ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DF Spoilers => Topic started by: Rasins on January 05, 2018, 04:52:09 PM
-
In BR we learn about how the White Court can be harmed by TRUE LOVE.
We also know that Genosa is in love.
That being said, when we first meet Lara, she grabs Genosa's arm and leaves the room.
Why can she touch him? Thomas can't touch Justine, so why can Lara touch Genosa?
Is it possible that Genosa isn't in TRUE LOVE, but in love, and that gives him some shielding against the White court's "come hither" magic?
-
I believe that its in TC where Thomas talks about why he can't touch Justine at all, because both he and his Hunger constantly want her, as opposed to Madeline who thinks she should feed on everyone all the time. Lara has greater control over her Hunger, if it isn't trying to feed, it's safe to touch someone protected by True Love.
at least that's how I understood it...
-
Even more in white night where Lara can kiss Harry up until the last moment when she loses control.
-
In BR we learn about how the White Court can be harmed by TRUE LOVE.
We also know that Genosa is in love.
That being said, when we first meet Lara, she grabs Genosa's arm and leaves the room.
Why can she touch him? Thomas can't touch Justine, so why can Lara touch Genosa?
Is it possible that Genosa isn't in TRUE LOVE, but in love, and that gives him some shielding against the White court's "come hither" magic?
Long sleeve shirt?
-
Even more in white night where Lara can kiss Harry up until the last moment when she loses control.
Now that you point it out, from her POV that was probably a fairly serious bit of finesse (until she thought they were about to die anyway).
-
It may be that the WC vamps get harmed when they are feeding or attempting feed off of the protected human who is in true love. True Love seems to be rare.
-
It may be that the WC vamps get harmed when they are feeding or attempting feed off of the protected human who is in true love. True Love seems to be rare.
That. Thomas burned everytime he touches Justine for the same reason Madeline did, he can't control his hunger demon. Lara was doing so. It talks about this in WN iirc after he has Justine wipe her hair over Mad,
*Now, a symbol of true love apparently burns with latent love all the time though, Lara has a scar that won't heal because she touched the wrong wedding ring once.
-
That. Thomas burned everytime he touches Justine for the same reason Madeline did, he can't control his hunger demon. Lara was doing so. It talks about this in WN iirc after he has Justine wipe her hair over Mad,
*Now, a symbol of true love apparently burns with latent love all the time though, Lara has a scar that won't heal because she touched the wrong wedding ring once.
That's exactly what I said 5 posts ago. As for the ring, there's nothing to say she wasn't prepared to feed when she touched it.
-
That's exactly what I said 5 posts ago. As for the ring, there's nothing to say she wasn't prepared to feed when she touched it.
Or she was younger and less experienced. Or she was just hungry, it is easier to control the demon when you are well fed and it is content.
-
That's exactly what I said 5 posts ago. As for the ring, there's nothing to say she wasn't prepared to feed when she touched it.
Negligible, she has a permanent scar from it, not from trying to feed. Thomas feed on Justine and he loves her and it doesn't permanently scar him. It twas the object as a symbolic talisman, she's not going to feed on an object.
*apparently that's not what you said then?
-
I've noticed the touching thing, too. Not with Lara, but with Thomas and Harry. Someone said Arthur might've been wearing a long-sleeved shirt, which is possible. Or Lara could have had gloves on, but the idea that she was reining in her Hunger is more interesting. However, in the same book, Thomas describes how Lara and another vampire got sick after touching a love symbol (Lara even has the scar), so I don't think merely keeping the Hunger in check is viable.
Instead, I wonder if Arturo is an old-fashionable man and refused to consummate his relationship with his fiancee (or if she made the choice and he went along with it. I remember she said he falls in love easily). That way, he wouldn't have been protected from Lara's touch, as physical intimacy seems to be the key to it. Anything other than non-loving-sex could be considered platonic.
As for Thomas, he burns when he touches Justine because... the demon loves her, too? If the Hunger is capable of feeling love (and it understands the emotion enough to know it hurts it), then feeling it would be self-destructive, so it doesn't matter how much control Thomas has over it (and he has a lot, as he was able to feed off his clients without killing them), near Justine, the Hunger goes crazy, like Gollum (love her/hate her).
-
It’s probably just a continuity error.
-
I've noticed the touching thing, too. Not with Lara, but with Thomas and Harry. Someone said Arthur might've been wearing a long-sleeved shirt, which is possible. Or Lara could have had gloves on, but the idea that she was reining in her Hunger is more interesting. However, in the same book, Thomas describes how Lara and another vampire got sick after touching a love symbol (Lara even has the scar), so I don't think merely keeping the Hunger in check is viable.
It's two separate things.
We don't know why it's so, but for some reason the love-energy in symbols of love affects the Whites differently. Maybe it radiates from it, while to encounter it in a person they have to dig in while trying to feed or something. But the effects are simply different.
Maybe a person is like a bottle of energy, and sometimes that energy is contact-poisonous. It's still safe as long as it's in the bottle. I wonder if things like that wedding ring could be compared to an item on which somebody has poured the poisonous energy, so it's coated in the dangerous substance and dangerous on contact, while the bottle of poison is safe unless you open it (i.e. try to feed).
But that's my speculation.
As for Thomas, he burns when he touches Justine because... the demon loves her, too? If the Hunger is capable of feeling love (and it understands the emotion enough to know it hurts it), then feeling it would be self-destructive, so it doesn't matter how much control Thomas has over it (and he has a lot, as he was able to feed off his clients without killing them), near Justine, the Hunger goes crazy, like Gollum (love her/hate her).
No.
Thomas the man loves Justine. Thomas the Hunger wants to devour Justine. It so happens that these two desires are both passionately intense with regard to her.
Thomas' Hunger tries to feed on every human being that he comes into skin-to-skin contact with. When Thomas and Harry rap knuckles, Thomas' Hunger tries to feed on Harry. If Thomas saved Karrin from falling off a cliff, his Hunger would try to feed on Karrin at the same time as long as their bodies were touching.
But most of the time it's easy for Thomas to restrain the Hunger, so he can shake hands or save someone in danger or whatever safely. The exception is if he hasn't fed in so long the Hunger is starving, then he becomes deadly dangerous to everyone around him because the Hunger is off the leash.
The other exception is Justine. As much as Thomas the man loves her, Thomas the Hunger thinks she's absolutely delicious. Thomas' Hunger 'loves' Justine in the same way I that I 'love' good spaghetti or a well-cooked steak, or Harry 'loves' Mama Murphy's burgers. Justine just tastes too good to resist and Thomas can't restrain his Hunger near her.
-
Negligible, she has a permanent scar from it, not from trying to feed. Thomas feed on Justine and he loves her and it doesn't permanently scar him. It twas the object as a symbolic talisman, she's not going to feed on an object.
I still wonder, incidentally, if that ring was her own, from when she was much younger.
-
I've noticed the touching thing, too. Not with Lara, but with Thomas and Harry. Someone said Arthur might've been wearing a long-sleeved shirt, which is possible. Or Lara could have had gloves on, but the idea that she was reining in her Hunger is more interesting. However, in the same book, Thomas describes how Lara and another vampire got sick after touching a love symbol (Lara even has the scar), so I don't think merely keeping the Hunger in check is viable.
Instead, I wonder if Arturo is an old-fashionable man and refused to consummate his relationship with his fiancee (or if she made the choice and he went along with it. I remember she said he falls in love easily). That way, he wouldn't have been protected from Lara's touch, as physical intimacy seems to be the key to it. Anything other than non-loving-sex could be considered platonic.
As for Thomas, he burns when he touches Justine because... the demon loves her, too? If the Hunger is capable of feeling love (and it understands the emotion enough to know it hurts it), then feeling it would be self-destructive, so it doesn't matter how much control Thomas has over it (and he has a lot, as he was able to feed off his clients without killing them), near Justine, the Hunger goes crazy, like Gollum (love her/hate her).
The love between Thomas and Justine is true love, that is why he could not touch her until she had physical sex with someone else.. Remember she invited a gay woman friend at the end of Ghost Story? Since though she might be mildly bi-sexual, she isn't gay, so the gay sex counts to break the true love lock that prevented Thomas from touching her and at the same time in their minds at least since she isn't gay stayed faithful.
Love tokens like a wedding ring or a rose can burn if they were exchanged in true love. It's complicated, the best theory I
can think of is the Hunger Demon feeds on carnal lust and the "hormones/emotions" that calls forth, but true love is on a higher level... Kind of like getting too near the sun, the Hunger Demon feeds on the light and warmth until death of the victim. Think of true love itself as the sun, touch it and you burn up.
-
The love between Thomas and Justine is true love, that is why he could not touch her until she had physical sex with someone else.. Remember she invited a gay woman friend at the end of Ghost Story? Since though she might be mildly bi-sexual, she isn't gay, so the gay sex counts to break the true love lock that prevented Thomas from touching her and at the same time in their minds at least since she isn't gay stayed faithful.
Love tokens like a wedding ring or a rose can burn if they were exchanged in true love. It's complicated, the best theory I
can think of is the Hunger Demon feeds on carnal lust and the "hormones/emotions" that calls forth, but true love is on a higher level... Kind of like getting too near the sun, the Hunger Demon feeds on the light and warmth until death of the victim. Think of true love itself as the sun, touch it and you burn up.
The weird thing is we never seem to hear about any other love than the romantic kind sufficing. Sure, the soul-soul contact is pretty intense during sex, but so presumably is that during breastfeeding, yet there's no general trend of virgins (whose last extremely intimate contact would often be with someone who loved them) being protected. Note trend, not saying it's a total certainty.
So there seems to be something else going on. Something deeper, more specific, than just intimacy backed by love.
I am running on thin ice, obviously, but an attempt: Romantic love is a kind of ongoing sharing of soul between equals. Where a parent's love might seem to be a way to 'feed' the child's soul without quite the same in reverse, a romantic love is a bi-directional feed. And as the hunger demon attempts to feed on the soul, the soul is not really just there, but also elsewhere (namely with the loved one). The demon tries to munch anyway and as a result is halfway ripped from the body of the vampire, even when the other lover is close, because it's a metaphysical rather than physical distance. The demon could eat on, but it would be permanently dislocated and the vampire-body will die, leaving the demon untethered and forced to return to the NN, before it can do permanent damage to the lovers (after all, a WCV can feed quite deeply without killing).
-
Maybe it has to do with the rarity of romantic love.
-
As someone who believes in neither uppercase Love or souls, it’s difficult to theorise. I’ve never looked too deeply at this stuff because they’re just a bit of fantasy facade. In context of a magic world with all this stuff, logic and rational thought seems like a fruitless venture, like discussing why leprechauns keep their gold in a pot instead of a trunk or a magic sack.
When I read these love passages with the burning and all, I just figure it works as described currently because the story currently requires it to do so. Like the pseudo science in Star Trek.
-
Maybe it has to do with the rarity of romantic love.
Probably with the myth and stories about romantic love. There is a lot of believe invested here and that is power.
-
Probably with the myth and stories about romantic love. There is a lot of believe invested here and that is power.
And not in motherly love?
I suspect if you make a fair summation it's below romantic love in mythical intensity, but we're looking for a difference in not just degree.
-
I am guessing the love has to be rare because if it was common, like parental love, than the WCV would starve.
-
I am guessing the love has to be rare because if it was common, like parental love, than the WCV would starve.
Romantic love just biochemical to induce receptivity to reproduction. Parental love is biochemical to induce that the offspring survives. Yes, we’ve embellished this behaviour as our systems became more sophisticated, but the biochemical is the core of it. Given the body produces chemicals to induce the love experience, could certain chemicals be a repellent to the white court? Could this be simulated by eating chocolate? Are the other white court who thrive on fear, etc. repelled by this same thing? Why *do* those rascally leprechauns insist on keeping gold in pots as opposed to classic chests or flashier magic bags?
-
Romantic love just biochemical to induce receptivity to reproduction. Parental love is biochemical to induce that the offspring survives. Yes, we’ve embellished this behaviour as our systems became more sophisticated, but the biochemical is the core of it. Given the body produces chemicals to induce the love experience, could certain chemicals be a repellent to the white court? Could this be simulated by eating chocolate? Are the other white court who thrive on fear, etc. repelled by this same thing? Why *do* those rascally leprechauns insist on keeping gold in pots as opposed to classic chests or flashier magic bags?
Because ignore the biological explanations we are in a magical world. Leprechauns store pots of gold because that is expected from them by their story. How the supernatural behaves is strongly influenced by what humans tell each other about it.
-
Because ignore the biological explanations we are in a magical world. Leprechauns store pots of gold because that is expected from them by their story. How the supernatural behaves is strongly influenced by what humans tell each other about it.
I was providing a hybrid approach. Even magic systems have to have some basis in logic and reality. Also, do the white court who consume pain, fear, etc. react to “Love” as do the Lara Clan? Or, do they react to some twisted mirror version of their preferred dinner?
Speaking of logic, yours seems a bit circular in regards to the Great Leprechaun Conundrum of 2018. You can’t say they use pots because people expect pots and people expect pots because they use pots. That doesn’t work. Also, is your statement about “how the supernatural behaves” meant to be regarding leprechauns in the DF universe or just a general declaration?
Personally, I think they use pots so they can cook and eat those they find seeking their treasure.
-
Oh they will use something else when humans start to tell different stories, humans change their stories over time and that is how even immortals change. That is how Odin became kringle.
White court vampires do not feed on love, they feed on lust. In real life lust is part of love, love is just more complete, but in romantic tales they are opposing forces the one noble and high and the other base and profane and so on. It makes sense that romantic love for your true partner defeats the base lust for the vampire.
The vampire stands for adultery and romantic love stops you from doing it.
-
Oh they will use something else when humans start to tell different stories, humans change their stories over time and that is how even immortals change. That is how Odin became kringle.
White court vampires do not feed on love, they feed on lust. In real life lust is part of love, love is just more complete, but in romantic tales they are opposing forces the one noble and high and the other base and profane and so on. It makes sense that romantic love for your true partner defeats the base lust for the vampire.
The vampire stands for adultery and romantic love stops you from doing it.
I think we're talking passed each other as this doesn't answer anything I asked and answers questions I didn't ask and already knew the DF answers to. :P Need me to reword my previous post?
-
I think we're talking passed each other as this doesn't answer anything I asked and answers questions I didn't ask and already knew the DF answers to. :P Need me to reword my previous post?
We might have lost each other somewhere.
I think the white court vulnerability to real love, for those that feed on lust that is, is much like the black courts vulnerability to holy symbols. It is part of their story and nothing else. It is there because humans believe it should be there and all supernaturals depend on human stories to express themselves in the real world, the reason Mab values that Grimm book so much. If there is another logic to it than that logic just strengthens the story. That is my take on both the why and the how.
-
Negligible, she has a permanent scar from it, not from trying to feed. Thomas feed on Justine and he loves her and it doesn't permanently scar him. It twas the object as a symbolic talisman, she's not going to feed on an object.
*apparently that's not what you said then?
I think the logic here would be that if she were in the process of feeding, and thus had lowered her defenses (or activated her Hunger, if you prefer) then she'd become vulnerable to the Ring during that window.
Cant speak to why she was unable to heal the Ring Scar but able to heal the True Love burned lips from Harry.
-
I think the logic here would be that if she were in the process of feeding, and thus had lowered her defenses (or activated her Hunger, if you prefer) then she'd become vulnerable to the Ring during that window.
Cant speak to why she was unable to heal the Ring Scar but able to heal the True Love burned lips from Harry.
Lips heal fast and scar little, the wounds are painful though.
-
Lips heal fast and scar little, the wounds are painful though.
Simple and direct answer, I like it. Does that work when we're talking about supernatural healing? I guess if the Catch is inhibiting their supernatural healing the normal human-side healing might still maintain it's patterns and relative capabilities.
-
Lips heal fast and scar little, the wounds are painful though.
You're telling me. My mother's dog hated everyone except for my mother (typical behavior with border collies, I'm told), and I got too close to him and moved too quickly. Bit straight through both lips—total separation. It was really nasty and painful, but I slopped liquid bandage on it, and the next day it had already reattached, and the day after it was almost completely closed up. In a week, there was hardly even a mark. I have a tiny, unnoticeable scar from it—a paper thin vertical white line.
The dog was nicer to me after he realized he hurt me, by the way. (And if I'm honest, I'd rather a dog be too jumpy around strangers than too nice considering my parents' age).
-
The relevant passage from the books regarding this is in Proven Guilty, the scene right after Harry and Thomas leave Zero.
The phrase that sums it up best (IMHO) is when Thomas says the danger occurs when the Hunger is "close to the surface." This can mean several different things; that the Vamp is very hungry, that the Vamp is very turned on; that the vamp is actively trying to feed; that the vamp is actively using some of the Hunger's energy, etc.
My guess for something like the wedding ring scar is that Lara was using her power to try to seduce someone, the game and intrigue of the situation also causing Lara to get turned on herself. As part of the seduction, she goes to hide the wedding ring from sight, so the victim isnt reminded of his true love by the sight of it, and because her Hunger is so close to the surface the ring is able to badly badly burn her. Why that is a permanent scar vs Harry's kiss or what Justine does to Madeline seems to heal completely is not addressed at all, but that could be something as simple as how intense the love was or how young Lara was when it happened.
-
We might have lost each other somewhere.
I think the white court vulnerability to real love, for those that feed on lust that is, is much like the black courts vulnerability to holy symbols. It is part of their story and nothing else. It is there because humans believe it should be there and all supernaturals depend on human stories to express themselves in the real world, the reason Mab values that Grimm book so much. If there is another logic to it than that logic just strengthens the story. That is my take on both the why and the how.
That was my first answer in this thread: it works that way because Butcher says it does and looking for much depth was the same as asking why leprechauns use pots and not magic bags. There is no actual answer because it’s all fantasy. ;)
However, I did then add an additional bit about the biochemistry of “love” and suggested that one could use that as a foundation if one were looking for logic and depth (like Star Trek with a bit of jargon, some real theory and then quasi science). If it is an aversion to a biochemical state, could this state be reproduced artificially as the person in the short story was attempting.
Then, I asked if the white court who feed on pain, suffering, etc. were also harmed by “love” or rather by the inverse of their preferred meal (e.g. bliss (in which case, they ought to avoid people on ecstasy)).
Of course, I still think it’s tantamount to the leprechaun pot question. And, yes, I got your argument on it, I just think it’s circular logic. But, on a topic like this, there is no answer until Butcher writes it in the books.
-
The relevant passage from the books regarding this is in Proven Guilty, the scene right after Harry and Thomas leave Zero.
The phrase that sums it up best (IMHO) is when Thomas says the danger occurs when the Hunger is "close to the surface." This can mean several different things; that the Vamp is very hungry, that the Vamp is very turned on; that the vamp is actively trying to feed; that the vamp is actively using some of the Hunger's energy, etc.
My guess for something like the wedding ring scar is that Lara was using her power to try to seduce someone, the game and intrigue of the situation also causing Lara to get turned on herself. As part of the seduction, she goes to hide the wedding ring from sight, so the victim isnt reminded of his true love by the sight of it, and because her Hunger is so close to the surface the ring is able to badly badly burn her. Why that is a permanent scar vs Harry's kiss or what Justine does to Madeline seems to heal completely is not addressed at all, but that could be something as simple as how intense the love was or how young Lara was when it happened.
Yea it was iirc, in that same scene too.
-
That was my first answer in this thread: it works that way because Butcher says it does and looking for much depth was the same as asking why leprechauns use pots and not magic bags. There is no actual answer because it’s all fantasy. ;)
However, I did then add an additional bit about the biochemistry of “love” and suggested that one could use that as a foundation if one were looking for logic and depth (like Star Trek with a bit of jargon, some real theory and then quasi science). If it is an aversion to a biochemical state, could this state be reproduced artificially as the person in the short story was attempting.
Then, I asked if the white court who feed on pain, suffering, etc. were also harmed by “love” or rather by the inverse of their preferred meal (e.g. bliss (in which case, they ought to avoid people on ecstasy)).
Of course, I still think it’s tantamount to the leprechaun pot question. And, yes, I got your argument on it, I just think it’s circular logic. But, on a topic like this, there is no answer until Butcher writes it in the books.
I do not think it is circular logic. It is really humans who create the stories and shape the supernatural. The story was first, it is an expression of human free will. Without the stories the supernatural can not express itself and with the stories they are restricted by it. T is not circular because the stories come first.
-
The relevant passage from the books regarding this is in Proven Guilty, the scene right after Harry and Thomas leave Zero.
The phrase that sums it up best (IMHO) is when Thomas says the danger occurs when the Hunger is "close to the surface." This can mean several different things; that the Vamp is very hungry, that the Vamp is very turned on; that the vamp is actively trying to feed; that the vamp is actively using some of the Hunger's energy, etc.
My guess for something like the wedding ring scar is that Lara was using her power to try to seduce someone, the game and intrigue of the situation also causing Lara to get turned on herself. As part of the seduction, she goes to hide the wedding ring from sight, so the victim isnt reminded of his true love by the sight of it, and because her Hunger is so close to the surface the ring is able to badly badly burn her. Why that is a permanent scar vs Harry's kiss or what Justine does to Madeline seems to heal completely is not addressed at all, but that could be something as simple as how intense the love was or how young Lara was when it happened.
I would think the "lingering power" on an object like a wedding ring, or a rose would be akin to that of a threshold. Power keeps getting pushed into it, through those in love (or those living in the home in the case of a threshold). So that even when the person is separated from it, the power is still there to be able to harm a Wampire (or prevent a supernatural from entering a home with mal-intent).
I think, like a threshold, that when a Wampire isn't attempting to feed, or there is no mal-intent, it won't harm them.
-
I would think the "lingering power" on an object like a wedding ring, or a rose would be akin to that of a threshold. Power keeps getting pushed into it, through those in love (or those living in the home in the case of a threshold). So that even when the person is separated from it, the power is still there to be able to harm a Wampire (or prevent a supernatural from entering a home with mal-intent).
I think, like a threshold, that when a Wampire isn't attempting to feed, or there is no mal-intent, it won't harm them.
I think I really like that connection, actually. Thresholds operate on the concept of Family, and the Love/Marriage bond is one of the most fundamental building blocks of that, and philosophically they are more or less subconscious applications of group Magic. I could easily accept that the Love Energy that gets stamped into Objects would operate on similar principles and be fueled by the continued proximity and/or emotional Connection. Put another way, it sounds like a very primal and unrefined equivalent to a spell that is anchored and fueled by a Bloodline, like LaFey's Curse that was anchored to he sons (and to a lesser and ill-defined degree anchored to their necklaces?)
-
Okay Q (and thank you for agreeing with me.),
If you have a married couple who are truly in love and stay that way until one of them dies. Does the other retain that protection? I think the answer is yes, based on Harry's experience.
Now, would the residual effect of that love still linger on say, the wedding ring of the deceased? Or on that Nick-Nack that the spouse gave them and they loved so much, even after their death?
-
Okay Q (and thank you for agreeing with me.),
If you have a married couple who are truly in love and stay that way until one of them dies. Does the other retain that protection? I think the answer is yes, based on Harry's experience.
Subject to the normal "Loss via Boinking", Id think so.
Now, would the residual effect of that love still linger on say, the wedding ring of the deceased? Or on that Nick-Nack that the spouse gave them and they loved so much, even after their death?
After the first one Dies I think the answer is firmly Yes. But once both are dead I dont think it would stick around (though it might drift away instead of blinking out). In the same way Threasholds and Bloodline-anchored magic need a Living source, Id expect the True Love to fade once both halves have moved on. Even if a loved-one kept the object and the memory, it would start representing a different bond, a bond of parent to child or whatever it is.
-
Q, asked this question on FB and got the response from someone that the ring was from a couple who'd been married 50 years imbuing it with the love cultivated in all that time.. Can you confirm the 50+ years thing cause i'd never heard and they couldn't directly.
-
Q, asked this question on FB and got the response from someone that the ring was from a couple who'd been married 50 years imbuing it with the love cultivated in all that time.. Can you confirm the 50+ years thing cause i'd never heard and they couldn't directly.
Cannot confirm or deny, that's a new on on me. It fits with how I understand things in general, but I dont know of any specific WOJ that gave us more details on that ring.