nuanced definition.
I would put Marcone in the psychopath category though as he exhibits traits like planning and self-assuredness. Sociopaths tend to be more rash. Think the Joker (sociopath) versus Rhas Al Ghul (psychopath).
One of the main things is that psychopaths are born, sociopaths are made. Both suffer from a lack of empathy. Although recent research suggests that it isn't that they lack empathy entirely, merely that they can turn it off (or rather have to turn it on, as their main state tends to be less empathetic) - particularly psychopaths. It's still an emerging field of study so absolute statements are a bit tricky.
If Dresden were either, I would be more inclined to believe he is a sociopath based on his tendencies and his history. However as we get a unique look inside his head I am not so certain that he is either. Being capable of great violence, or zealous pathological hate, isn't the exclusive domain of sociopaths or psychopaths unfortunately. The world would probably be a far kinder place if it were...although arguably we might have died out long ago without those very traits. It's a fascinating field of science.
Also Mira, sorry for your loss. That's a horrible thing to have to go through.
If not something like this, what is it that you think the destroyer will do? And why are people so afraid of the thing? Why does Jim keep writing these freakouts, where the only way to stop Harry is to hurt him? He did this as early as Grave Peril. Had Lea not been there the three of them would have died.
I do agree with this. Jim is showing human behaviour but he is also showing us Harry's flaws. I think the biggest difference is Harry does spend a lot of his mental effort trying to not become the monster. He isn't entirely successful but the fact that he is trying at all is a lot better than many psychopaths and sociopaths...who might not even recognise the need to fight it at all/recognise that committing monstrous acts is *evil*.
Harry is definitely being set up as a potential big monster though. That's part of the character and the foreshadowing is very clear. It helps make the character more interesting (at least in my view). It's often why characters like Superman are so boring, especially the early stuff. People who seem to be completely *good* are inhuman and impossible to relate to. Even Jesus had more questionable moments in his life than Superman did in his early comics, and one of them was the son of God.
The thing is, if Harry overcomes his darkness it makes him nobler. Overcoming adversity and choosing to be better when it's hard is much more interesting and admirable than choosing to be good when it's easy. It certainly makes for better reading. So it's almost certain Harry will face harder and harder choices and greater darkness both external and internal. That's been a constant of the series since the beginning and it's unlikely to change.