And nobody calls him out on it.I called him out on it. Let me find that post.
I hope Harry starts to feel more compassion for those he kills that are of the sidhe. The wall between killing a sidhe and killing a mortal seems to be weakened each time he kills one of the Fae.
Of course, Mab is fine with it. She is quite happy with her Monster in Traning. Inez would be so proud.
I called him out on it. Let me find that post.
When I first read this I did a mental double-take. Harry committed murder there. Seriously, he straight up murdered a sapient being for the crime of disagreeing with him, and somehow it's okay because it was a Sidhe, not a human. And nobody calls him out on it. There have been other instances of speciesism in the series, but this takes the cake.
SPOILER........(click to show/hide)
WAIT a second here.
Harry committed no crime.
Winter Law, which is where Harry was operating at the time allows such displays of power. There was no crime. Mab, the ruler of said realm, even approves.
Now from a human point of view and from a Human Morality view, it may have been wrong, but it in no way was a crime.
The First kill may have been sanctioned by Mab for the crime of spilling blood. The second might have been crossing the line.
I would argue that the second was sanctioned by Mab as well, by the fact that she then danced with Harry. In Mab's realm Power is the law. Harry was establishing where he was on the Power scale, and Mab approved of it.The fact that something may or may not be sanctioned by Mab doesn't absolve Harry from right or wrong in the matter. I suspect Mab would quite approve of a Harry that becomes a monster.
We aren't arguing that Harry committed a crime. We are arguing that from a human morality viewpoint, what he did was wrong. Harry is all concerned about himself going bad. It will start with him abusing the sidhe and then from there get worse.
I have wondered if perhaps Harry's instructions to Cat Sith or Harry's new rule led to Cat Sith being susceptible to a mortal who infects him.
Did you see the link that I included to where I talked about it under the "apprentices" thread.nope I didn't but I see it now.
When he's laying down the law to the winter court:A) It wasn't that the sidhe was disagreeing with Harry, it was what he was disagreeing with. Harry told them that they cannot kill or torture mortals -- who are also sentient beings -- while in his presence. The sidhe in question piped up with the equivalent of "you can't tell us what to do!" It wasn't that he wasn't human, it was the fact that he seemed to be active condoning the kidnapping/murder/torture/rape of innocents. Harry would've reacted similarly to mortals who did the same. It would be speciesism if Harry treated the sidhe differently because "ah, he's a faery, that's who they are."
My voice echoed throughout the whole chamber as clearly as if I’d been using a PA system. “All right, you primitive screwheads. Listen up. I’m Harry Dresden. I’m the new Winter Knight. I’m instituting a rule: When you’re within sight of me, mortals are off-limits.” I paused for a moment to let that sink in. Then I continued. “I can’t give you orders. I can’t control what you do in your own domains. I’m not going to be able to change you. I’m not even going to try. But if I see you abusing a mortal, you’ll join Chunky here. Zero warnings. Zero excuses. Subzero tolerance.”
I paused again and then asked, “Any questions?” One of the Sidhe smirked and stepped forward, his leather pants creaking. He opened his mouth, his expression condescending. “Mortal, do you actually think that you can—” “Infriga!” I snarled, unleashing Winter again, and without waiting for the cloud to clear, hurled the second strike, shouting, “Forzare!” This time I aimed much of the force up. Grisly bits of frozen Sidhe noble came pattering and clattering down to the ice of the dance floor.
When I first read this I did a mental double-take. Harry committed murder there. Seriously, he straight up murdered a sapient being for the crime of disagreeing with him, and somehow it's okay because it was a Sidhe, not a human. And nobody calls him out on it. There have been other instances of speciesism in the series, but this takes the cake.
Does this mean Harry is getting colder and more ruthless? Yep, Mab in general is happy with Harry’s development, even if she might have preferred not losing the Sidhe Lord.
C) Harry's never claimed to be completely morally correct guy, or a non-hypocrite.Harry purposely intended Susan to transform into a RC vampire so that he could "sacrifice" her and kill off the Red Court Vampires. This was a very cold act and he suffers from it.
The fact that something may or may not be sanctioned by Mab doesn't absolve Harry from right or wrong in the matter. I suspect Mab would quite approve of a Harry that becomes a monster.
I would argue that the second was sanctioned by Mab as well, by the fact that she then danced with Harry. In Mab's realm Power is the law. Harry was establishing where he was on the Power scale, and Mab approved of it.Yeah, did it really happen? Isn't a rule about spilling blood at her court? Because a little bit later when actual blood was spilled there was a big stink about it. Maybe it was an illusion?
From a moral perspective killing is "always" wrong, so even the first one was morally questionable.Not true. This largely depends on whose morality we are talking about.
Ah, sorry raidem, but we are talking about murder. Murder is a legal term, not a moral one.And in the view of Winter, Mab doesn't consider murder to be a crime. She has two laws: neither of which prohibits murder. Her law is such that one may not speak to her without first obtaining permission and secondly, one must not draw blood.
Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.Morality is that which shapes what is lawful and what isn't.
Yeah, did it really happen? Isn't a rule about spilling blood at her court? Because a little bit later when actual blood was spilled there was a big stink about it. Maybe it was an illusion?
When I explain Harry and the Dresden Files to a non-reader, it becomes abundantly clear that Harry is so far across the moral line. It doesn't become apparent to Harry until after Changes, that he has made some really bad calls.
Also, in order for something to be morally wrong there must be an absolute objective standard that makes it wrong.We [or at least, I am not] aren't talking about Mab's morality, we are talking about Harry's. As an outside viewer, I judge Harry's actions on the basis of \my\ morality. Consequently, I find many of his actions to be morally questionable. This action of killing the one sidhe isn't the most reprehensible thing Harry has done. But, Harry's slide into immorality isn't going to begin with Harry slaughtering mortals; it will begin with how he mistreats non-mortals.
In this case, Mab is the standard for what is or is not morally wrong in regards to Winter Sidhe. According to her, Harry was completely justified.
Also, in order for something to be morally wrong there must be an absolute objective standard that makes it wrong.There are quite a few different versions of morals where one doesn't need an absolute objective standard. Moral relativism is more in line with my thinking of morality.
Descriptive moral relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts hold true and the same consequences seem likely to arise.[2] It is the observation that different cultures have different moral standards.
"Think they'll rat out their buddy?"
"If they think it'll save their lives?" I asked. In a heartbeat. Maybe less."
"Weasels," Ramirez muttered.
"They are what they are, man," I said. "There's no use in hating them for it. Just be glad we can use it to advantage. Let's go."
[snip]scene where Harry finds that a ghoul killed 2 16 year old's eating parts of the little girl and gets rather upset about it (understatement)[/snip]
The quality of mercy was not Harry.
[/snip]
"Never," I told it. "Never again."
Then I threw it down the shaft.
[/snip]
"Sixteen, Carlos," I said. "Sixteen. It had them for less than eight minutes."
[snip]An enraged Harry kicks one ghoul away to warn others not to pull these shenagans on his watch again and sets up a death trap for the other involving orange juce and desert ants[/snip]
moments later, Ramirez said, "What happened to not hating them?"
"Things change."
We [or at least, I am not] aren't talking about Mab's morality, we are talking about Harry's. As an outside viewer, I judge Harry's actions on the basis of \my\ morality. Consequently, I find many of his actions to be morally questionable.
There are quite a few different versions of morals where one doesn't need an absolute objective standard. Moral relativism is more in line with my thinking of morality.
Descriptive moral relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts hold true and the same consequences seem likely to arise.[2] It is the observation that different cultures have different moral standards.
Yet if moral relativism is true then you cannot judge Harry by your moral standards.Not true, I can do all the judging I want based on my moral standards. By believing in moral relativism, I must allow that there are others who would disagree with me. Case in point, you disagree with me regarding Harry's morality.
neither is there any reason for Harry to subscribe to your relative code of morality nor for you to hold him to that standard.I disagree. Harry wants to be a good guy. Also, I am the person who is real; Harry isn't. Therefore, mine is the opinion that matters. And, as such, I will hold him to my moral standards whether you agree with that fact or not.
Not true, I can do all the judging I want based on my moral standards. By believing in moral relativism, I must allow that there are others who would disagree with me. Case in point, you disagree with me regarding Harry's morality.Pretty sure that's not moral relativism, that's moral absolutism with the recognition that though you are of course right, others may disagree with you.
Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong,Moral absolutism states that there is an Absolute standard.
Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.
Not true, I can do all the judging I want based on my moral standards.
By believing in moral relativism, I must allow that there are others who would disagree with me. Case in point, you disagree with me regarding Harry's morality.
I disagree. Harry wants to be a good guy. Also, I am the person who is real; Harry isn't. Therefore, mine is the opinion that matters. And, as such, I will hold him to my moral standards whether you agree with that fact or not.
The only time he ever really REALLY felt bad were after executing Cassus, Luccio(Corpsetaker), and Susan. He either did it cold or without thinking, and that is what scared him.
Not true, I can do all the judging I want based on my moral standards.
Not true. You cannot do all the judging you want based on my moral standards. Consistently applying moral relativism leads to absurdity.I didn't argue that I would judge Harry according to your moral standards, rather I said my own. And no, consistently applying moral relativism leads to the fact that we have a difference of opinion.
And according to moral relativism I am correct. Obvious contradiction is obvious.There is no 'correct.' You are allowed your opinion, I am allowed mine.
And good is subjective according to moral relativism. If either Harry or I believes that killing Sidhe is good (or at least "not bad") then killing Sidhe is good (or not "bad"). And mine is the opinion that matters. ;)This is true, but I do remind you that you were the one who argued that I could not judge Harry.
Well, while you totally can do so, it's a mite counter-productive from an analytical perspective because it kind of cuts off a whole range of enjoyable debates about the books to funnel them into one's own personal moral standards, given that arguing our own personal moral standards is not a thing this forum is for.The key here is I can judge all I want. To the point that it lessens my enjoyment, that is something I wouldn't "WANT." Also, I am not arguing my personal moral standard. I am defending my right to use my morals in deciding what type of guy Harry is. And, defending my judgement of Harry's actions based on those morals. The following is one of my statements regarding morality that I made. As you can see it is far from being TT or an alarming argument of what my personal moral standards are.
I hope Harry starts to feel more compassion for those he kills that are of the sidhe. The wall between killing a sidhe and killing a mortal seems to be weakened each time he kills one of the Fae.
Of course, Mab is fine with it. She is quite happy with her Monster in Traning. Inez would be so proud.
I have wondered if perhaps Harry's instructions to Cat Sith or Harry's new rule led to Cat Sith being susceptible to a mortal who infects him.
It wasn't a mortal that infected Cat Sith. We have yet to see a proven instance of a mortal being infected.We don't know exactly who infected Cat Sith. Harry believes it to be Sharkface and He is probably right. But, it is also sensible that Harry's orders could be made in such a way as to place him in an unintended bind when it comes to the enemy.
Harry referred to his party as his first day in the prison yard and I think he treated it as such.
I just got done reading Ender's Game and I think that Harry treated this interaction with the Sidhe much the way Ender handled his fight with Stillson.(click to show/hide)
Does this make it morally right? No, but Harry will be among the first to tell you that he isn't a hero. Look at how he dealt with Snake boy in the Hotel room in DM
I also wanted to address this comment. It wasn't a mortal that infected Cat Sith. We have yet to see a proven instance of a mortal being infected.
No, but Harry will be among the first to tell you that he isn't a hero.
Except when he's telling you that what he's doing is the right thing or something he has to do; self-awareness about doing problematic things is something Harry has only in a few and fairly extreme cases, and I am pretty sure that scenes like his realisation about what letting the world burn actually meant, in GS, indicates that this is something Jim is doing deliberately.But he wasn't saying let the world burn because he didn't give a damn. He was saying if it would save his little girl he'd be willing to do it.. Very few parents would disagree with him. We get hung up of the welfare of the many outweigh the welfare of the few or the one, but that isn't what we practice.
There is no 'correct.' You are allowed your opinion, I am allowed mine.
Given that we have an authorial voice statement (outside any possible unreliable narrative / bias that Harry may introduce) that some/all intelligent NN beings "aren't actual people" - no, I don't think we can really classify killing such a being, within the context of the Dresdenverse, as murder (even morally rather than legally).Oh, didn't know that...
That (the fact that there can be intelligent beings which are soulless and from a moral perspective "not people") is reality (EDIT: within the fictional context of) the Dresdenverse, even if it doesn't hold true in the real world.
I, honestly think Harry did the right thing. The sidhe are not free-willed, per se. They will follow their nature. And as high sidhe of Winter they will prey upon mortals. Harry had to give a huge enough incentive not to do it, that their self-preservation changed what their nature saw as things to be preyed upon, at least in the presence of Harry.I agree with this, clearly he was being tested.
He also had to kill to prove that he meant what he said, otherwise he wouldn't be taken seriously, especially not after having been outmaneuvered socially to the degree that he got just a few minutes prior.
We get hung up of the welfare of the many outweigh the welfare of the few or the one, but that isn't what we practice.
You do not speak for me in that "we". I'd appreciate you not using language that sounded like you did.Never do, since we do not think alike..
I'll give Harry the benefit of the doubt for one or a few killings of the sidhe that happen in this manner. But, if it occurs more often, I would say that then it becomes evidence that Harry is walking away from a Right Hand path.
It isn't easy to just split it into good and evil. He tries to do good, because he enjoys being evil.I don't see Harry enjoying doing evil in any sense of the word.
Which is why he is such an interesting character. If he had been able to stay on the straight-and-narrow, he wouldn't have been as fun to follow.
I saw that as self-preservation. Harry already compared the party to 'the first day in the prison yard' or words to that effect. What happens in prison? The strong inmates, (sidhe nobles or what-have-you), take a look at the new guy/girl & size him/her up. They look for weakness so they can prey on him/her.yep that seems to be right on the mark. though the original question was why hasn't anyone called harry on it..on straight murder of a sidhe character which is what harry did.
Now look at it from Harry's perspective. He's a mortal (albeit a very powerful one), who's come into their world. Mortals are already prey to the sidhe. Couple that with the fact that many of them probably already have strong feelings for Harry due to his past deeds. If they can challenge/hurt Harry, they're basically doing the same to Mab through a proxy, probably without consequence. And who wouldn't want to be able to take a shot at the boss without fear of reprisal? Finally, he's backed them into a corner.
So it's like this. Harry walks in. Every head in the place turns to him. He's a well-known defender of humanity. One of the badder gangs there takes measure of him by hurting his escort, (the only other human in the place). He destroys the one, & tells the rest he'll happily do the same to them. He immediately gets challenged. If he had done anything else, he's painting the word 'victim' with a capital "V" on his forehead, & somebody in the court WOULD be taking a shot at him faster than you can say 'flicum bicus'. The ONLY option Harry had, in order to not be dead (again) during his first official Winter Court public appearance, was to take out that sidhe noble quickly & gruesomely.
Can someone clarify the rules of immortality in regards to the fae, or in the DV in general? Do you have to have a powerful mantle? IIRC, Harry thought it was impossible to kill Maeve initially. The same goes for the creatures on Demonreach (they would return eventually). I'm wondering at what point creatures get the ability to come back from something like what Harry did at the party.It's in cold days were it's explained but I wish I could explain it but I think I shall fail, so I shall leave it up to someone else. TCF!
Thanks.
I think Harry was counting on some one saying "how are you going to stop us?" and that that person had enough bad karma on his score card to warrant the bbq treatment. Maybe a moral gamble, but I was totally ok with it.yep..that fairy person was totally a red shirt person.
It's in cold days were it's explained but I wish I could explain it but I think I shall fail, so I shall leave it up to someone else. TCF!
Can someone clarify the rules of immortality in regards to the fae, or in the DV in general? Do you have to have a powerful mantle? IIRC, Harry thought it was impossible to kill Maeve initially. The same goes for the creatures on Demonreach (they would return eventually). I'm wondering at what point creatures get the ability to come back from something like what Harry did at the party.
Aurora was killed at a special conjunction, wasn't she? That's why she was vulnerable.When the Queens bring out the Stone Table, everyone becomes vulnerable including the Queens.
When the Queens bring out the Stone Table, everyone becomes vulnerable including the Queens.
What we didn't see in Summer Knight that we did see in Cold Days is the actual mantle jumping from Aurora to Lily, or in the case of CD from Lily to Sarissa.
When the Queens bring out the Stone Table, everyone becomes vulnerable including the Queens.Then there is the little matter that iron was used, I think the Fae are vulnerable to that at any time.
What we didn't see in Summer Knight that we did see in Cold Days is the actual mantle jumping from Aurora to Lily, or in the case of CD from Lily to Sarissa.
A) It wasn't that the sidhe was disagreeing with Harry, it was what he was disagreeing with. Harry told them that they cannot kill or torture mortals -- who are also sentient beings -- while in his presence. The sidhe in question piped up with the equivalent of "you can't tell us what to do!" It wasn't that he wasn't human, it was the fact that he seemed to be active condoning the kidnapping/murder/torture/rape of innocents. Harry would've reacted similarly to mortals who did the same. It would be speciesism if Harry treated the sidhe differently because "ah, he's a faery, that's who they are."
B) The winter sidhe don't seem to respect much aside from violence and power. Harry knew that there was no other way of enforcing his rules in about the two seconds that he had to make a decision.
From a moral perspective killing is "always" wrong, so even the first one was morally questionable.Depends on whose morals you are using to judge.
Then there is the little matter that iron was used, I think the Fae are vulnerable to that at any time.Iron wouldn't have killed Aurora. It would only have caused her to reform had the injuries not been done at a conjuction of space or time. What really only matters is the immortals where the Ladies are thought to be the least of them.
Before the party, Harry mentions that he was going out to "first day in the prison yard". The #1 rule of the prison yard is "don't show fear". In fact, your best bet for that is to find the biggest, baddest prisoner and beat the ever-loving hell out of him to establish your credentials.This
In the Winter Court, no such credentials would be awarded to a Knight who showed any sort of mercy. To quote Vince McMahon here, "ruthless aggression" is the name of the game for them and the only thing they respond to. Harry understood this, and acted accordingly. His first "kill" was on Mab's orders and as such, did nothing for him. The second was his way of establishing his identity and establishing the ground rules for how he was going to deal with the Sidhe from then on out. It was pre-meditated, but was not outside the realm of "standard behavior" for ranking nobles of the Winter Court. He understood this, and its necessity, so no taint or corruption would apply to him afterward. He didn't want to do it, but he had to, and that's the crucial difference.
Before the party, Harry mentions that he was going out to "first day in the prison yard". The #1 rule of the prison yard is "don't show fear". In fact, your best bet for that is to find the biggest, baddest prisoner and beat the ever-loving hell out of him to establish your credentials.But Harry is not a ranking noble of the Winter Court. If there were to be any taint from killing a sidhe, just because Harry can justify it to himself (and you can justify it for him) doesn't mean he didn't actually kill someone. Standard behavior or not, necessity or not, he killed someone with magic.
In the Winter Court, no such credentials would be awarded to a Knight who showed any sort of mercy. To quote Vince McMahon here, "ruthless aggression" is the name of the game for them and the only thing they respond to. Harry understood this, and acted accordingly. His first "kill" was on Mab's orders and as such, did nothing for him. The second was his way of establishing his identity and establishing the ground rules for how he was going to deal with the Sidhe from then on out. It was pre-meditated, but was not outside the realm of "standard behavior" for ranking nobles of the Winter Court. He understood this, and its necessity, so no taint or corruption would apply to him afterward. He didn't want to do it, but he had to, and that's the crucial difference.
But Harry is not a ranking noble of the Winter Court. If there were to be any taint from killing a sidhe, just because Harry can justify it to himself (and you can justify it for him) doesn't mean he didn't actually kill someone. Standard behavior or not, necessity or not, he killed someone with magic.
Now, he killed a sidhe, not a mortal, and as he is not a mortal, I don't think there is that same kind of taint, and he's in the clear for the Laws, but "I've got a really good reason" doesn't make you immune to the corrupting influences of dark magic.
I mean, Harry had as good, if not BETTER justification for killing Justin when he did, and it was still an issue for him with the Laws, and he even got a bit of that taint on him.
I don't know if he got any taint or not, but if he did, it was probably of the psychological variety rather than the metaphysical variety. Nothing magical about it, just that it's easy to get into the habit of solving your problems and making your points with violence. Doing it and having it work just encourages you to do it again.
It's not a terrible argument, I'm just thinking that it's irrelevant to the issue of magical taint or not.
Again, Harry got a bit of a stain from killing Justin, and "A bunch of people might hypothetically think I'm an easy target" is a lot less of a justification than "He's trying to kill me right this second!"
I agree with what you are saying, but in that situation with all winter watching he had to do what he had to do. When around dangerous people, if they think you're weak, your doneStill no need to kill. There's plenty you can do to someone short of killing them that would demonstrate your power to them.
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,1879.msg37967.html#msg37967
The above is a WoJ about killing with magic. Human vs Faeries. Read down past the Kemmler stuff.
Also I could not locate what I thought was another WoJ that says in another way that the black magic taint only happens if you kill mortals/humans…
So... Serack I summon thee! (with cookies and hot coco). Is there another WoJ telling us it is basically taint- free to kill non humans with magic?
QuoteNote also the killing law only applies to Humans.
You can kill as many faeries as you want with magic.
Bingo. It hardly seems fair, does it?
The Laws of Magic don't necessarily match up to the actual universal guidelines to how the universal power known as "magic" behaves.
The consequences for breaking the Laws of Magic don't all come from people wearing grey cloaks.
And none of it necessarily has anything to do with what is Right or Wrong.
Which exist. It's finding where they start or stop existing that's the hard part.
Jim
By the way, I think this quote from "Backup" is quite pertinant to this conversation: (btw, Backup is from Thomas' perspective)(click to show/hide)
Edit: Some context for that quote from the White Night scene where that passion was born:Quote from: WN ch 23"Think they'll rat out their buddy?"
"If they think it'll save their lives?" I asked. In a heartbeat. Maybe less."
"Weasels," Ramirez muttered.
"They are what they are, man," I said. "There's no use in hating them for it. Just be glad we can use it to advantage. Let's go."
[snip]scene where Harry finds that a ghoul killed 2 16 year old's eating parts of the little girl and gets rather upset about it (understatement)[/snip]
The quality of mercy was not Harry.
[/snip]
"Never," I told it. "Never again."
Then I threw it down the shaft.
[/snip]
"Sixteen, Carlos," I said. "Sixteen. It had them for less than eight minutes."
[snip]An enraged Harry kicks one ghoul away to warn others not to pull these shenagans on his watch again and sets up a death trap for the other involving orange juce and desert ants[/snip]
moments later, Ramirez said, "What happened to not hating them?"
"Things change."
I think this is pertinant because it directly shows Harry's empathy for a class of magical beings getting destroyed in a fit of rage. To these beings Harry's the monster.
I agree with what you are saying, but in that situation with all winter watching he had to do what he had to do. When around dangerous people, if they think you're weak, your donePrison yard mentality, call it the chicken yard mentality, pecking order etc... I grew up on a chicken ranch, my father refused to cage them, so they had nests, roosts, houses, and a huge yard to run in.. Anyway, what one observed over and over again, if one of the hens was perceived to be weak or ill by the others, the pecking order kicked in. The stronger chickens would peck the weaker one to death. Not saying they did this at once, but if the weak chicken wasn't removed the outcome was always the same.
Still no need to kill. There's plenty you can do to someone short of killing them that would demonstrate your power to them.Perhaps, if one is dealing with humans or humans with values. The Fae are not human, they have laws, but their laws not ours. Back to the real world for a moment, there are gangs very ruthless human gangs who demand of members a murder as right of passage.. I doubt that anything short of that would be considered a demonstration of power. The perspective member would then be in turn killed by the group.
Still no need to kill. There's plenty you can do to someone short of killing them that would demonstrate your power to them.
Here is what Jim said:
Bingo. It hardly seems fair, does it?
The Laws of Magic don't necessarily match up to the actual universal guidelines to how the universal power known as "magic" behaves.
The consequences for breaking the Laws of Magic don't all come from people wearing grey cloaks.
And none of it necessarily has anything to do with what is Right or Wrong.
Which exist. It's finding where they start or stop existing that's the hard part.
Jim
If you read it carefully though, Jim appears to have said that Council's Law doesn't necessarily reflect the true nature of how [dark] Magic can effect your mind (my way of rephrasing his comments in this context).
The below quoted post I made a couple weeks ago [edit, oh hey look, it's reply #26 of this very topic] goes through a lot of effort to outline how I think the books have explicitly shown how something like this (Harry killing non mortals) has effected him WRT the "actual universal guidelines to how the universal power known as "magic" behaves" Jim referred to in the above WoJ.
[/spoiler]
Edit: Some context for that quote from the White Night scene where that passion was born:
I think this is pertinant because it directly shows Harry's empathy for a class of magical beings getting destroyed in a fit of rage. To these beings Harry's the monster.
Note how this flashback happens near the end of the ghoul attack in the harbor in WN, and when he returns to the main narrative, Harry is going psychotic trying to strangle a goul, ignoring his own survival. He would have drown without Thomas rescuing him. Seems like a strong argument for the paradigm that even though killing non mortals isn't breaking the "Law" it can constitute black magic that warps the mind.
Also, the DFRPG forum mod made a truely excellent post on how "lawbreaking" can effect a character here (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24800.0.html), that I always recommend when people are discussing the topic of how "dark magic" effects the caster.
Finally, holy cow those DFRPG guys talk about law breaking a lot. (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,36777.0.html)
I know the talk is about Fae/Sidhe but it applies to this conundrum that always bothered me.
If Harry killed Ebenezar with Magic, he'd be a lawbreaker, a black magic Warlock destined for the chopping block. It would also affect him in other ways since Eb is not only mortal but Family.
If Harry killed Thomas with Magic, no laws would be broken. He would not be considered a warlock and no retribution would be sought. Yet, in theory, it should also have an effect on him because Thomas is Family as well.
Thing is, Thomas has free will, has a soul, and has the potential to 'theoretically' become human. Despite that, he is fair game even to his own brother.
I can see why Margaret LeFay had issues with the Laws of Magic.
Mercy in the Winter Court is for the weak. And Mab will not stand for a weak Knight, since a Knight's weakness reflects on her. Mab expects her rules to be obeyed without question, and the penalty for breaking them is death. For her Knight, the "Fist of Mab" so to speak, those rules must be the same.Which goes to my chicken analogy.. The Winter Court is not known for it's mercy nor it's benevolence, and they'd show none for Harry if he had answered the first challenge in any other way. That is their way. I think one has to also look at what Kringle said to Harry at the end of the book.
If Harry does anything less than what they have come to expect from their Queen, he is perceived as weak. If so, they will look to bring him down. If he were to, instead, horribly maim or cripple the Sidhe who challenged him, that Sidhe would spend an inordinate amount of time plotting vengeance. For Harry, dealing with predatory nobles who try to take advantage of his weakness, or fending off plots from his still-living victim would take time away from his duties, another thing Mab is less than thrilled about.
Also remember, as Harry observed in White Night among the Whampires, these Sidhe are effectively immortal. Death as a concept to them has a whole different meaning than it does to mortals. For them to risk death, and the millenia they would be throwing away as a result of coming out on the wrong side of the risk-reward ration, would represent a HUGE downside for them. With Harry's swift action, every Sidhe now has to weigh "torture a mortal for a few hours of fun and risk oblivion, or forgoe a few hours of fun and ensure thousands of years of existence".
Additionally, since these Sidhe are effectively immortal, the at-best couple centuries Harry would be around as Winter Knight will pass in the virtual blink of an eye.
So, no. In my opinion, anything short of what Harry did would have been a long-term disaster for him. Either he'd have doomed himself to non-stop attacks from the Winter Sidhe who would constantly test him for weakness, or Mab would have killed him outright for showing weakness in front of her entire Court.
"Never let her make you cringe--but never challenge her pride, wizard. I don't know exactly what passed between you, but I suspect that if it was witnessed by another, she would break you to pieces, I've seen it before. Terrible pride in that creature. She'll never bend it."
So as shocked or troubled as some are by what Harry did at the beginning of the book, it is what he had to so in order to survive his new status as Winter Knight.. There was no other way to respond and make his own strength and power understood. That is how the Winter Court and the high Sidhi think, their ways are not human.To say there were no other way to respond is grossly misunderstanding the alternatives open to Harry. Sure, it is a bad ass way to behave. And, it is an effective way to write the situation where Harry acted in the way he did. To suggest though that Harry is unmarred by his actions is false. We know that Harry will slide toward acting more like a Monster. The WK mantle will win some. Look at how Harry behaved in his confrontation with Maeve toward the end of Cold Days. That was an obvious act whereby Harry slid to the mantle controlling him rather than him controlling it.
To say there were no other way to respond is grossly misunderstanding the alternatives open to Harry. Sure, it is a bad ass way to behave. And, it is an effective way to write the situation where Harry acted in the way he did. To suggest though that Harry is unmarred by his actions is false. We know that Harry will slide toward acting more like a Monster. The WK mantle will win some. Look at how Harry behaved in his confrontation with Maeve toward the end of Cold Days. That was an obvious act whereby Harry slid to the mantle controlling him rather than him controlling it.We know? We do not know what the future holds. Did he act as a monster? If he were, he wouldn't have held a conversation with her. No one suggests that he is unmarred by his actions, at the same time let's not pretend that he had a whole lot of good choices either.
I've always had the same issue with Jim's magic rules in the DV.
If Harry uses a magical wind to blow a killer off of a mortal and the killer accidentally falls over and cracks his skull on the pavement, Harry is a warlock and must die immediately before he can kill again. If Harry were to just pull out his .44 magnum and shoot a random citizen, he's not a warlock, just (for lack of a better term) a jerk in the eyes of the White Council.
But, it's Jim's sandbox and he sets the rules.
The White Council and the Laws of Magic are mainly about restraining wizards from misusing magic and protecting the mortal world from their predations when it involves black magic. The mortal world has its own Laws with respect to how mortals behave. I would assume that the White Council allows the mortal authorities to deal with illegal nonmagical acts by wizards. WC would only step in if their were violations of the magical laws. Though their are flaws with this setup, I do see the need for the council to constrain such actions.
I've always had the same issue with Jim's magic rules in the DV.
If Harry uses a magical wind to blow a killer off of a mortal and the killer accidentally falls over and cracks his skull on the pavement, Harry is a warlock and must die immediately before he can kill again. If Harry were to just pull out his .44 magnum and shoot a random citizen, he's not a warlock, just (for lack of a better term) a jerk in the eyes of the White Council.
But, it's Jim's sandbox and he sets the rules.
Yes, but the ideas put forth are less about "justice for lawbreakers" and more about "irreversible mental damage".
I personally have a problem with the idea that Jeffrey Dahmer, had he been a member of the White Council, could have done what he did using purely non-magic means, and NOT be a raving warlock with his magic.
Similarly, that a raving warlock like the asian kid that Harry watched executed who uses his magic to kill and torture regularly, would be able to be a perfectly respectable member of mortal society with zero spillover. (This is different from "appearing" to be a perfectly respectable member of mortal society - al la Marcone.)
The idea that the mortal world and the magical world are such seperate universes within one individual so as to have no contamination one way or the other is bothersome.
The idea that the mortal world and the magical world are such seperate universes within one individual so as to have no contamination one way or the other is bothersome.
I've always had the same issue with Jim's magic rules in the DV.
If Harry uses a magical wind to blow a killer off of a mortal and the killer accidentally falls over and cracks his skull on the pavement, Harry is a warlock and must die immediately before he can kill again. If Harry were to just pull out his .44 magnum and shoot a random citizen, he's not a warlock, just (for lack of a better term) a jerk in the eyes of the White Council.
But, it's Jim's sandbox and he sets the rules.
In other words... where have you seen evidence in the series of such a character? Where have we seen a criminally-inclined magic user that acted to harm mortals without using magic? Have we seen anyone abuse this "loophole" yet? I'm wracking my brain trying to think of someone, but I can't. I'd posit that you're exactly right, there would be contamination, so there always is, and therefore the point you're trying to make is moot.
Huh. I always figured that the WCouncil operated on the principle that they would take care of magical crimes and let the mortal authorities deal with the mundane crimes-- even if they are perpetrated by wizards.
In other words... where have you seen evidence in the series of such a character? Where have we seen a criminally-inclined magic user that acted to harm mortals without using magic? Have we seen anyone abuse this "loophole" yet? I'm wracking my brain trying to think of someone, but I can't. I'd posit that you're exactly right, there would be contamination, so there always is, and therefore the point you're trying to make is moot.
- Remember that the rational for why Luccio didn't kill La Fortier with magic is because the Laws were so strongly ingrained in her psyche. This obviously didn't apply to killing him by mundane means.It wasn't the law against using magic that stopped her, it was that at some point, she thought it was wrong, and didn't have the solid belief needed to use magic.
It wasn't the law against using magic that stopped her, it was that at some point, she thought it was wrong, and didn't have the solid belief needed to use magic.
None of these completely prove anything, but:
- Morgan ("a.k.a. uphold the Laws at all costs guy") uses a sword to execute criminals.
- Remember that the rational for why Luccio didn't kill La Fortier with magic is because the Laws were so strongly ingrained in her psyche. This obviously didn't apply to killing him by mundane means.
- Morgan uses a gun to kill Peabody.
- Harry kills Corpstaker with a gun. Luccio complains that he raised Sue, nothing is mentioned about the killing.
Obviously we have not seen an in-book example of this, but the way they are written lends itself to this exact scenario being "possible". The DV magic-effects-scale does not take intent into account. Any magic that kills - even if the intent of the spell was benign - irreversibly turns a practitioner into a warlock, inless it was self-defense. If Harry were to come across a person freezing to death, and use a spell to light a fire to warm them, but that fire subsequently causes a building to ignite and kill a homeless person inside, he's irrevocably tainted.I think you are mixing up the Laws and their enforcement here.
I wonder if the new Winter Lady will be as law abiding as she has been or if now she has diplomatic immunity from the Wardens if a new spate of mind altering will occur.
I don't think a single break of the law irrevocably damages the soul causing someone to be a warlock for ever. I imagine, just like most things in life, that different people's souls have different levels of resistance to breaking the laws. The White Council has a zero tolerance policy because there isn't a hard and fast rule as to how many people you can kill / mind rape / zombify / etc. before you irrevocably attempt to use that sort of magic to solve all of your problems.Also, while the first violation doesn't do it, the WC just doesn't have the resources to mentor people to prevent followup violations, and it's only in rare cases like Harry and Eb that do that.
...
I wonder if the new Winter Lady will be as law abiding as she has been or if now she has diplomatic immunity from the Wardens if a new spate of mind altering will occur.
Obviously we have not seen an in-book example of this, but the way they are written lends itself to this exact scenario being "possible". The DV magic-effects-scale does not take intent into account. Any magic that kills - even if the intent of the spell was benign - irreversibly turns a practitioner into a warlock, inless it was self-defense. If Harry were to come across a person freezing to death, and use a spell to light a fire to warm them, but that fire subsequently causes a building to ignite and kill a homeless person inside, he's irrevocably tainted. The argument that he "inherantly believed that the homeless person should burn to death" falls apart since it was an unintended consequence, but the law and its rationale in the DV are absolute. He's a warlock and must die. Whether he feels remorse and that remorse messes up his mind, or if he simply chalks it up to "bad things happen and there's nothing you can do, but at least the freezing person's life was saved, so its a wash" is immaterial.
But my point is that this has nothing to do with administration of justice. The WC does not execute wizards who have killed via magic as punishment or as a cosmic scale balancing. They do so because the person has become an irredeemable monster who will do nothing but inflict more suffering on others exponentially. Mortals have the concept of Justifiable Homicide. If a criminal is hurting someone and you take action to save the victim even if your won life is not in danger, but in the process the criminal dies, that's justifiable homicide. Do so with magic, and you need to die. That's according to Eb and has nothing to do with right and wrong.
When he's laying down the law to the winter court:
My voice echoed throughout the whole chamber as clearly as if I’d been using a PA system. “All right, you primitive screwheads. Listen up. I’m Harry Dresden. I’m the new Winter Knight. I’m instituting a rule: When you’re within sight of me, mortals are off-limits.” I paused for a moment to let that sink in. Then I continued. “I can’t give you orders. I can’t control what you do in your own domains. I’m not going to be able to change you. I’m not even going to try. But if I see you abusing a mortal, you’ll join Chunky here. Zero warnings. Zero excuses. Subzero tolerance.”
I paused again and then asked, “Any questions?” One of the Sidhe smirked and stepped forward, his leather pants creaking. He opened his mouth, his expression condescending. “Mortal, do you actually think that you can—” “Infriga!” I snarled, unleashing Winter again, and without waiting for the cloud to clear, hurled the second strike, shouting, “Forzare!” This time I aimed much of the force up. Grisly bits of frozen Sidhe noble came pattering and clattering down to the ice of the dance floor.
When I first read this I did a mental double-take. Harry committed murder there. Seriously, he straight up murdered a sapient being for the crime of disagreeing with him, and somehow it's okay because it was a Sidhe, not a human. And nobody calls him out on it. There have been other instances of speciesism in the series, but this takes the cake.
Possibly the only silver lining in this in terms of Molly's mental health and wellbeing is that she won't be able to, by and large. She can't touch regular ol' humans unless they are affiliated with the Court. So, changelings, etc. (Whether the Council considers them mortal enough to count for breaking the Laws is up for debate, but I suspect yes.) She could try mind controlling the sidhe, but I bet that until she gets up to speed, even that won't fly-- the sidhe excel at illusion-type enchantments and mental manipulation.Unfortunately, you are forgetting one very important mortal she can use magic on.
No, not quite so. That's why the Council does have trials for Law breaking. Circumstances do matter, esp. self-defense, but they take a really, really hard line on them (And human nature being what it is, politics matters. Wizard A might be let off for the exact same actions that Wizard B gets nailed for, in the borderline cases, because of that.)
Unfortunately, you are forgetting one very important mortal she can use magic on.
He's probably the reason she first started playing around with magic that could alter peoples minds and make them do things they normally wouldn't do. After all, I bet it's the most common reason for warlocks to start using mind magic. The mantel would also be prompting her to use any method at her disposal to control him, and also be prompting her to have sex with him, which would fit in very well with her own subconscious desires. She's probably thought about using mind magic on him every time she has used it on someone else, although she probably lives in denial about that being the reason she worked out how to use mind magic.
If she starts playing with mind magic again, Harry will be her intended victim, and she will use it to try and make him love her.
I'm pretty sure the women Harry's made the most sexual comments about so far are: Mab, Lara, Molly and (odd one out) Andi. Typically the first time he meets one of them in any book (and often every other time they are in the same room as him) he has to go into detail about how great he thinks their bodies are. Then in Mab or Lara's case he has to remind himself they are evil and in Molly's case he reminds himself that he can never go there because of [insert excuses]. Followed by him checking out their arse again anyway or giving a detailed description of how Molly's nipples are noticeably pierced.
If he only sexually objectifies women he doesn't respect then what does that say about Molly? Or Andi for that matter? If he's not actually sexually attracted to Luccio, Susan or Karrin why on earth are they the only women he forms (or is strongly contemplating) sexual relationships with? It's really quite a bizarre element of the story telling.I wouldn't go that far. Harry was aware and often made mention as to how sexy Susan was and Elaine as well for that matter, but they were never mere sex objects to him. I think a lot of the way he describes women has to do with Harry's shyness around women, his inexperience, and yeah, on the subject of Molly he is confused. He is aware that Andi is good looking, but I don't think he is attracted to her. Murphy is weird because he is attracted to her on several levels, but at the same time not all that physically attracted, as you say, she is the wholesome girl next door who happens to be tough as nails. Molly just confuses the hell out of him, up until now his glands are telling him one thing about her, but because she is the little girl of one of his best friends he refuses to go there. One has to wonder though, if Molly were not the daughter of Michael and his student, would he have bedded her by now? Molly is no longer Harry's student..
This I would dispute. We have heard from Harry and from Bob and from Eb that the WC has a policy of One-and-Dead for a reason - and that reason is that the effects are immediate and irreversible.
For all other offenses, there is a no-strikes policy. Molly would have been executed had political circumstances not aligned in just the right way. There is no jury deliberations or defense attorneys or mitigating circumstances or "degree of offense" sliding scale considerations.
Yeah, there is definite unresolved sexual tension between the two.
I'm pretty sure the women Harry's made the most sexual comments about so far are: Mab, Lara, Molly and (odd one out) Andi. Typically the first time he meets one of them in any book (and often every other time they are in the same room as him) he has to go into detail about how great he thinks their bodies are. Then in Mab or Lara's case he has to remind himself they are evil and in Molly's case he reminds himself that he can never go there because of [insert excuses]. Followed by him checking out their arse again anyway or giving a detailed description of how Molly's nipples are noticeably pierced.
His description of Corpsetaker in GS was also a strange look into his psychology. He starts of saying she is UGLY!!! (It's not spelled correctly without the three !!!), yet by the end of the paragraph has decided she must have been really attractive when she was younger. He's obviously got a thing for bad girls that he's in denial about. Not sure how his Andi fixation fits into that theory but there's a girl who needs to ask a certain Native American Senior Council member how to take her clothes with her when she shape changes.
His comments about Andi are simply based on the fact that she's exceptionally hot. There's no particular mystery to it.Her character seems to be intended entirely for titillation. Making her Butters trophy girlfriend really just cemented her in the role in my mind. That whole development seemed to be pure fan service.
Her character seems to be intended entirely for titillation. Making her Butters trophy girlfriend really just cemented her in the role in my mind. That whole development seemed to be pure fan service.
Hopefully Jim will prove me wrong and she'll develop some real skill or become useful to the group in someway beside from a cheap porn thrill for Dresden in future novels. At the moment, as soon as she appears in a novel I guess how many sentences before she's naked / naked and injured / kidnapped.
Butters is not handsome or suave. He has mentioned that he has had trouble getting a girlfriend. Landing a hottie girlfriend who is a nice person and has your back is a good thing. I don't see Andie as just there for her looks. She is an Alpha werewolf and is a decent fighter. She is just frequently overmatched by enemies and serves the damsel in distress slot. Butters needed a girlfriend and he got Andi. A trophy girlfriend usually has no positive attributes but sex appeal. Toot is probably going to get Lacuna eventually also. I think there is an interesting short story and how Butters won Andi's heart.Butters may not be what most would call handsome or suave, but he has a mind, proven to be braver than most, a very good sense of humor and imagination, add in scruples to call things as he sees them. Andi is not the teenage werewolf that we first meet in Fool Moon. Like the rest of the Alphas she has grown up and moved on. She is intelligent, maybe, just maybe she requires more than a "throphy" man on her arm! She sees Butters for what he is, and loves him for that reason... I'd be disappointed in Butters if all he required in a woman was good looks... No, the fact that she is hot is merely a bonus, they are together for other reasons.
My trophy girlfriend comment is based on Butters being 42 years old and Andi being 28-29 years old.Then again, beyond fun and games with the exception of Billy and Georgia how well does Harry know the Alphas? Just because both he and Andi play the group game, how often have they really talked? Billy and Georgia have found time to go to college and become professionals there is no reason that Andi couldn't have as well..
Yes, stranger things have happened but due to the complete one dimensional nature of her character (Harry's known her for 9 years, played in a weekly RPG with her for about 7 and still we know nothing about her beyond the fact she has giant boobs, red hair and grows extra body hair on a fool moon. And we found all that out before Harry even learned her name) it's hard to see her as anything beyond a perk Butters picked up when he finally recently leveled up.
As I said, I hope we see more character development for them both later and see that Butters has made progress to dealing with interpersonal relationships and we see Andi fulfill a role beyond "naked helpless female" (she's a college graduate, surely she's got some skills or abilities worth mentioning) but if Jim's just gonna keep writing about Andi in the same way, I wouldn't bothered if she didn't turn up in another DF book again.
My paradigm for how magic works based off of many WoJ's and canon. This paradigm is that using magic is essentially using your will to rewrite reality as you see fit (this post outlines a lot of this paradigm (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,39153.msg1926937.html#msg1926937) but in a different context). Harry spends a lot of time pontificating about magic requiring that you believe in what you are doing. He also discusses how changing something causes a reciprocal change upon yourself (White Night discussion with “Lash”) so if you are using your will/magic to rewrite reality to snuff the life/free will out of mortals (or even non-mortals), reality is going to push back and reshape your own being in consistent way.
<snip>
The thing is though, there is an obvious difference in the books between corruption caused by breaking the Laws against non-mortals (though I'd expand that to non-Free Willed beings) and mortals. How many vampires and Fae and demons has Harry killed with magic? Sure he's gotten darker over the series but it's still nowhere near the level of corruption wizards get from killing only a few mortals. I think you could make a very strong argument that there is no (metaphysical) corruption from breaking the Laws against non-mortals.
No one gives a crap (in terms of morality) in-universe about the extinction of the RC after all. I don't think Jim does.
I'll just leave this here to see who clicks on it and ends up stuck in TVTropes the rest of the day:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatMeasureIsANonHuman (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatMeasureIsANonHuman)
A lot of Harry's behaviour which he is currently blaming on the mantel of the Winter Knight could actually be a sign he is one foot on the path to becoming a warlock. Lash used to try to tempt him with much the same sort of stimuli and she was more in touch with his subconscious than he is.Or one could look at the fact that Harry is doing his best to control the mantle and with it himself. He could be going down the road to warlockhood, then again as pointed out by Father Forthill as way back as Proven Guilty, he is being tested and made strong for some other task. Like the best tempered steel, Harry is being heated and pounded many times, he will either come out strong, or be overworked become brittle and break. I also do not believe that he would have been gifted with a thing like soul fire if he was truly going down a dark road.
t appears that many who are troubled by the events in the original post are missing the forest because they are totally occupied with the mainicured garden. Stated otherwise, they are trying to apply rules from one carefully defined structure (Western Judeo-Christian human culture) to an entirely different and much less constrained structure ( The (Unseelie) Winter faerie culture, as defined by Jim based on historical references)This^
My trophy girlfriend comment is based on Butters being 42 years old and Andi being 28-29 years old.
Unfortunately, the analogy/parallel I am going to build will be based off of RL which doesn't have magic, and thus this non magical parallel could muddy some of the waters because part of this discussion is magical corruption from killing and doing nasty things, vs just plain corruption for the same thing without magic. But the goal of this parallel is to conceptualize corruption WRT non mortals.
The Nazis went through a long, systematic campaign to dehumanize in the minds of the populace people like Jews and Gypsies and other victims of their "Final Solution.” They even used the term “Untermensch” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch) (German for underman, sub-man, sub-human) to describe these people. From my life view it is incredibly difficult to understand what was portrayed in the last episode of “Band of Brothers (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185906/)” where the baker was completely indifferent to the fate of the “Untermensch” in the concentration camp down the road.
Tying it to how killing non mortals can corrupt Harry, in reply #26 of this very topic (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,39618.msg1949234.html#msg1949234) I quoted the relevant portions of WN where, at the beginning of the Camp Kaboom scene, Harry said there was no use hating the Ghouls for who they were. At that point he displays that he still posses empathy for this class of sentient beings. Now however, Harry appears to see them as the equivalent of “Untermensch” not worthy of compassion while they are being exterminated in mass.
Harry’s ability to remain empathetic towards humanity remains largely intact (the goal of the Council’s laws) but it seems to have been destroyed for those that fall into the class, “non human” which could certainly fall under the concept of having been corrupted by his killing non-humans with his magic. (A consequence of the "universal guidelines (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,1879.msg37967.html#msg37967)" of how magic works)
Thanks Serack.
Does anyone think any of the rage and hate Harry is feeling in the above WK quote was just his own natural over developed “defend and avenge the children credo” happily enhanced by Lashiel’s shadow?
Knowing that I am bucking the trend, I am still unconvinced that killing non humans with magic results in a mystical black magic mind warping stain. As argued by others above, it seems that the normal psychological stress and strains of killing anything in a violent way is more than damaging in a normal real world way. Everyone is different and deals with violence and gruesome stuff differently, but the stuff Harry has seen in the books is more than enough to make him at least a candidate for any number of PTSD like issues… (Or at least I think so in my non professional mental health way of thinking).
So are Harry’s actions at his B-party a result of black magic warping? Sure in part, but let us not forget what he has gone though in life. It is not surprising Harry is getting darker and more violent. I suspect and hope that toward the end of the DF or the BAT Harry will begin to heal or find some balance.
I don't think the WG is the creator (at least, not how most people think of it) or the final authority. Jim however is both of those things and I think he's pretty much spelled out his views (see: the WoJ's I posted in the link). The WG and his forces may not know everything on the subject but they're pretty dang close.I think it is more complicated than that, since we are all unique in our emotional make up, it doesn't really matter if there are "things correct or incorrect" in the eyes of morality or society in that song. What matters is how a person hears and translates those words in his or her brain. One person can be indifferent, another, hate the song, another love the song but neither is moved by it in an overtly emotional way.. Then there is the extremes, as the odd person who listens and is inspired to become a saint, and the other person who hears the same song and is inspired to become a serial killer.
I think you're off a bit with your last paragraph. IMO a better example would be if someone listened to this song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2cfxv8Pq-Q) and thought it was completely serious and not intended to be comedic. The person may not find the music funny at all-her emotions may be different than mine- but that doesn't change what the songwriters intended. If she says that the AoA literally singing "meaningless whisper" was not intended to be funny, I'd be comfortable in calling her wrong.
People may have different feelings and emotional reactions to different works. I would never attempt to force them to feel differently. However, that doesn't mean their aren't correct things and incorrect things to believe about that work.
If the WG’s team (Uriel, the swords, the KotC etc…) are truly the final authorities on free will, and if the WG is the capital C Creator,
When reading a fictional work and judging a character’s good or evil rating, I usually try and see if there are any cultural or world clues built into the story to help readers understand what the author intended to be good or evil.
I think it is more complicated than that, since we are all unique in our emotional make up, it doesn't really matter if there are "things correct or incorrect" in the eyes of morality or society in that song. What matters is how a person hears and translates those words in his or her brain. One person can be indifferent, another, hate the song, another love the song but neither is moved by it in an overtly emotional way.. Then there is the extremes, as the odd person who listens and is inspired to become a saint, and the other person who hears the same song and is inspired to become a serial killer.
<snip>
Myself, I try not to assume the author has an agenda of that sort; exploration of questions is more fun than proselytising answers.
I'm not talking about morality or society or emotions. I'm talking about statements like "the sky is blue". Pure fact.
For example, if a person writes a book about dragons where there is a detailed functioning socialist society, the author is probably not someone who believes all socialism is doomed to fail.
There are of course exceptions but I'm pretty comfortable in saying that they're the minority. It's not something you just tack on to another novel. You need to have it in mind from the start.
Harry was angry because the ghouls ripped apart sixteen year olds. Even with the quote from Backup, I think Harry would have done the same thing if humans had did that (though he may have not used magic to kill specifically).
Musings on the morality of how to treat non-mortals (non-Free Willed beings) are blurry. Personally I think Jim himself is struggling a bit with his decision to make some creatures "always evil" and our modern time views. I'd elaborate but conveniently, I started a discussion on the subject in a thread that I started in another forum (http://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-699953.html) (note: on the Maeve thing at the bottom, I was later convinced that Nemesis did not give her Free Will. It only altered her nature. She was just tricked).
And yet I look outside my window and it seems grey to me right now.Egads I am agreeing with Neuro! The sky outside my house is also grey, sometimes it is gold, red, pea green [severe thunderstorms] and sometimes blue, add in about of poluntents and atitiude and it can be even black! So what the facts are as to the color of the sky are in the eye of the beholder and the current conditions and location on the Earth...
And yet I look outside my window and it seems grey to me right now.
Why not ? It could be exploring a what-if about socialism along with a what-if about dragons.
I think you underestimate the degree to which a lot of speculative genre writers are following through consequences of where a given idea leads, even when it leads in directions very different from their own beliefs.
Myself, I try not to assume the author has an agenda of that sort; exploration of questions is more fun than proselytising answers.
I think you misinterpreted the quote. An author doesn't have to have an agenda to put their own worldview into the text.
Ok, now yous guys have done it.
BABAM (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,39794.0.html)