Of all the Senior Council members, it is in the Gatekeeper that the Merlin relies to stop the mistfiend in Turn Coat from attacking him, while the Merlin himself focuses on stopping it from attacking the rest of the White Council. That suggests to me where the Merlin ranks the Gatekeeper when it comes to combat ability.

Also, someone in reddit put something similar together:

https://www.reddit.com/r/dresdenfiles/comments/4exvg8/the_senior_council_a_compilation_spoilers_all/

The Stone Table is probably a place where even immortals can die.

From the way Vadderung spoke about his office, I suspect Places of Power allow for killing of immortals as well. So, for example, I imagine Mab can kill immortals in Arctis Tor, and anyone Mother Winter cooks and eats isn't coming back.

For that matter, the Unraveling can possibly kill and immortal, when used in the right way...

We may wish to use a "proof is in the pudding" mentality, and define Saints based on their ability to perform miracles. What separates Miracles from Magic? Magic appears to require some level of aptitude and investment from the one person doing the working. Miracles could potentially be defined as "magic coming from an external source". Of course, we know from magical theory that this would fall under thaumaturgy, that is, magic from a distance, instead of evocation.

Putting it together: a Saint is someone who can act as a thaumaturgic channel for a divine being who chooses to exert their power at a distance.

From that definition, some possible examples come to mind:
- Grave Peril: When Michael burned a Rampire who touched his paladin costume (note that he didn't have a Sword at the time)
- Grave Peril: When both Susan and Michael managed to ignite their crosses with holy fire to repel Mavra (something I'm not sure Susan could have usually managed).
- All sorts of neat stuff that happens to people wielding the swords. I suspect that's more the relics in question acting as thaumaturgic links, rather than the person, though.

Thoughts?

If we are to assume that the Tribute must be made of Changelings, it really makes me wonder if they've all made their Choice or not.

That said, the point of the thread was not so much about my particular case with this book but about discussing if someone should be offended for the points of view of characters in a book, even if they are the main characters.

My general thoughts: Jim has made it quite clear that his intention when writing is to evoke emotional responses in his readers. In fact, to quote the man himself:

I tell giant, complicated, long-term LIES for a living, man. People pay me to manipulate their emotions--to make them laugh and cry, to cheer for the good guys and to hate the bad guys.

On the one hand, the fact that your husband is reacting emotionally to Jim's writing could be seen as a positive. On the other hand, the fact that it makes it harder for him to "cheer for the good guys" makes it a negative.

In and of itself, I would say it's OK to be offended by a main character's negative traits. What I consider more important, however, is how one chooses to act after taking offense. And before making the decision of how to react, I would recommend taking a moment to try to figure out why the author made his main character(s) offensive.

If, for example, the cause of offense seems to stem from the author's own prejudice, I could see how reading the remainder of the book could be problematic; such an author is unlikely to change the character's behavior, taking away from the reader's empathy for the nominal good guys. As others have mentioned, there's also the possibility of the author being driven by a desire for verisimilitude: if people have historically reacted in an offensive way, having the characters not react that way runs the risk of breaking the audience's willing suspension of disbelief.

Given such circumstances, dropping the book could be considered a reasonable choice - why read something you won't enjoy? On the other hand, I've always enjoyed the argument that fiction should not only entertain, but also educate. Personally, I could see myself still reading a book even if I find the protagonist(s) offensive, specifically to teach myself to better empathize with people I don't agree with. It's always easiest, after all, to appreciate people who think like us.

There's a third possibility, namely that the author intends to address this offensive quality, and so, needs to first establish it, in order to incorporate it in the protagonist's character arc. I suspect that's the direction Jim is going with the racism. In such a case, denying oneself the opportunity to see how the situation will evolve would be a disservice to both the author and the reader.

TL,DR: I believe one is entitled to feel offended by a fictional character's actions  or views(fiction, after all, is about evoking emotional responses), particularly if the guilty party is a protagonist, but I don't believe taking offense would be reason enough to stop me from reading a story.

That was more or less my thought as well.  The only thing that I can come up with is to point ot the fact that Etheric energy is related to BUT not actually electricity.  Im thinking of it in terms of a third energy form, along with Electricity and Magnetism, that are all fundamentally related but distinct in their behavior.

...I never considered that. We know that a lift crystal can convert etheric energy into anti-gravity. Maybe iron converts etheric energy into anti-electricity that would cause galvanic corrosion to occur in the cathode (copper) instead of the anode (iron).

That would make a lot of sense.  I think it would be worth keeping an eye out for references of what things get shipped between the spires and see if they include minerals.  I know that honey is one, and I remember that Ransom claimed she had some sort of shipment (clothes?).

 

Please note that spices (which honey would be considered), precious metals/jewels, and clothing would all be deemed light products for transportation. Metal would very likely require quite a different infrastructure to transport.

In any case, the Aurorans seem to use the exact same tech (copper clad swords and gauntlets) as Albion, so that's a minor point against.

I would propose that the Aurorans may be considered the next door neighbors to Albion, so they probably share many preferences when it comes to resources (plus, as Second Aristh mentioned, they were probably using local weapons as part of their infiltration; it may be that the reason the berated Auroran had messed up with the copper coating of his sword was due to lack of familiarity with that particular coating agent).

It's also worth remembering that iron is the second most common metal in the Earth's crust (only aluminum is more common, but it's somewhat hard to produce). There's almost 500 times more iron in the Earth's crust than copper and zinc combined. As such, it is almost inevitable that most spires will use iron as the basis of their industry, with the only question being what they coat it with.