Harry was an uncle-type to Molly for long enough that when he looks at her he sees the child. And he'll always see the child(https://media.giphy.com/media/ToMjGpx9F5ktZw8qPUQ/giphy.gif)
Please turn to the light and recognize that I speak Truth. I cannot, morally, let this forum cease without turning as many as I can to the light.(https://media.giphy.com/media/xUySTY9h75YsFLCc4U/giphy.gif)
With regard to Molly, Harry, Murphy... I see it in one of two ways, did Jim start out with an end game in mind, and will no waiver from it? Or will he let the pen carry him to the final destination? If it's predetermined then I think Murphy is most likely Harry's match by the end. If he's willing to let things flow then I think there is a chance for Harry and Molly, even if it's not too likely.
2009 Kansas City Q&A @39:35
Which character relationships did I want to keep going but had to kill through plot line?
I originally hadn't intended for things with Susan to work out the way they did. But then I realized part way into book three that Susan Rodriguez was going to turn into Lois Lane, which I didn't want. I didn't want Harry to be rampaging around rescuing her. So I wound up "killing" her sort of. In terms of what she had been in terms of the story before then she was certainly dead. She deserved to be, but I got to give her some cool neat stuff that she could do later on. That's the only time it's happened but that's because I haven't really scripted out Harry's love life. I wanted it to be something that was organic, and what I found out is that [snark]apparently, if you love somebody, it can sometimes effect other portions of your life too.[/snark]
WoJ:
Quote
2009 Kansas City Q&A @39:35
Which character relationships did I want to keep going but had to kill through plot line?
I originally hadn't intended for things with Susan to work out the way they did. But then I realized part way into book three that Susan Rodriguez was going to turn into Lois Lane, which I didn't want. I didn't want Harry to be rampaging around rescuing her. So I wound up "killing" her sort of. In terms of what she had been in terms of the story before then she was certainly dead. She deserved to be, but I got to give her some cool neat stuff that she could do later on. That's the only time it's happened but that's because I haven't really scripted out Harry's love life. I wanted it to be something that was organic, and what I found out is that [snark]apparently, if you love somebody, it can sometimes effect other portions of your life too.[/snark]
There is another woj about Molly that seems to suggest she is less of a primary character in the dresden files at least when he was starting out with respect to the grand scheme of things. I really do agree that Murphy will go the distance till series end.
Truth BI would argue this kind of association is mostly subconcious. And Harry's subconcious has no problems at all with seeing Molly as a grown woman (as evidenced by Skin Game). So I am not sure how 'Truth' this is.
Molly and Harry? "Oh but she's not a child now so why won't Harry bang her?" Okay, okay, listen to me: Molly is still a little girl. Small children never grow up - aren't any of you guys and gals here parents? The little ones stay little forever, if you were a parent/guardian/close adult relative type of person to them when they were little. Harry was an uncle-type to Molly for long enough that when he looks at her he sees the child. And he'll always see the child - at least for like the next hundred years, by which time Charity will have been dead for long enough that he won't have to worry about her coming back and haunting him.
I would argue this kind of association is mostly subconcious. And Harry's subconcious has no problems at all with seeing Molly as a grown woman (as evidenced by Skin Game). So I am not sure how 'Truth' this is.
I have lurked among you for years, reading the theories, laughing at the silly ones, 'mmmMMMmmm....'-ing at the possible ones, never really finishing reading any of the PhD theses posted by a Duck, and throwing my hands up in frustration at any post attempting to explain what happened in Proven Guilty. Now that the forums are fading from this world, I must speak.
Truth 1
Simon is NOT Cowl! There is NO evidence - yes, I've heard all the arguments, and all of it is grasping at straws. Maybe Cowl is someone we know, maybe Cowl is Cowl, but he is not not NOT Simon, and those of you who cling to this outrageous belief will feel quite silly indeed when Cowl's identity is revealed (in, like, fifty years).
Truth B
Molly and Harry? "Oh but she's not a child now so why won't Harry bang her?" Okay, okay, listen to me: Molly is still a little girl. Small children never grow up - aren't any of you guys and gals here parents? The little ones stay little forever, if you were a parent/guardian/close adult relative type of person to them when they were little. Harry was an uncle-type to Molly for long enough that when he looks at her he sees the child. And he'll always see the child - at least for like the next hundred years, by which time Charity will have been dead for long enough that he won't have to worry about her coming back and haunting him.
Next Truth
Karen Murphy will never be "irrelevant" due to her being a vanilla mortal. That's what makes her relevant, you sillies! She's a normal person against whom we can measure the relative strength of the monsters. She helps us calibrate. Harry the Super Saiyan goes toe-to-toe with MegaMonster - well, okay, that can be cool, but without someone like Karen we don't have a scale that tells us "Stars and stones, those dudes' power levels are OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!!11!!1" Obviously she can't go hand-to-hand with a lot of the things Harry spends his time hobnobbing with these days, but she can show us the power in being smart, perceptive, and practical - she did manage to survive an encounter with Puck, after all. And she can be - and has been - powerful and useful off the field. She's a vanilla mortal, yeah, but so is the Baron of Chicago. They're both intelligent, practical leaders, and this alone makes them very powerful. But most of all, Karen keeps both Harry and the readers grounded. Everyone else in Harry's orbit is a faerie or a wizard or a scion or a vampire or a god or being of pure intellect or a construct or bla de bla bla bla de bla...... even Butters is no longer vanilla-flavored. We'll see how much more grounded Harry's become in the time since Skin Game, and I'm sure he has, but no vanilla character introduced now could compete with the character investment given to Karen. Heck! I'm pretty darn sure there's a WoJ saying just what I've said here. Read it long ago, in a different life, so I have no idea where it was.
Please turn to the light and recognize that I speak Truth. I cannot, morally, let this forum cease without turning as many as I can to the light.
Simon is NOT Cowl! There is NO evidence - yes, I've heard all the arguments, and all of it is grasping at straws. Maybe Cowl is someone we know, maybe Cowl is Cowl, but he is not not NOT Simon, and those of you who cling to this outrageous belief will feel quite silly indeed when Cowl's identity is revealed (in, like, fifty years).
What is the evidence that Cowl is NOT Simon? If our belief is outrageous, could you please show what evidence he is not Cowl?That's not really how the burden of proof works... Disproving things is an impracticality.
That's not really how the burden of proof works... Disproving things is an impracticality.
Maybe Cowl is someone we know, maybe Cowl is Cowl, but he is not not NOT Simon, and those of you who cling to this outrageous belief will feel quite silly indeed when Cowl's identity is revealed
Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that doesn't fit into a currently accepted scientific theory. In other words, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.and now see.. the thing here is I could point at facts that seem to be left out of the simon is cowl theorum's basket.(my favorite being, Elaine showing up in the next chapter of SK, a fellow Dumorne apprentice who directly unworks Harry's wards as he was just accused of doing to Archangel... and yet, Simon becomes explicit when then?
Tanner further explained that a scientific theory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don't change. Tanner likens theories to a basket in which scientists keep facts and observations that they find. The shape of that basket may change as the scientists learn more and include more facts. "For example, we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact but the overarching theories about evolution, the way that we think all of the facts go together might change as new observations of evolution are made," Tanner told Live Science.
but your example is too narrow into a law unto itself... shoulda went with scientific theorums
LMAO no, actually that's why it's innocent until proven guilty. The suspect would never say such a flimsy thing because no court would proceed to prosecute on the idea.
I do have reasons to believe what I do, but it's not solid evidence like in a crime. It's more about how stories are constructed, and my experience in decades of movies, tv shows, and books combined with reading a lot about creating stories. So it's more about my instincts.Here, here!
But, it seems to me, that a jury goes with the side that weaves the most convincing story.I wonder... does that mean if I weave a convincing story on why alternate Harry is responsible it would actually become more popular?
Here, here!I wonder... does that mean if I weave a convincing story on why alternate Harry is responsible it would actually become more popular?That is one of the goals of any theory.
.... somehow, I do doubt it, though I might make a few people look twice.
And alt-Harry has been proposed. Evidence in the descriptions of Cowl suggest that it's not though.not really, that's where I can find a lot of the evidence. Like in WN, the fiery bird Cowl summons is the Harry version of Lasciel manifest. each version of Cowl is from a current split, so finding the opposing actions/thematics isn't hard. in WN Harry is overcoming Lash and the Fallen, in opposition the cowl version has not. I could others... probably after we migrate so I know it won't get lost... though may also wait on PT too.
Truth 1
Simon is NOT Cowl! There is NO evidence - yes, I've heard all the arguments, and all of it is grasping at straws. Maybe Cowl is someone we know, maybe Cowl is Cowl, but he is not not NOT Simon, and those of you who cling to this outrageous belief will feel quite silly indeed when Cowl's identity is revealed (in, like, fifty years).
And alt-Harry has been proposed. Evidence in the descriptions of Cowl suggest that it's not though.
I'm firmly in the Simon=Cowl camp.
Mostly because it makes sense.
Simon was the Council's vampire expert. No reason to believe he couldn't have gone over (helping at Bianca's ball), then deciding he needed to be "free-er" to act so faked his own death.
The only thing that hangs me up a bit is the tenuous thought of him being a disciple of Kemmler. I'm not sure how that worked, with him being an SC member.
While the last chapter is being written on this forum book; there is hope that a new book is coming.
Hope...there is no hopeHope never dies... it get's murdered.
Hope...there is no hope
Hope never dies... it get's murdered.
Hope doesn't die; but sometimes it wants to take a coma-induced break. Slap hope and keep it awake.
POLKA WILL NEVER DIE!!That is what 2 of my shirts say; so it must be true.
Or, if you prefer ...(click to show/hide)
Disagree, and here is why.
#3. "That's not really how the burden of proof works... Disproving things is an impracticality." This is usually the case for religious, philosophical, or mythological debate, not in the real world. For example in a police investigation:
Detective: We think you killed that girl
Suspect: you will have to prove it
Detective: Where were you Thursday night between 6:00 pm and 8 pm
The burden of proof is now on the suspect to disprove the detective by citing evidence that they were somewhere that was not the crime scene. The detective does not have to prove that the suspect was at the crime scene, the suspect must now prove they were not. The suspect could make the claim "It's up to you to prove I was there", but in front of a jury if the suspect cannot disprove the theory that they were at the crime scene, the jury has a good chance of convicting. In real world scenario's people often must disprove a claim.
The Judge: These aren't my pants.
Yeah, that does kinda sum up it. I am with the prosecution. Which means the burden of proof is on me. But, Griffyn, are you the sensible baliff or the judge that forgot his pants?I'm the Court Reporter making sure everything is recorded for posterity.
Um, we're not 'proving' 'Cowl=Simon' in a court of law.Well... looks like we are now?
We're fans posing theories based on textual evidence.I scoff at the idea of limiting myself to the letter of the book lol
I'm the Court Reporter making sure everything is recorded for posterity.If we're gonna do this then i'm on the Defense's side, cause I want this done right lol.(Sintra's my second)
No reason to get so serious. It is merely an idea. And ideas are fluid. I like the idea and find it plausible. But, I am not married to it.yep, you sound like a prosecutor ;p
#3. "That's not really how the burden of proof works... Disproving things is an impracticality." This is usually the case for religious, philosophical, or mythological debate, not in the real world. For example in a police investigation:
Detective: We think you killed that girl
Suspect: you will have to prove it
Detective: Where were you Thursday night between 6:00 pm and 8 pm
The burden of proof is now on the suspect to disprove the detective by citing evidence that they were somewhere that was not the crime scene. The detective does not have to prove that the suspect was at the crime scene, the suspect must now prove they were not. The suspect could make the claim "It's up to you to prove I was there", but in front of a jury if the suspect cannot disprove the theory that they were at the crime scene, the jury has a good chance of convicting. In real world scenario's people often must disprove a claim.
Cowl is a real character who's identity is hidden.
Simon is a real character within the stories
Claim: Simon is Cowl, but admits there isn't evidence to prove it.
Poster claim: Theory is 100% wrong.
Burden is now on poster to prove WHY it is 100% wrong, or admit that they don't have evidence, and simply disagree with claim. Poster cannot possibly know if Simon is not Cowl without out of book information (Jim saying so), Foreknowledge (a beta reader who knows the identity), or strong in book evidence (which I requested because I want to know what it is). If Jim didn't say so, if they don't have foreknowledge, and they have no evidence to deny the theory then they have no basis to claim that the belief Simon is Cowl is outrageous, and completely wrong.
I am sorry, but I must disagree with certain parts of this post (specifically, point 3). In the USA, the burden of proof remains on the prosecutor despite the lack of evidence "proving" the innocence of the accused. Unless and until convinced beyond a reasonable doubt (in a criminal case), a jury must acknowledge the innocence of the defendant. Case in point, the 5th Amendment was explicitly designed to protect the rights of innocents who are accused (which is why you should never ever talk to law enforcement without a lawyer, even as a "witness"- it will be used against you).
In this case, the suspect is still to be regarded as innocent, and your line above: "The suspect could make the claim "It's up to you to prove I was there." is in fact true and correct- the prosecution must still, absolutely, beyond a reasonable doubt, prove that the suspect did indeed commit the crime, with actual evidence[/i], or else the jury is required to find the suspect to be innocent. NO further effort by the accused is necessary (granted, in the real world, this does not always hold true, but the efforts of the defense are needed because the accused may in fact be guilty (system working as intended), or the suspect needs to prove the prosecution has committed errors either willful, or malignant, or both (flaws in the operations of the system).
Otherwise, all the prosecution would need is to fling accusations, and then sit back and demand "evidence" of innocence.
Granted, there are a lot of problems when actual guilty parties evade justice under this rule of law, but I chalk that up to the problems of human nature- the system was designed in an attempt to hold back the excesses so frequent under, say, the Napoleonic Code.
yep, you sound like a prosecutor ;pI can't be a lawyer; I still have a soul. Granted, it is a little soiled and warped.
I can't be a lawyer; I still have a soul. Granted, it is a little soiled and warped.How do you know you still have a soul? Molly thinks she still does after all..
Detective: We think you killed that girlYou know this is almost entirely wrong, right? The questions a prosecutor asks do not put the burden on the accused. If they ask where I was, and I say at home alone, the burden is still on the prosecution to not only prove that I wasn't at home alone, but that I was at the crime scene. I don't have to prove where I was, because I have the presumption of innocence in my favor.
Suspect: you will have to prove it
Detective: Where were you Thursday night between 6:00 pm and 8 pm
The burden of proof is now on the suspect to disprove the detective by citing evidence that they were somewhere that was not the crime scene. The detective does not have to prove that the suspect was at the crime scene, the suspect must now prove they were not. The suspect could make the claim "It's up to you to prove I was there", but in front of a jury if the suspect cannot disprove the theory that they were at the crime scene, the jury has a good chance of convicting. In real world scenario's people often must disprove a claim.
How do you know you still have a soul? Molly thinks she still does after all..Because I listen to alot of Motown!
How do you know you still have a soul? Molly thinks she still does after all..
Yes she does. Just like Mab. They both still have souls, but they are tending to be turning more and more on the Dark side.Prove it, soul gaze Mab, Have molly blast a cell phone by accident? Sure it's a spectrum, the same spectrum that still gives it to Reds that, iirc you refuted O.o lol.(after looking through 30+ pages I gave up on finding that convo, insisting Susan was not just 'gone')
The Soul doesn't go away, it's just, like, on a spectrum ... dark to light, or good to evil, or demonic to saintly.
As to WF - I'm not so sure ... he may have lost his. He should check behind the couch, or in the dryer.
Prove it, soul gaze Mab, Have molly blast a cell phone by accident? Sure it's a spectrum, the same spectrum that still gives it to Reds that, iirc you refuted O.o lol.(after looking through 30+ pages I gave up on finding that convo, insisting Susan was not just 'gone')
Besides, I said A Soul, not soul itself. Fairies have some soul built into their design. But that doesn't make it the Host's pure alloy anymore.
The other question I had is, **unintelligible**…when a human takes on the mantle of a Fae, do they automatically become Fae? Do they lose their soul?
Ok, do they automatically become Fae, do they lose their soul? The answer to that question is “sort of”. Um, it’s automatic, but not necessarily instant. Mab herself was human once, and she eventually became the, uh, the fun-loving Mab that we all know. So, a lot of it has to do with who you are when you go into it, because most of the Fae were human once. A lot were born as half-bloods and decided to become Fae and sort of automatically got their **unintelligible**. But a lot of the other Fae who were there, including the Erl and several others, who were at one point humans….So, a lot of this is going to depend on who they might end up being, a lot of it depends on who they are going into it and what kind of will they have to maintain who they are. That’s going to be a big deal. I’m really looking forward to writing the next books so I can see what happens with Molly, ‘cause I’m really not sure yet, I have a vague idea of what’s gonna happen, because basically she just got handed the largest, unruliest crowd of little brothers and sisters to deal with ever.
**Audience laughter**
But on the other hand, she’s kinda cool with that. She’s used to that role. So anyway, we’ll have to see what happens to her, but, uh, there’s a lot of choice involved **unintelligible** as far as soul goes. Everybody always talks about souls as if it’s something you can have a receipt for, that if you lose it, then it’s just gone, and I don’t think souls work that way, I think that there’s too much attached to them, I think that there are too many things that consist of what your soul is, so I don’t think this is kinda trying to figure “did you lose your soul?”, because I think you can lose your soul without bothering to stop by any kind of supernatural beings whatsoever. You know, if you watch the news, you’ll see people who do that all the time. But yeah, as far as The Dresden Files goes, as far as eternal damnation, etc., goes, no I don’t think that’s as much an issue for Molly as yet, it could sometime though. Whether Mab has some kind of spark of a soul left or not, that’s one of those questions that would be very difficult to answer, and I’m probably not smart enough to answer it. Probably, when you’ve gone so far down the road, just pure power is madness, it’s hard to hang on to your soul. And it depends on how people who have been handed all this extra stuff deal with it, and what that’s going to do for them in the long run. And it’s one of those long run kind of things, meaning you’re going to be stuck like that for 2,000 years, you don’t really have to go bad tomorrow, you have plenty of time yet to start growing mold on your conscience.
He is using different definitions of soul in that passage. So, I agree with Raisins.
There is a soul that is eternal I believe, which you never lose.
There is a soul that is about maintaining oneself, one's identity, one's conscience even while wearing a mantle.
There is a soul where doing bad acts causes you to lose it.
Mab ability to maintain her soul "depends on who [she] is going into it and what kind of will [she] has to maintain who [she] is", but her mantle has warped it to such a degree that Jim himself can't really tell if she has a "conscience" left which is I believe the test case if she has lost her soul, her identity separate from the mantle.
That's well put.So... you now agreeing Susan had soul or are you trying to double standardize a fact into a statistic?
Yes she does. Just like Mab. They both still have souls, but they are tending to be turning more and more on the Dark side.I got soul; I just don't have rhythm.
The Soul doesn't go away, it's just, like, on a spectrum ... dark to light, or good to evil, or demonic to saintly.
As to WF - I'm not so sure ... he may have lost his. He should check behind the couch, or in the dryer.
I got soul; I just don't have rhythm.Yep, I'm white and nerdy and not an once of rhythm at all... But I can do an occasional melody lol. My wife insists I'm tone def but I've repeatedly proved I'm just tone stupid.
So... you now agreeing Susan had soul or are you trying to double standardize a fact into a statistic?
Going back to the well accepted Soul of Human= Freedom of Will, no, Molly doesn't have it anymore, she might think she does, she might continue on and behave in the same way she would have, but she's not going to change in that behavior. Her Humanity has fled her.
*which jives with Woj Lily was simply deluded into thinking she was still human.
I don't think we know enough about the process of turning into a Red Court vampire. I think it's possible that turning kills the person, and they're replaced by something else with the same memories. So I think Susan didn't lose her soul; she died with it. But the Red Court vampire who burst from her skeleton didn't have one. I think the same thing about Black Court vamps.That's said mainly and directly about the black court in comparison to the other two. I don't think Red's change more than the superficial outer layer, directly impacting their literal food/ hunger) but as it's a transmogrification it slowly becomes more permanent, with the end result being a blood slave. So all those whom maintain themselves, remain themselves.
That's said mainly and directly about the black court in comparison to the other two. I don't think Red's change more than the superficial outer layer, directly impacting their literal food/ hunger) but as it's a transmogrification it slowly becomes more permanent, with the end result being a blood slave. So all those whom maintain themselves, remain themselves.
They explicitly form flesh masks, though; they are the flabby bat-things, but make a mask to hide that. They all make attractive ones, too, and I find it unlikely that every turned Red Court vamp was attractive. Didn't one of the Eebs make one that looked like Susan in Changes to hire that hitter to kill Dresden in the Church?They form flesh masks, over their true form, they specifically change into gigantic bat creatures. Of course it's subjective, everything's subjective. however we have direct woj dealing with the differences which do not say they simply become something else like BCV's do. The de evolution through transmogrification theory has only to compare the slow degradation into the mindset of the physical form, and the ability to resist this effect through strong willpower.
Also, "remaining themselves" is subjective; is that like ghosts, as explained by Mort? They have that person's memories and think they're that person, only changed, but are something else entirely?
So... you now agreeing Susan had soul or are you trying to double standardize a fact into a statistic?
Going back to the well accepted Soul of Human= Freedom of Will, no, Molly doesn't have it anymore, she might think she does, she might continue on and behave in the same way she would have, but she's not going to change in that behavior. Her Humanity has fled her.
*which jives with Woj Lily was simply deluded into thinking she was still human.
They explicitly form flesh masks, though; they are the flabby bat-things, but make a mask to hide that. They all make attractive ones, too, and I find it unlikely that every turned Red Court vamp was attractive. Didn't one of the Eebs make one that looked like Susan in Changes to hire that hitter to kill Dresden in the Church?
Also, "remaining themselves" is subjective; is that like ghosts, as explained by Mort? They have that person's memories and think they're that person, only changed, but are something else entirely?
They form flesh masks, over their true form, they specifically change into gigantic bat creatures. Of course it's subjective, everything's subjective. however we have direct woj dealing with the differences which do not say they simply become something else like BCV's do. The de evolution through transmogrification theory has only to compare the slow degradation into the mindset of the physical form, and the ability to resist this effect through strong willpower.
AND they can change the way they appear. Ariana in Edinburgh did not appear the same as she did in Chichen Itza. Harry even comments on it. So a Full Rampire can change their flesh mask. They are not stuck in one shape, like us mere humans.It's a flesh mask, not a full transformation into a human duplicate. Hell having gained partial transmutation ability is actually more in line with them being the result of breaking shapeshifting laws of magic, as it's clearly a direct result of the transformation and its inherent qualities.
Of course Susan had a soul. I don't believe that the Rampire that took over has a soul though. Once Susan killed Martin, that effectively killed her too and the Rampire demon took over.Then of course Molly had a soul, and then she got a Mantle and that took over, effectively stopping her ability to choose and use Mortal magic. can't hypocritically be both. (cause that means there IS a disconnect where the ego wants to be right instead of correct, and I don't abide easily by such logical fallicy -.- statisticalizing facts...)
But you're equating mantle acquisition with transfiguration. They're objectively different processes.And subjectively the same, it's the same world mechanics acting in a streamlined fashion, on the jim butcher appreciation community on FB Jim wojed recently to someone asking about if Archangeldom was a mantle his reply was to the effect of,"it's almost like the rules work consistently in the DF" I can point out these consistencies and the why forth of it usually. Mantles and angels being similar, even other ranks of angels we are unfamiliar with all aligns with the beacon/possession/replacement process as seen in Rasmussen. Possession being the most damaging in it's relation to free will. But the original beacon is always at work, even Kravos came in through the Dream realm, through the mind.
And flesh masks isn't shapeshifting, they're created separately from the body—elder Red Court vamps can hide from the sun in the shadow of their flesh masks, which they wouldn't be able to do if they were turning into something else.Causing manifestation of a foreign body part that is not actually of the self(ergo the ability to hide in it's shadow) is actually quite the same as the transformatives done by grey, expand your concept of shapeshifting.
I'm stating that the transformation process of turning into a Red Court vampire isn't a gradual process; it's one that has a definable beginning and end. Half-vampires are the middle of that. Once they turn, their human self is destroyed and supplanted by the vampire. It's represented by their physical body changing. There is simply no way their human self could survive the stress of turning, aside from the implications of the vampire consuming it. Because they die, their soul remains intact. Again, when you see a vampire, "you aren't seeing your friend; you're seeing the thing that killed them."Nope, Blood slaves are the end of the transformation process, the ability to hold onto your own will, ergo resisting this complete deevlolution into the thing you came to embody is their key to 'royalty'/position. Also how Mab is said to maintain any of who she is, Who you are going in is directly culpable in both regards, ergo Susan's continued love for her child so as to Sacrifice herself for her. Makes her mortal enough for me, as it does my Lawyer Mab ;)
Then of course Molly had a soul, and then she got a Mantle and that took over, effectively stopping her ability to choose and use Mortal magic. can't hypocritically be both. (cause that means there IS a disconnect where the ego wants to be right instead of correct, and I don't abide easily by such logical fallicy -.- statisticalizing facts...)
the degradation of self between Rampire and that as ascribed to Queen Mab are pretty much the same experience with the same end, loss of self into what you've become. As is who they are going into it dictating who they become afterwards as Susan is a prime example of.
From how I understand it, they're two different things.The spirit being the main component of the mantles vs soul being angelic is key, the greater force acts directly upon your will and conscious mind, where as Fae mantles all seem to overflow the underlying id making the subconscious overpower conscious will, as it did when Molly tried to say something too direct. The main difference is the layer of conscious ability the invading force has itself. Angelic forces being most sentient with Outsiders as Fearbringer are pure ego, only a mental perspective of overriding willpower that needs to collect to itself the disparate parts of those things that make a composite insider, body, spirit, soul, ect.
Ramps are something that murders you and runs around wearing you like a suit, Faerie Mantles are something that slowly mindrapes you into the shape it wants. Neither are the kind of thing that you want to invite to sunday brunch.
The spirit being the main component of the mantles vs soul being angelic is key, the greater force acts directly upon your will and conscious mind, where as Fae mantles all seem to overflow the underlying id making the subconscious overpower conscious will, as it did when Molly tried to say something too direct. The main difference is the layer of conscious ability the invading force has itself. Angelic forces being most sentient with Outsiders as Fearbringer are pure ego, only a mental perspective of overriding willpower that needs to collect to itself the disparate parts of those things that make a composite insider, body, spirit, soul, ect.
*I somehow got the feeling Jim's been reading people complaints about holes in his system as they see them from their perspective... and he wasn't any happier about them then I've been. So if I seem slightly defensive in insisting on seeing a pattern, it's because I DO, even if it's fan crack patterns, they still exist.
You know this is almost entirely wrong, right? The questions a prosecutor asks do not put the burden on the accused. If they ask where I was, and I say at home alone, the burden is still on the prosecution to not only prove that I wasn't at home alone, but that I was at the crime scene. I don't have to prove where I was, because I have the presumption of innocence in my favor.
Now, I can provide proof to help my defense. But if I left it at, "sorry, I was alone", it's not going to get me convicted. The evidence proving I was there (assuming there was any) would have to do that. That's the whole point of innocent-until-proven-guilty.
Also, in the U.S. you can just answer "talk to my lawyer" who will inform them you plead the 5th and they will not be allowed to tell the jury that you refused to give an alibi.
They can still claim the defendant was unable to prove their whereabouts at the time of the crime.
I don't see these things as the same in any regard. One affects the body and mind, the other the mind and soul. I'd like to know how you got the sense of Jim's disappointment, because maybe that will help convince me.i'm not even sure that makes enough sense for me to answer, what does the mind and body, mind and soul? Fae vs angels?
And be as defensive as you like; patterns are everywhere, even if not everyone sees them. I'd never dream of discouraging you; that's not my intent by disagreeing.
They can still claim the defendant was unable to prove their whereabouts at the time of the crime.