Dresden Files III: You Want Gun Hand or Sandwich Hand?

[Zyzzyva]

I had to go check Book 7 to see what it was after reading this. Because I have a very specific moment that is the highlight of the series, but I didn't pay much attention to book numbers.

Sure enough it was in book 7. Good call.

Me too. Speed reading is the best reading!

...That's what you were all talking about, right? The speed-reading scene?

Also, on the sexiness front: I agree there's very little explicit, but the books also crib heavily from noir, and Dresden is both a horny, male-gazy person and a first person narrator, so I found there's a fairly in your face presentation of Dresden's limbic system reacting to things, at least once a book. Occasionally more.

[Soras Teva Gee]

That's the Doylist perspective.

I'm going from the Watsonian, because the watsonian reasons are usually more fun-why, the Doylist answer is always "The author said so" or "the editors made them do it"."

Watson doesn't exist. He doesn't have a perspective.

That IS always the answer, analysis not built on this foundation is wrong.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I mean, the Doylist answer to "why does X happen?" is always "the author needs to create an interesting plot", so there's the end of your analysis.

[BRC]

Watson doesn't exist. He doesn't have a perspective.

That IS always the answer, analysis not built on this foundation is wrong.

I've done no research, but I think by "Watsonian perspective" means "From the perspective of the characters in the world", while Doylist perspective is "From the perspective of the Author"

From Watson's perspective, The Dog didn't bark because the intruder was familiar to the household.
From Doyle's perspective, the Intruder was familiar to the household because he wanted to limit the suspect pool to a few characters, since otherwise any london burglar could have snuck in the window and stolen the necklace. He established this by adding a dog, and then having the dog not bark.

In the setting (So, from Harry's perspective), the Archive is a force of neutrality. He can't just call her up to help solve all his problems because she's supposed to be neutral.

She's neutral because Butcher dosn't want Harry solving every problem by calling up the Archive and having her give him the answer.

Both answers are true. But, if you ignore the character's perspective, the answer is always "It is this way because the author wanted it to be this way".

[Rater202]

Watson doesn't exist. He doesn't have a perspective.

That IS always the answer, analysis not built on this foundation is wrong.

You lack imagination.

The Sherlock Holmes stories are of course fiction written by Doyle, but each has the framing device of being memoirs written by Watson.

Doyle wrote something because it was needed for the story.

Watson wrote it because it happened.

"why did X happen" from a Doyalist perspective is easy.

I want the Watsonian, the in Universe answers, because that's more fun to figure.

[Gnome Alone]

She's also British and at least as strong as a senior council member in terms of magical output.

Wait, she's British? Where is she British?

[thorgrim29]

In death masks when she's introduced she has a british accent. I guess she could live in the states (or Canada), but most British people live in britain so....

[tomandtish]

Incidentally, Skin Game is a 2015 Hugo Award Finalist in the Best Novel category.

[datalaughing]

since otherwise any london burglar could have snuck in the window and stolen the necklace. He established this by adding a dog, and then having the dog not bark.

Not to be completely off topic, but that's not the plot of the story where the dog not barking is an important clue.

[Legato Endless]

On a somewhat strange note, does anyone have an inkling how old Harry looks as of Skin Game? I have a friend doing fan art nonsense, but neither of us are entirely sure. Harry is around or bit over 40ish at that point, but Wizards live longer and all. I know he mentions in Cold Days he actually looks like the older brother to Thomas by this point, but that's pretty vague.

[Rater202]

Thomas is young and Beautiful eternally because vampire, so Thomas probably don't look much older than early to mid twenties.

So if he only started looking older by cold days, Dresden probably looks late 20s early 30s

[thorgrim29]

I'd have to check to be sure, but isn't the White King described as looking in his late 40s or so? Still strong and vital but with some wear and tear and graying temples? And I always got the impression that Lara looked at least in her early 30s. So maybe they age very slowly until they get to the point where they wouldn't be super sex symbols anymore and then stop?

[F.H. Zebedee]

You have to remember that the White King hadn't fed in 3 decades or so. So it's entirely feasible that White Court ages if they aren't regularly taking the life from somebody else.
Word of Jim on the matter, btw: "Maggie's death curse on Raith did /more/ than render him virtually powerless. It freaking crippled the entire White Court by rendering its head executive suddenly unwilling to get aggressive. It took that same executive's focus and warped it from an outwardly-oriented expansionist agenda (What, did you really think Raith just bumped into Maggie at a /bar/ somewhere?) to one of frantic power-defense, paranoia, and infighting. Had she merely killed Raith, another vampire much like him would simply have stepped into his shoes. Instead, her curse sandbagged the entire White Court for two or three /decades/"

So Thomas is actually around six years older than Harry, but still ends up looking younger, which could be either that he's stopped aging and remains stalled since he's still preying on people, or just that white court generally ages a lot slower. I don't think we've got enough evidence in either direction to really say.

[Eldan]

Plus, I'd think it would make sense for vamps to cover a variety of looks and styles to go after different mortal tastes. The refined older man is in demand.

[Mauve Shirt]

Yeah Harry's above 40 now. Eb's way over a century old and looks to be about in his late 50s early 60s, right? So Harry probably looks like a mature late 20s.

[Lord Raziere]

You lack imagination.

The Sherlock Holmes stories are of course fiction written by Doyle, but each has the framing device of being memoirs written by Watson.

Doyle wrote something because it was needed for the story.

Watson wrote it because it happened.

"why did X happen" from a Doyalist perspective is easy.

I want the Watsonian, the in Universe answers, because that's more fun to figure.

Agreed. Too many people go for the Doyalist perspective and letting that ruin their fun instead of figuring an in-universe explanation out yourself that allows you to enjoy it more.

[Halae]

Agreed. Too many people go for the Doyalist perspective and letting that ruin their fun instead of figuring an in-universe explanation out yourself that allows you to enjoy it more.

This is also an excellent idea for writing games. It gets PCs thinking in character after all.

From a literary angle, I always try to figure out discrepancies when they come up. It can be a lot of fun if you're doing it right.

[Gnome Alone]

Yeah Harry's above 40 now. Eb's way over a century old and looks to be about in his late 50s early 60s, right? So Harry probably looks like a mature late 20s.

Unless wizards chug along aging normally until they're 40 or 50 and then slow way down, or something like that. It's hard to say cuz all the wizards Harry knows are either around his age or younger (Elaine, Ramirez, Molly, people I'm forgetting) or wicked hella old (Ebenezer, Luccio, Morgan, the Senior Council, other people I'm forgetting.) And all the old wizards (except Ancient Mai) seem like they look like they're in their fifties or sixties. There's no wizard who's 80 but looks 35 (a la Aragorn) to give us a sense of scale.

I'm inclined to think that Harry isn't aging noticeably slower because no one in the books has commented on it yet. Closest thing is Murphy angsting out about dropping dead of old age as Harry stays relatively young, but that'd be 30-80 years in the future anyway.

[Zyzzyva]

Unless wizards chug along aging normally until they're 40 or 50 and then slow way down, or something like that. It's hard to say cuz all the wizards Harry knows are either around his age or younger (Elaine, Ramirez, Molly, people I'm forgetting) or wicked hella old (Ebenezer, Luccio, Morgan, the Senior Council, other people I'm forgetting.) And all the old wizards (except Ancient Mai) seem like they look like they're in their fifties or sixties. There's no wizard who's 80 but looks 35 (a la Aragorn) to give us a sense of scale.

I'm inclined to think that Harry isn't aging noticeably slower because no one in the books has commented on it yet. Closest thing is Murphy angsting out about dropping dead of old age as Harry stays relatively young, but that'd be 30-80 years in the future anyway.

Luccio's like 300 and looks 22! [/pedant]

But yeah, we don't have any evidence for how the curve is bent either way. Based on the cover art, which is a totally reliable source, I'd guess it's like regular aging, just slowed way down, rather than a "stop again at 60" or "snap to decrepit at 170" thing. But that's really just a guess.

[BRC]

Luccio's like 300 and looks 22! [/pedant]

But yeah, we don't have any evidence for how the curve is bent either way. Based on the cover art, which is a totally reliable source, I'd guess it's like regular aging, just slowed way down, rather than a "stop again at 60" or "snap to decrepit at 170" thing. But that's really just a guess.

The "Scientific" explanation is that Wizards are better at replacing dead cells, which means they should mature at the normal rate, then age slower.

[Rater202]

The "Scientific" explanation is that Wizards are better at replacing dead cells, which means they should mature at the normal rate, then age slower.

According to Butters, their cells make perfect copies and they heel until they're fixed, not until they're functional.

Word of Jim is that it has something to do with frequent channeling of magi-magic being the energies of life and creation.(Charity gave up her magic-she has the wizard "gene" so to say, but only ages at the human rate.)

[Lord Ruby34]

I'm pretty sure I remember a quote from Harry about how Wizards live long lives, but they don't look pretty doing it. I assumed that meant they aged as normal up to forty or so and then it slowed way down.

[Eldan]

According to Butters, their cells make perfect copies and they heel until they're fixed, not until they're functional.

Word of Jim is that it has something to do with frequent channeling of magi-magic being the energies of life and creation.(Charity gave up her magic-she has the wizard "gene" so to say, but only ages at the human rate.)

Interesting. That could mean that those who frequently channel a lot of magic, like our protagonist, heal even better and age slower.

[Gnome Alone]

Interesting. That could mean that those who frequently channel a lot of magic, like our protagonist, heal even better and age slower.

With great power comes great responsibility to use that power, constantly, for absolutely everything… to ensure that you're around as long as possible to responsibly use your power all the time.

[Rater202]

Interesting. That could mean that those who frequently channel a lot of magic, like our protagonist, heal even better and age slower.

The average lifespn given for Wizards is 300.

But average means you take how old every wizard dies, add it up, and divide by the total number.

Hasn't it been said that a lot of practitioners die young?

And hedge wizards, sorcerers, and minor talents like wereforms aren't sad to heal better or live much longer than mortals, so how much raw magical power you have is priobably also a contributing factor.

Harry was is in the top 20 strongest wizards alive, I think he said once, uses his magic all the itime, and is nowhere near his full potential-most wizards don't get as strong as he is till they have a century under the belt, I think was said once.

And that's not even counting anything he might get from being the winter knight.

[Halae]

Hell, "uses his magic all the time" is understating it. Luccio knows Wardens a century his elder that don't have as many scars as him, because of how constantly he gets into fights where his life is on the line, and when your life is on the line you pour in waaaay more energy into your ability to fight. I bet most wizards don't really have a fifth the combat experience he has, even if they're hundreds of years older.

Add in the Winter Knight mantle and Harry's probably going to live to be in his eighth century if I don't miss my guess. You know, assuming he doesn't get himself killed. Again.

[Zyzzyva]

Interesting. That could mean that those who frequently channel a lot of magic, like our protagonist, heal even better and age slower.

That seems... backwards from how it usually works, cf, say, Stardust. But I can totally believe the Dresdenverse works that way.

Re the Harry's skill level discussion: Harry's a minmaxing munchkin who likes accumulating templates. It's why we love him, and a big part of why I read the books, but it does make arguments about "typical" wizards based on him a little skewed. I mean, Winter Knight alone would screw up the THAT'S HOW MURPHY IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO STAY WITH HIM SHE'S GOING TO BE THE SUMMER KNIGHT

Obviously.

[BRC]

That seems... backwards from how it usually works, cf, say, Stardust. But I can totally believe the Dresdenverse works that way.

Re the Harry's skill level discussion: Harry's a minmaxing munchkin who likes accumulating templates. It's why we love him, and a big part of why I read the books, but it does make arguments about "typical" wizards based on him a little skewed.

Not really that backwards if you think about it.
Imagine Magic as a muscle. The power you can channel is partially genetic, partially due to practice.

Harry comes from a major Magical bloodline, frequently uses magic, and disrupts technology. Charity Carpenter does not disrupt technology because she allowed her "muscles" to atrophy.

using magic frequently means working out, building up your "Muscles". The extended lifespan and murphyonic field are both side-effects of the magic. So, a powerful wizard lives longer, not because they're casting more spells, but because they have more magic. They have more magic because they're casting more spells.

[Zyzzyva]

Not really that backwards if you think about it.

No, no, I understand the reasoning in-universe; I'm just saying the usual way it works in fiction is for the use of magic to age you, like in Stardust (or side effects for powerful spells like wish in AD&D, for that matter). It makes sense on the level of "why isn't everyone a mage, because hella impressive evolutionary advantage".

[Halae]

It's an interesting idea. On one hand, you have magic as a finite resource, or one that replenishes very slowly, and can kill you if you overextend with it.

On the other hand, you have it basically as a muscle, and it's literally more healthy to work it out constantly than to let it atrophy.

To be perfectly honest, I find the second one more likely, and it feels more realistic to me. When you have something that responds to the world like a muscle, it should be treated as one in that being active keeps you healthy, makes you hungry, and makes you live longer. I can see the merit behind both, but all the same...