ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DF Spoilers => Topic started by: nadia.skylark on April 03, 2019, 01:55:32 AM
-
So I've been trying to figure out how magic is passed down, because if it's only passed down from mother to child, then Harry shouldn't have magic, and I think I've come up with something:
There are two parts to inheriting the ability to use magic: genetics and exposure to magic in the womb.
You can get the genetic component from either parent.
You also need to be exposed to some degree of magic while in the womb. This is significantly easier if your mother is a magic user, because there is always some magic circulating through magic users even when they're not casting spells (based on the fact that wizards still hex things even when not using magic).
It's significantly harder to be sufficiently exposed to magic if your mother is not a magic user, because it requires that your mother be around multiple fairly powerful magic workings while pregnant with you. This explains why magic appears to normally be inherited from the mother, especially with minor practitioners.
This also explains why Molly inherited magic from Charity but none of her other siblings did: Charity wasn't practicing magic while pregnant with her, but she hadn't stopped long enough for magic to stop circulating through her yet. (After all, if it were just genetic, then Charity abandoning magic would have no effect).
It also explains Margaret--her mom wasn't magic, but was hanging around Ebenezer (since she was married to him).
In addition, it explains both why Maggie might have magic and why it would be influenced by her mother's vampirism--she inherited strong magical genetics from Harry, and was exposed to rampire energies rather than mortal magic while in the womb.
-
That's more or less my take on it. In Utero exposure to magic means that it's more likely to come from the mother, but a suitably strong and/or present magical father would do it as well.
I don't think it's something we'll see from Maggie though. I have a feeling it applies only to human magic. Living with Michael as Charity did, if, for example, faith magic was relevant, all their kids would have it.
-
From what Jim has said, magic isn't only passed down from mother to child- that's just how it usually happens. It can happen from father to child- and it can even show up with no known magical heritage. It's just less common.
And you're right on the money about the Carpenter kids- Jim's stated that Charity had still been practicing fairly recently when Molly was conceived, and it wasn't until her talents had started to atrophy that the rest of the squad came along. There's something like a 25%ish chance that they could each have inherited the genetic disposition to work magic, but they'd have to dig for it.
-
Yeah, this is more or less the closest explanation we've been able to cobble together from the books and what Jim's said.
-
Can't really think of anything that would disprove this. Though I'd argue that it's not necessarily required for womb exposure, just that it produces a powered kid more consistently. See Luccio's remarks about checking in on her descendants to see if any of them have talents—it's possible, just not as likely. I'm also reasonably sure that the Council would be able to track new talents much more efficiently if this was the case.
-
Though I'd argue that it's not necessarily required for womb exposure, just that it produces a powered kid more consistently. See Luccio's remarks about checking in on her descendants to see if any of them have talents—it's possible, just not as likely. I'm also reasonably sure that the Council would be able to track new talents much more efficiently if this was the case.
There might also be other kinds of exposure that work less reliably--living on a Ley line, having lots of faeries around, stuff like that.
-
Ive just looked into the bare basics on how genetics work for skin and hair color because of interesting things on how my daughter and nephew turned out and learned that how we understand genetics is so oversimplified as to be functionally incorrect.
It is all way more complex than simple dominant and recessive stuff for most traits is my understanding
Magic would be an order of magnitude more complex than hair color i would think.
small examples would be the weird traits that wizards have (healing, mage sight, more random powers) would likely be hard-coded somewhere in all that junk DNA that we don't know what it does yet. i would think this would all take a rather large chunk of DNA for all the different things.
maybe everyone has that stuff but the right genetic match makes it all become dominant to various degrees.
could be exceptionally powerful magic during first trimester cause birth defects that have a small chance at triggering this dna, remember the level of mages is in single digits per country
or arn't all humans really females at first anyway and males are made by the Y chromosome modifying bits as we develop,
and all the weird stuff about Maternal DNA lines, maybe that dudes female line ancestor from thousands of years ago had power and the dna has silently been passed along.
I'm sorry if parts of this are wrong.
I'm not an expert
-
How magic is conveyed to progeny is fairly well explained by the text of the books. Exposure to magic or a wizards aura isn't a required condition if you wish to account for the existence of warlocks. Jim is giving a very brief look at the war between nature and nurture. How much of what you are is because of your genes or your upbringing.
In terms of why magic would atrophy if not used, Jim based this on fairly well understood science. Your muscles maintain their tone because you use them. It's why astronauts exercise on the ISS.
-
How magic is conveyed to progeny is fairly well explained by the text of the books.
It isn't, really. The books say that magic is passed on through the maternal line, and then goes and has Harry's mom get her magic from her father. Jim has also said that none of Charity's children besides Molly inherited magic because she had given it up, but choosing not to use magic should not alter your genetic structure!
-
It isn't, really. The books say that magic is passed on through the maternal line, and then goes and has Harry's mom get her magic from her father. Jim has also said that none of Charity's children besides Molly inherited magic because she had given it up, but choosing not to use magic should not alter your genetic structure!
Certainly there is plenty of science that says external forces can change or damage genetic expression. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome for one. It isn't unreasonable in this fictional context to suppose the aura that a mother extrudes as a magic user could cause changes in genetic expression for an unborn child. If you want some fact based type of thing you could posit that a wizards aura may turn on some type of chemistry that turns a gene on or off. How deep a level of detail do you require?
-
I don't think it's something we'll see from Maggie though. I have a feeling it applies only to human magic. Living with Michael as Charity did, if, for example, faith magic was relevant, all their kids would have it.
It may be true that the half vampire nature of the mother may not have a "magical" effect on Maggie because it is nonmortal (more on that later), but don't forget the magical tattoos on Susan. Every time those activated there may have been significant mortal magic active on Susan, plus we don't know what other exposures Susan might have experienced while pregnant - e.g. staying inside warded homes or sanctuaries, etc. that might influence the standing magic level the fetus was exposed to.
As to the nonmortal magic on Susan when Maggie was conceived.... It has always struck me that a red half-vampire is very similar to a white court vampire. Just because the most common way for red court hunger to transfer itself is through a feeding, doesn't mean it is the only way. Imagine the horror Harry will half to deal with if as she goes through puberty Maggie becomes the only red court half vampire in existence? Effectively an innocent with free will, but also an immortal threat to recreate a court her own father destroyed. (That would be awesome, but I suspect it is impossible because the hunger spirit that may have been attached to her should have been destroyed by the blood line curse too)
-
It may be true that the half vampire nature of the mother may not have a "magical" effect on Maggie because it is nonmortal (more on that later), but don't forget the magical tattoos on Susan. Every time those activated there may have been significant mortal magic active on Susan, plus we don't know what other exposures Susan might have experienced while pregnant - e.g. staying inside warded homes or sanctuaries, etc. that might influence the standing magic level the fetus was exposed to.
True. We know that if Maggie has magic, her mother being half-vampire will influence it because there's a WoJ saying so.
-
I think that it's fairly clear that genes + magic exposure =/= magic talent. WOJ is that Molly is the only Carpenter kid with talent. Little Harry Carpenter had the genes and had magic exposure while in the womb.
-
I think that it's fairly clear that genes + magic exposure =/= magic talent. WOJ is that Molly is the only Carpenter kid with talent. Little Harry Carpenter had the genes and had magic exposure while in the womb.
Their level of exposure is very different. Little Harry being exposed to magic once literally the night he was born -- i.e., when he's more or less fully developed -- is not nearly the same thing as Molly being exposed to it regularly throughout pregnancy from conception through early development.
-
Their level of exposure is very different. Little Harry being exposed to magic once literally the night he was born -- i.e., when he's more or less fully developed -- is not nearly the same thing as Molly being exposed to it regularly throughout pregnancy from conception through early development.
This.
-
My books are packed (moving in a week) so I can't check. My recollection is that Charity swore off magic the day she met Michael. Michael doesn't seem the type to have premarital sex. So I doubt Charity performed any magic while pregnant. There may have been some lingering in her blood from the lifestyle she had been living, but I don't recall her using magic while with Michael.
-
My recollection is that Charity swore off magic the day she met Michael. Michael doesn't seem the type to have premarital sex. So I doubt Charity performed any magic while pregnant. There may have been some lingering in her blood from the lifestyle she had been living, but I don't recall her using magic while with Michael.
She didn't have to be using active magic to have it moving through and around her, any more than Harry has to be actively casting a spell to fry technology. It helps, of course, but the fact that hexing occurs when wizards are not using active magic demonstrates that a practitioner has some level of magic flowing through them at all times.
I don't have my books with my either, but as I recall it takes a while for one's Talent to fade when one is trying to make it, so Charity would still count as a practitioner for at least several months after she gave up magic, and possibly for as long as a few years.
-
My apologies for being unclear. I meant in regards to the comparison of Lil Harry vs Molly in utero by Mr. Death. The specific statement that Molly was regularly exposed to magic throughout the pregnancy. My statement did allow for potential holdover from her former lifestyle.
My personal theory is that a gentic component is needed as well at least one the parents having used magic enough that it is part of their soul. The souls mingle during sex, per Bob and Thomas, and sex can create a new soul. So if a soul involved in creating the new one has magic in the mix, it shows in the offspring if the necessary genetic component is present. Which might explain the need for time to lose one's Talent; more along the lines of the body recreating its cells over seven years and less like erosion.
-
My personal theory is that a gentic component is needed as well at least one the parents having used magic enough that it is part of their soul. The souls mingle during sex, per Bob and Thomas, and sex can create a new soul. So if a soul involved in creating the new one has magic in the mix, it shows in the offspring if the necessary genetic component is present. Which might explain the need for time to lose one's Talent; more along the lines of the body recreating its cells over seven years and less like erosion.
I agree about the genetic component, but I don't think the soul thing works. After all, the fae are known to be really good at magic, and they don't have souls.
-
My apologies for being unclear. I meant in regards to the comparison of Lil Harry vs Molly in utero by Mr. Death. The specific statement that Molly was regularly exposed to magic throughout the pregnancy. My statement did allow for potential holdover from her former lifestyle.
I should've been clearer. I didn't mean that Charity was actively using magic during the pregnancy, but that she still had magic during that time, even if she wasn't using it.
-
Mr. Death, I appreicate the clarification.
Ms. Skylark, (please forgive any misgendering)
I did not state nor imply that a soul is required to manipulate magical forces.
However, secondarily and separately, I do postulate that a soul is required for a mortal to do so. The twin sides of Hellfire and Soulfire seem to imply that a soul can be used for magic. Heck dresden as a soul used himself to fuel his spells in GS, and we know he was nothing but soul.
-
Ms. Skylark, (please forgive any misgendering)
You got my gender right.
I did not state nor imply that a soul is required to manipulate magical forces.
Sorry, I misunderstood.
However, secondarily and separately, I do postulate that a soul is required for a mortal to do so. The twin sides of Hellfire and Soulfire seem to imply that a soul can be used for magic. Heck dresden as a soul used himself to fuel his spells in GS, and we know he was nothing but soul.
It's possible, I suppose, but there are a few issues:
1) Is it possible to be a mortal and not have a soul? I had thought that Bob implied that if Harry burned up all of his soul, he would be destroyed. Also, Uriel said that he was a soul, so...
2) Soulfire and Hellfire appear to be different power sources that interact with magic, but are not themselves magic. Bob describes them as rebar and concrete, respectively.
3) Harry appears to be using magic in Ghost Story in the same way that other ghosts do, and other ghosts don't have souls. It's a little ambiguous, because the only other "ghost" that we see using actual magic is Corpsetaker, and he/she does have a soul, but Sir Stuart uses the same technique to make his bullets, and he doesn't have a soul.
I would postulate that you need to have a spirit to use magic rather than a soul--Bob describes them as being a seed and soil, respectively, and I think he says that fae only have the former. The comparison of two things working together to become more is used both for spirit and soul and for magic and soulfire, so I think it fits. Also, angels are only soul, and they don't appear to be able to use magic (I don't think. I think that Bob says something about them using soulfire rather than magic, but I'm not sure).
On the other hand, evidence for a soul being necessary for mortal magic is that at the end of White Night Bob says that you use bits of your soul in magic. This appears to be retconned in Small Favor, where it's revealed that using your soul as energy is a different thing altogether, namely soulfire, but it could have been a case of Bob not getting it, since he's explicitly not good at angel stuff.
-
Aside from being Harry's daughter and having a half-vampire mother, is Maggie getting long-term exposure to magic because Mouse is constantly with her? This might not be a determining factor in Maggie developing magical ability, but I wonder if it could be a factor in how soon her magic manifests and how powerful she becomes. Spending time with Bonnea might also get added to this equation.
-
They may be on two different wavelengths. After all, the rest of the Carpenter clan lived in a house with a major magical artifact most of the time, and it didn't change them all that much.
-
After all, the rest of the Carpenter clan lived in a house with a major magical artifact most of the time, and it didn't change them all that much.
...what? Are you talking about Amoracchius? I had thought that the Swords were explicitly not magical.
-
I still think that magic ability would have to be interwoven with our core body systems/central nervous system. Dresden first did magic in grade school but i say since before his birth it was already inside him
specificlly it would be forming in the first trimester of the pregnancy like almost all of that stuff does.
this magic forming in a fetus should be by far the most susceptible to outside influence during this time.
Just like the first 2 months or so is when all the craziest and worst birth defects form on humans and the risk to the fetus from drugs is the highest.
also Charity had just been rescued from death by a knight in shining armor along with some love at first sight stuff. Its easily possible they got the order of things wrong, got pregnant the first night, then spent a week in a magic lair cleaning up the mess left behind by a dead dragon and cultists.
Susan early pregnancy would have been running around south America with supernaturals spying on supernaturals.
-
also Charity had just been rescued from death by a knight in shining armor along with some love at first sight stuff. Its easily possible they got the order of things wrong, got pregnant the first night, then spent a week in a magic lair cleaning up the mess left behind by a dead dragon and cultists.
She may well have offered, but Michael is staunchly Catholic. I seriously doubt that he'd have had premarital sex. It's just not something he could do.
Also, why would they spend any time cleaning up the magic lair, let alone a week? They weren't going to take his hoard and they're not going to be staying there.
-
um not trying to be insulting but that's an area where human nature conflicts with religions and its an often broken rule.
being staunchly religious doesn't mean you've never missed the mark or made mistakes.
about staying around, yeah your kinda right, i could think of a lot of minor wounds that could keep him from hiking out for a few days but i know I'm kinda stretching now
-
um not trying to be insulting but that's an area where human nature conflicts with religions and its an often broken rule.
Yes, but we're talking about Michael here. He has his flaws, but for the most part he's not someone who lets his base human urges overcome his faith and beliefs.
-
I still think that magic ability would have to be interwoven with our core body systems/central nervous system. Dresden first did magic in grade school but i say since before his birth it was already inside him
specificlly it would be forming in the first trimester of the pregnancy like almost all of that stuff does.
this magic forming in a fetus should be by far the most susceptible to outside influence during this time.
Just like the first 2 months or so is when all the craziest and worst birth defects form on humans and the risk to the fetus from drugs is the highest.
This makes sense.
Yes, but we're talking about Michael here. He has his flaws, but for the most part he's not someone who lets his base human urges overcome his faith and beliefs.
Agreed. Also, given that he is the wielder of Amoracchius, I don't see him sleeping with anyone he doesn't love, and he'd just met Charity.
Also, we don't know exactly when Charity gave up her magic. She could have not worked to give it up until Michael proposed to her, because she wanted to be worthy of him or something--it's pretty clear that she thinks of magic as a bad thing, but not the kind of ultimate evil that would require her to give up magic in order to think of herself as anything but a monster. I can see her thinking of herself as a not-particularly-good person after the dragon thing, given that the person making deals with the dragon and feeding people to it was essentially her mentor, so she might not have thought she could be a really good person even if she did give up her magic until Michael convinced her otherwise.
-
Also, jumping back to Harry Carpenter, there isn't anything that says he isn't magical. I believe it tends to manifest during puberty and he's only just reaching age 13 as of Skin Game. His talents could manifest during Peace Talks or not at all, or they could have started to manifest and he hasn't told anyone yet. The point is we don't know yet that he isn't a magic user.
-
Also, jumping back to Harry Carpenter, there isn't anything that says he isn't magical. I believe it tends to manifest during puberty and he's only just reaching age 13 as of Skin Game. His talents could manifest during Peace Talks or not at all, or they could have started to manifest and he hasn't told anyone yet. The point is we don't know yet that he isn't a magic user.
Actually, I'm pretty sure there's a WoJ that Molly is the only one who inherited magic, and that while the other Carpenter children could maybe scrape up enough talent to do something it would be really hard.
-
I'm gonna go with <handwave> it's magic.
Not "genetics."
Not "in utero exposure."
Magic.
It does tend to follow "Salic Law," passing from mothers to their children; but not via "genetic" inheritance.
It's magic.
Which really just means its a plot-device, used as desired by Jim Butcher and by players of DFRPG / DFA / &c ... It works by "Salic law" except when it doesn't, and it doesn't whenever JB wants it not to.
-
I'm gonna go with <handwave> it's magic.
Not "genetics."
Not "in utero exposure."
Magic.
It does tend to follow "Salic Law," passing from mothers to their children; but not via "genetic" inheritance.
It's magic.
Which really just means its a plot-device, used as desired by Jim Butcher and by players of DFRPG / DFA / &c ... It works by "Salic law" except when it doesn't, and it doesn't whenever JB wants it not to.
Well, that's a boring way to look at it.
Might as well say, "Why does Nicodemus want the grail? It's not "character motivation." It's not "for a plan." It's because Jim needs an antagonist."
-
I'm gonna go with <handwave> it's magic.
Not "genetics."
Not "in utero exposure."
Magic.
It does tend to follow "Salic Law," passing from mothers to their children; but not via "genetic" inheritance.
It's magic.
Which really just means its a plot-device, used as desired by Jim Butcher and by players of DFRPG / DFA / &c ... It works by "Salic law" except when it doesn't, and it doesn't whenever JB wants it not to.
I'm going to assume that Jim is a better author than this implies. Worldbuilding is essential to the kind of story Jim is telling, and a big part of it is having consistent rules, rather than simply doing things because of plot convenience. Just because characters don't know all the rules (and so can't tell us) doesn't change the fact that the rules exist.
-
I don't think the above implied JB is a bad author at all. Storytelling is more important than world building, so an author needs to be able to break the rules. Assume an author builds a world that is based on a particular ruleset (like Salic law) but needs an exception for three different characters. Unfortunately, the author can't think of an exception that would govern each case and using three different exceptions would undermine the ruleset and raise questions as to why characters "A, who fits exception 1," "B and C, who fit exception 2," and "D, who fits exception 3" still follow the general rule. In such a situation, it is better for the author to just handwave the exception and focus on the story.
That's kind of what we have here. In general, magic is passed down in the DV in a certain way, but if JB needs a certain character to have magic despite not following the traditional rule, he doesn't need to dedicate time to craft a narrowly-tailored exception and explain the exception in text. It's perfectly acceptable to just ignore the fact the character doesn't follow the rule and let the readers come up with their own explanations as to why the particular character is special.
-
I don't think the above implied JB is a bad author at all. Storytelling is more important than world building, so an author needs to be able to break the rules. Assume an author builds a world that is based on a particular ruleset (like Salic law) but needs an exception for three different characters. Unfortunately, the author can't think of an exception that would govern each case and using three different exceptions would undermine the ruleset and raise questions as to why characters "A, who fits exception 1," "B and C, who fit exception 2," and "D, who fits exception 3" still follow the general rule. In such a situation, it is better for the author to just handwave the exception and focus on the story.
It's not the need for occasional exceptions that I consider to be the issue, it's the contention that "Salic law" is a plot device rather than a piece of worldbuilding. As I recall, there was no reason to include the "Salic law" thing in White Night if it was inconsistent with what we've seen, because it served no purpose except as a piece of worldbuilding. If it was going to be a problem, then Jim could have just said that magical ability was usually inherited, as was established in Proven Guilty.
Therefore, I believe that:
A) As a piece of worldbuilding, the essentials of it are true.
B) Apparent exceptions are because Harry does not understand the nuances of it or does not know the whole story of what's going on.
C) Jim does understand the nuances and does know the whole story, so any apparent exceptions almost certainly have an in-universe explanation.
It's like the Darkhallow thing, really. Harry gives us an explanation of how it works, and we have a WoJ on how it works, and these are partially contradictory. This is not because Jim forgot what he said about the Darkhallow when he was talking about it later, it's because Harry didn't understand everything.