Dresden Files II: Dealing Drugs To Tiny Faeries

[123456789blaaa]

And what's true in-universe is that magic has been observed, in multiple cases, to not obey physics. It doesn't matter how complex and/or mysterious magic is when the author flatly states that 'magic' as a coherent entity does obey physics...if it requires a 3-hour explanation to explain the semantic loophole that means it is still 'obeying physics', that falls under the Certain Point of View clause.
<snip>

Why does it not matter? Because it's bad writing? Because...what?

I would personally take an author's statements in the fiction as less prominent/binding than statements they have made later, simply because they've had time to think over things and polish them up. It's up to the author to reconcile stuff together.

In the fiction?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Yeah; the books are basically also statements by the author (notwithstanding unreliable narrators), in their own way.

[The Glyphstone]

Why does it not matter? Because it's bad writing? Because...what?

Because the complexity of said magic is not the issue under contention. The issue is whether everything an author says regarding a work can be regarded as fully and perpetually infallible, and if the only way to make an apparently false statement true is to provide a tortuously complex and convoluted explanation (in this case, how the magic works), the the author has erred either in writing something he did not intend to be in his works, or erred in making a patently false statement that can be proven as such.

As a third hypothetical, it'd also be true if Jim said in one interview that Mab is older than Titania, then said in a separate interview that Titania is older than Mab. Without adding in some sort of context-qualifier (i.e., chronological order of statements, specific wording of question, amount of drinks consumed by Jim beforehand, whatever), you are presented with two directly contradictory statements that, absent said context-qualifiers, must both be simultaneously true. Treat what Jim (not Harry) has said/written in the books as one of these two interviews to make the digression relevant.

[123456789blaaa]

Because the complexity of said magic is not the issue under contention. The issue is whether everything an author says regarding a work can be regarded as fully and perpetually infallible, and if the only way to make an apparently false statement true is to provide a tortuously complex and convoluted explanation (in this case, how the magic works), the the author has erred either in writing something he did not intend to be in his works, or erred in making a patently false statement that can be proven as such.

As a third hypothetical, it'd also be true if Jim said in one interview that Mab is older than Titania, then said in a separate interview that Titania is older than Mab. Without adding in some sort of context-qualifier (i.e., chronological order of statements, specific wording of question, amount of drinks consumed by Jim beforehand, whatever), you are presented with two directly contradictory statements that, absent said context-qualifiers, must both be simultaneously true. Treat what Jim (not Harry) has said/written in the books as one of these two interviews to make the digression relevant.

I think I may have used a bad choice of words. What I mean is not so much precisely what the author says but rather, what the author means, intends, thinks etc. If Jim were to drunkenly mumble something about Harry being a planet at a wedding after a fan jumped out of the bushes and asked him what Harry was, I would not consider that to be true in the books.

If in Jims mind, DF magic pays attention to physics, than it does despite the force rings. I believe the author is supreme over his works. Now you could argue that the wording in the specific quote I posted of "pays attention to physics" means that it only does so very loosely (thus no contradiction). That's a different argument though.

[The Glyphstone]

I think I may have used a bad choice of words. What I mean is not so much precisely what the author says but rather, what the author means, intends, thinks etc. If Jim were to drunkenly mumble something about Harry being a planet at a wedding after a fan jumped out of the bushes and asked him what Harry was, I would not consider that to be true in the books.

If in Jims mind, DF magic pays attention to physics, than it does. I believe the author is supreme over his works. Now you could argue that the wording in the specific quote I posted of "pays attention to physics" means that it only does so very loosely (thus no contradiction). That's a different argument though.

That would make more sense, and narrow it down to either A) we, the readers, are being too pendantic/specific/broad with our definition of 'physics', or Jim is being very specific about how it does so. If he said 'pays attention to physics', I could buy that 100%, since it is a different argument...Dresden magic does things like obey conservation of energy, heat transfer via conduction, and other things. In fact, examples of how it clings to physical laws are almost as numerous as examples of how it, as mentioned upthread, makes them go cry in a corner.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Anyone disagree with the below statements?:

If an author says something is true in the universe of their works, it is true in-universe full stop. It may not make sense and it may be terrible writing but that doesn't stop it from being true.

Absolutely wrong.

Literature is not a logic puzzle. A is not always A.

The only consistent principle is "all things must be analysed in appropriate contexts" which is my fancy way of saying nothing is consistent. You merely have things which are generally true.

Nothing is "full stop" true.

Author statements? Unless an author asserts they have an eidectic memory and prove it repeatedly, they are not actually qualified to have make absolutely true statements even about their own works.

No, not they literally cannot.

They may be wrong, they may change their mind later, they may be lying, or an outside force like the publisher may intervene. This should be particularly so in the event of off hand statements, fans may record everything he says at events but can you assert Jim Butcher records everything Jim Butcher says and fact check himself. And then goes oh well I can't make... Odin actually Merlin because I said they were totally different people at Kanasas City Signing date X/Y/Z, oops need a new major plot twist.

That's the sort of thing you need to even approach your idea. Otherwise you're merely pretending to practice the idea.

Does that mean we should casually ignore the author? No! But don't presume he's somewhere between a fairy and the pope. Heck the pope doesn't work like that its just a misconception. You instead weigh the evidence of each case and decide what is enough. To really know something you want multiple points of data, multiple pieces of evidence.

Not just the smoking gun, but eyewitness testimony of the smoking gun backed by video recordings of the smoking gun lighting a cigarette and it buying the pack in the 7-11.

We know our wizard's name is Harry Dresden, we have hundreds (if not thousands) of assertions to that. Jim Butcher can hypothetically change that name to Chuck Yeager if he really really wants... but certainly not off hand. He says it by mistake, its just that a mistake. His added weight as the author cannot override the weight of Harry Dresden.

Yes that's ridiculous level but your method demand just such a principle and that it be consistently applied as such. A more plausible case might be flubbing the order of Harry's middle names. They aren't changed. Jim just likely screwed up. If he publishes the names in that order, uses them consistently in the new order.... well then its Harry Copperfield Blackstone Dresden.... and hopefully new editions update the older books.

For example, in the previous thread, it was brought up that Jim said that Harry's magic has to pay attention to the laws of physics. A bunch of parts of the books were pointed out where Harry's magic seems to make physics cry in the corner. My argument was that it doesn't matter that it seems to flout physics. Because the author said it pays attention, it does.

IIRC you want "pay attention" to mean things it doesn't actually entail. And you are flat wrong to do so.

There is a vast and infinite gulf between "pay attention" and "obeying" physics like you have seemed to want. Why? Because science is supposed to be precise, predictable, and reliable every single time. If you alter say the rate at an apple falls out of the tree to hit Newton, you must restructure the entire universe. No seriously, not even a litte hyperbole there because changing that means changing gravity.

Which alters (no really) everything about how the universe, galaxy, solar system, and planet evolved. You actually do the math on your change and you may find that stars can no longer form, never mind the changing such unlikely events as the Theia impact that birthed the Moon.

Which is why nobody does the math.

Much simpler and easier is the notion that Harry does indeed "pay attention" to physics. In the sense that he (and Butcher) looks at them as suggestions and the author's intention is that Harry does things in a way understandable (if not accurate) to those of us that remember vaguely high school.

Its still strictly speaking mumbo-jumbo nonsense, but it does "pay attention" because it cares to make the claim accurate or not. Paying attention does not mean you actually get it right at all.

Getting it right is doing the math.

[Rakaydos]

The only problem is when, as I think you noted, the author says one thing out-of-universe and the actual descriptive text written by said author says something contradictory. To pick a random example, Harry's force rings. They violate Newton's Third Law by not catapulting Harry backwards whenever he triggers them. Jim saying all of Harry's magic obeys the laws of physics, thus, is proven to be either A) Jim is wrong, B) Jim is intentionally lying/telling the truth 'from a certain point of view', C) the laws of physics in question are not the same as our universe's laws, or D) the text is wrong/subjective. Since I think Harry would notice himself being flung around like a rag doll by his own rings, D is pretty easily discountable.

The ring example can probably be argued, but it's only one example of many.

Arnt the rings explained to absorb force over time? So the recoil is spread over weeks or even months, but the strike is not directly linked to the recoil.

[123456789blaaa]

Soras, later in this thread, I realized I had used a poor choice of words. I recommend reading further ahead.

EDIT: Or I could post it below:

Because the complexity of said magic is not the issue under contention. The issue is whether everything an author says regarding a work can be regarded as fully and perpetually infallible, and if the only way to make an apparently false statement true is to provide a tortuously complex and convoluted explanation (in this case, how the magic works), the the author has erred either in writing something he did not intend to be in his works, or erred in making a patently false statement that can be proven as such.

As a third hypothetical, it'd also be true if Jim said in one interview that Mab is older than Titania, then said in a separate interview that Titania is older than Mab. Without adding in some sort of context-qualifier (i.e., chronological order of statements, specific wording of question, amount of drinks consumed by Jim beforehand, whatever), you are presented with two directly contradictory statements that, absent said context-qualifiers, must both be simultaneously true. Treat what Jim (not Harry) has said/written in the books as one of these two interviews to make the digression relevant.

I think I may have used a bad choice of words. What I mean is not so much precisely what the author says but rather, what the author means, intends, thinks etc. If Jim were to drunkenly mumble something about Harry being a planet at a wedding after a fan jumped out of the bushes and asked him what Harry was, I would not consider that to be true in the books.

If in Jims mind, DF magic pays attention to physics, than it does despite the force rings. I believe the author is supreme over his works. Now you could argue that the wording in the specific quote I posted of "pays attention to physics" means that it only does so very loosely (thus no contradiction). That's a different argument though.

[Fjolnir]

Honestly if I were making rings that absorbed kinetic energy, pretty high on the list of things that they would need to do is prevent me from being blasted about anyhow by recoil...

[Soras Teva Gee]

Soras, later in this thread, I realized I had used a poor choice of words. I recommend reading further ahead.

I did, I just didn't find much relevant. You really just need to burn your entire methodology down, its not a matter that can be swept under the rug with "poor wording" because you shouldn't be anywhere close those sorts of statements.

Arnt the rings explained to absorb force over time? So the recoil is spread over weeks or even months, but the strike is not directly linked to the recoil.

Dividing things on those lines is arguably a bigger deviation.

Because "Recoil" is Force. Equal and opposite reactions.

So help though me Harry talks about charging the rings with energy at least once. Ergo he's storing is kinetic energy in the rings an releasing that to exert force. And should blow his fingers off.

Course that's only one problem. Force is not a thing like with Magic Missile. Harry's rings should make... a breeze while blowing off his arm. That's the only medium that makes anything like sense. So we have to magic in a medium of transmission for force external to physics too.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Ah, yes, Soras. That's basically what's been at the back of my mind in full. That's very in line with what my take is, I believe.

[123456789blaaa]

I did, I just didn't find much relevant. You really just need to burn your entire methodology down, its not a matter that can be swept under the rug with "poor wording" because you shouldn't be anywhere close those sorts of statements.



Dividing things on those lines is arguably a bigger deviation.

Because "Recoil" is Force. Equal and opposite reactions.

So help though me Harry talks about charging the rings with energy at least once. Ergo he's storing is kinetic energy in the rings an releasing that to exert force. And should blow his fingers off.

Course that's only one problem. Force is not a thing like with Magic Missile. Harry's rings should make... a breeze while blowing off his arm. That's the only medium that makes anything like sense. So we have to magic in a medium of transmission for force external to physics too.

Yes but that post keeps talking about what how ridiculous is it to hold Jim to exactly and precisely what he says when I meant what he thinks/intended etc . A small example:

We know our wizard's name is Harry Dresden, we have hundreds (if not thousands) of assertions to that. Jim Butcher can hypothetically change that name to Chuck Yeager if he really really wants... but certainly not off hand. He says it by mistake, its just that a mistake. His added weight as the author cannot override the weight of Harry Dresden.

I do not understand why the bolded sentence is in there if you are taking my other post into account. I agree with you. Another example:

A more plausible case might be flubbing the order of Harry's middle names. They aren't changed. Jim just likely screwed up. If he publishes the names in that order, uses them consistently in the new order.... well then its Harry Copperfield Blackstone Dresden.... and hopefully new editions update the older books.

Again, if Jim made a mistake, then I'm not holding it as true.

Do you get what I mean?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I think the point being made is that while most people assume that the truth of fictional worlds is a strict progression from statement to statement, it's more of a wibbly-wobbly canony-wanony ball of...stuff.

[Forum Explorer]

So you're suggesting that the laws of physics change themselves in the Dresdenverse to suit Harry's narration?
Personally I think Harry's observed what force and fire magic do and decided that his magic obeys the laws of physics based on his non-academic study of those laws.

I like that idea. Harry thinks his magic follows physics, and so it does. His understanding of physics anyways (and he's only got a basic high school education that he never uses anyways)

Anyone disagree with the below statements?:

If an author says something is true in the universe of their works, it is true in-universe full stop. It may not make sense and it may be terrible writing but that doesn't stop it from being true. For example, in the previous thread, it was brought up that Jim said that Harry's magic has to pay attention to the laws of physics. A bunch of parts of the books were pointed out where Harry's magic seems to make physics cry in the corner. My argument was that it doesn't matter that it seems to flout physics. Because the author said it pays attention, it does. It doesn't matter if the only way for this to be possible involves time travel, merlin's beard, and the first human to ever be born. If the author says it's true, it is true.

Yes I disagree completely. And not just by wording or something like that. Flat out their opinion isn't the last word on the subject. The last word is what is in the books themselves. The only reason why the author's opinion means more is because they might change what's in the books, either through editing or by adding another novel to the series.

[123456789blaaa]

I think the point being made is that while most people assume that the truth of fictional worlds is a strict progression from statement to statement, it's more of a wibbly-wobbly canony-wanony ball of...stuff.

Maybe. I'll think on it...

Anyways I'm tired as sin and I can feel my thoughts starting to go in circles. Lemme try and simplify my beliefs on this subject (forget everything I've said previously):

In general, what an author thinks is true in their own works is the truth in-universe regardless of what seems like contradicting evidence within the work itself (unless it is literally impossible to reconcile the two).

I like that idea. Harry thinks his magic follows physics, and so it does. His understanding of physics anyways (and he's only got a basic high school education that he never uses anyways)



Yes I disagree completely. And not just by wording or something like that. Flat out their opinion isn't the last word on the subject. The last word is what is in the books themselves. The only reason why the author's opinion means more is because they might change what's in the books, either through editing or by adding another novel to the series.

I suppose we'll probably have to agree to disagree then.

[Mauve Shirt]

If Leonardo da Vinci Told me that the Mona Lisa was a depiction of this one time he went fishing with his grandfather, I wouldn't believe him for one minute.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

In general, what an author thinks is true in their own works is the truth in-universe regardless of what seems like contradicting evidence within the work itself (unless it is literally impossible to reconcile the two).

I would agree with this, taking into account the fact that an author's idea of the in-universe truth evolves, and that the author's memory of the full in-universe truth is less than 100% accurate. It's certainly not easy for the author to recall everything; the Internet Hivemind is much more able to do that.

[datalaughing]

Things in the published material are canon (even if there is an occasional contradiction). Things stated by the author outside of that are not. George Lucas said plenty of stuff about the Star Wars universe 30 years ago that went right out the window when the second trilogy was made. The people who make the Girl Genius comic said a ton of stuff years ago regarding the universe of their comic, which have gradually changed as they decide that the process of storytelling required it. Plans change, ideas in an author's head evolve. What's been published, that (usually) stays the same. So that's what you can rely on as "true."

[Soras Teva Gee]

The entire problem is that the concept of "canon" is itself rather a dirty lie.

I will point out that the body that created the actual IRL canon itself does not as is often misunderstood suppose the actual canon is a monopoly on truth.

For our fictional franchise as far as I'm concerned there is no canon there is ONLY fanon.

Even the authority with the greatest weight for a franchise goes only so far. You want to point to say the Dresden Files books as the "final authority"... well there's still that damn big parking lot around Wrigley Field in the middle of Chicago. Read between the lines a little and how Michael and the Swords work clearly underwent some rethinking between books 3 and 5. Sure we can suppose that since everything is through Harry he was simply wrong and revised his opinions, but its never addressed in the books. If not the books then what exactly?

Other franchises may have different faultlines. I'm sure if you pin most sci-fi movie creators down, they would say that there really isn't sound in space so certain events "really" didn't happen *quite* as depicted. Any videogame is going to have separation between its "reality" and its gameplay contrivances. In these cases even the original media may not represent the final authority.

Overall of course this all adds up to it not existing. There are generally "weightier" sources of authority, dependent upon exact circumstance and subject to interpretation. That's it, they're just shadings better or worse.

Of course the perhaps the deepest problem with "canon" is that its a conceit that is doomed to failure. Every single canon will eventually fail given enough material. Its simply inevitable someone is going to screw up. You get a really attentive to detail single creator you might escape unscathed for awhile.. but sooner or later its simply inevitable something is going to slip. And that is the BEST case scenario.

Only fandom can't admit this because it means all their OCD hivemind collating is inherently pointless and their vaunted neckbeard authority is all sound and fury signifying nothing. **** fandom and their arrogant nonsense.

[Lamech]

Magic pays attention to physics. My cat pays attention to mice. If magic didn't pay attention to physics where would Harry's rings get their power from? How could Shadow dude draw power from the storm?

Magic does business with physics. Or maybe just humanities common sense assumptions about physics. That's why raising something light is generally a lot easier than raising something heavy if you use magic.

[Philistine]

In general, what an author thinks is true in their own works is the truth in-universe regardless of what seems like contradicting evidence within the work itself (unless it is literally impossible to reconcile the two).

You seem to be saying here that an author's out-of-universe statements regarding story, setting, and character should be taken as more important than the in-universe depictions of same within the text. I don't even know how to respond to that - but I know where to make a start:

NO. NO. A THOUSAND TIMES NO.

This is a terrible idea. Accepting it would mean that both text and author are terrible, unable to tell a coherent story without resorting to external ex cathedra proclamations from the author. The work has to be able to stand on its own without this kind of meta-knowledge (and to be clear, I'm not just rejecting this in the context of DF, but for all books and indeed for all works of art). Authorial declarations of intent are great for clearing up ambiguities, inconsistencies, or even outright contradictions within the body of the work (Molly's age, for the most obvious DF-related example); but if such statements conflict in any way with the actual text, without a text source to back them up? Rubbish. And the in-text source needs to be stronger than an Unreliable Narrator claiming something is true based on his own self-confessed very limited understanding of the subject.

[Mauve Shirt]

Only fandom can't admit this because it means all their OCD hivemind collating is inherently pointless and their vaunted neckbeard authority is all sound and fury signifying nothing. **** fandom and their arrogant nonsense.

I do seriously wonder, what do you want to do in these threads?

[Soras Teva Gee]

I do seriously wonder, what do you want to do in these threads?

Preach fire and brimstone of course.

[BRC]

You seem to be saying here that an author's out-of-universe statements regarding story, setting, and character should be taken as more important than the in-universe depictions of same within the text. I don't even know how to respond to that - but I know where to make a start:

NO. NO. A THOUSAND TIMES NO.

This is a terrible idea. Accepting it would mean that both text and author are terrible, unable to tell a coherent story without resorting to external ex cathedra proclamations from the author. The work has to be able to stand on its own without this kind of meta-knowledge (and to be clear, I'm not just rejecting this in the context of DF, but for all books and indeed for all works of art). Authorial declarations of intent are great for clearing up ambiguities, inconsistencies, or even outright contradictions within the body of the work (Molly's age, for the most obvious DF-related example); but if such statements conflict in any way with the actual text, without a text source to back them up? Rubbish. And the in-text source needs to be stronger than an Unreliable Narrator claiming something is true based on his own self-confessed very limited understanding of the subject.

I always consider that, if you must define Canon, you do so while reconciling, first the works themselves, and then the Author's statements.

So, if Book 1 says there is a purple Smurfuggle, and Book 5 says there is a green Smurfuggle, and the Author says that all Smurfuggles are Orange, then if you must define the "Canon", you would say that Smurfuggles can be either purple or green.

If the Author says that a previously unspecified Smurfuggle is Orange, then you say Smurfuggles can be Purple, Green, or Orange.

Stuff Declared in Source Material > Author's Word.


As for the "Does Business with Physics" thing, that always seemed like "Occasionally meets Physics for lunch and nods occasionally". Harry throws Fireballs around, and occasionally Pyrofuego's for a combined Fire/Ice effect.

My personal theory is that a Wizard's magic is in many ways a reflection on how they view the nature of Magic itself, just like how not ever wizard sees an image when they soulgaze. Harry views magic like an engineer views physics, a series of ways in which forces move around and do stuff.

Harry also has a high-school level knowledge of Physics.

Harry's speciality, magically speaking, is in the moving around of forces. He pushes stuff, lights stuff on fire, blows stuff up, and finds stuff. He specifically finds stuff by honing in on similarities or connections.

Harry talks about this like ALL magic works like that, but thinking about it that does not really make much sense.

Take, for example, Healing Magic, which we know exists, Listens To Wind is a specialist in it. Magical Healing makes no sense in terms of "Forces moving around", is the healer magically pumping some sort of "Life Energy" into the patient? are they using telekinesis to push skin, muscle, and flesh together?
Harry, Coincidentally, has never been shown to perform Healing magic. It does not fit with his worldview, or definition of magic.

But, if you had a worldview that DID involve some sort of "Life Energy" that you could close wounds and restore vitality, that would be a different story. Listens to Wind was able to perform a rain dance and call down a rainstorm in his battle with the Skinwalker. We have not seen Harry even THINK about the mechanics of that.

In Harry's viewpoint, the Weather is a system of forces too complex to even think about. He has no idea how one would create a rainstorm.

In Listens-To-Wind's mindset, a rainstorm is somthing you can create if you ask nicely enough.


I also put Molly into this theory.

Harry views magic as forces moving around. His first Spell was him doing track and field and accidentally propelling himself with magic. That is very much "Forces moving around" style magic.

Molly's first spell was veiling herself from her mother on instinct. She did not know what she was doing, she just really did not want to be seen, and lo, she was not seen.

I see Molly's view of magic as being less "Moving forces around" and more "Reshaping the world as I see fit". This means she has trouble with harry-style Magic, since while Harry thinks "I am calling up a source of energy within myself, shaping it, and then using that to do things in accordance with how physics works", Molly has to say "That thing that is not on fire-Make it be on fire".

Harry thinks he's playing by the rules, Molly knows she's breaking them.

That said, Illusions and mind magic are much simpler in terms of "Make what I want to happen happen" then "Moving forces around". If Harry tries to do an illusion, some part of him is trying to conceptualize that as moving forces around. Bending the patterns of light around himself or somthing. Molly just thinks "I don't want them to see me". Perception and the human mind are both notoriously subjective things, and they happen to be Molly's playground. She is good at subtle magic because her style of magic focuses on the Result, not the Process. She does not think "I want to make the light that reaches their eyes not reflect off me", she thinks "I want them not to see me". What for Harry would be the subtle and precise manipulation of many forces is, for Molly, a simple declaration of intent and application of will.
Harry thinks about picking a lock by pushing on the tumblers, Molly just skips straight to "And I want this door to be open".

And "I want them to see somthing that is not" is much easier than "I want something that is not to be".


Now let's rampently speculate. Listens-To-Wind's magic probably stems from the traditional beliefs of his people. He can control weather, shapeshift, and heal because his worldview is such that these are things that can happen.

Let's say Carlos views Magic as inheriently disruptive , which leads to his particular flavor of weaponized entropy, as he turns things to dust.

Also, Harry is deeply familiar with the Gandalf-style pop-cultural idea of the Wizard, and he seems to fit that himself. His spellcasting makes a lot of sense if viewed as a fushion between High-school dropout physics and "I am Gandalf". He thinks about Forzare as conjuring up a wave of kinectic energy to knock someone down. It never occurs to him to question the idea of just conjuring up kinetic energy because he is a Wizard, and that is just the sort of thing a Wizard can do.


In Ghost Story we see a low-level spellcaster guy use magic to enhance his own speed. Harry is far more powerful, and probably far more experienced than this guy, but we don't see Harry ever trying to boost his speed like that. Because if Harry tried he would have to conceptualize pushing himself around with kinetic energy in just the right way. He would see it as using kinetic energy to add extra force in very precise ways according to the complex physical process of somebody running. He could theoretically say "I'm making myself faster with Magic", but his image of himself is based off Gandalf, not The Flash, and making yourself faster does not fit his image of a Wizard the same way throwing fireballs does.

[123456789blaaa]

If Leonardo da Vinci Told me that the Mona Lisa was a depiction of this one time he went fishing with his grandfather, I wouldn't believe him for one minute.

The Mona Lisa isn't a book detailing a fictional universe of Leo's creation. Sorry if my quote was unclear (not sarcastic) but my quote was meant to only apply in that situation. I could discuss your example but that would be a different thing. Your example also seems to be assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that Leo is lying (which , means it's not really what he thinks is true).

I would agree with this, taking into account the fact that an author's idea of the in-universe truth evolves, and that the author's memory of the full in-universe truth is less than 100% accurate. It's certainly not easy for the author to recall everything; the Internet Hivemind is much more able to do that.

Right.

Magic pays attention to physics. My cat pays attention to mice. If magic didn't pay attention to physics where would Harry's rings get their power from? How could Shadow dude draw power from the storm?

Magic does business with physics. Or maybe just humanities common sense assumptions about physics. That's why raising something light is generally a lot easier than raising something heavy if you use magic.

Well, for one possible explanation, maybe from their own belief. Harry believes in his explanation and so it seems works like that. In actuality, his magic is bending physics over its knee.

You seem to be saying here that an author's out-of-universe statements regarding story, setting, and character should be taken as more important than the in-universe depictions of same within the text. I don't even know how to respond to that - but I know where to make a start:

NO. NO. A THOUSAND TIMES NO.

This is a terrible idea. Accepting it would mean that both text and author are terrible, unable to tell a coherent story without resorting to external ex cathedra proclamations from the author. The work has to be able to stand on its own without this kind of meta-knowledge (and to be clear, I'm not just rejecting this in the context of DF, but for all books and indeed for all works of art). Authorial declarations of intent are great for clearing up ambiguities, inconsistencies, or even outright contradictions within the body of the work (Molly's age, for the most obvious DF-related example); but if such statements conflict in any way with the actual text, without a text source to back them up? Rubbish. And the in-text source needs to be stronger than an Unreliable Narrator claiming something is true based on his own self-confessed very limited understanding of the subject.

Why? The DF can totally stand on its own without any WoJ even if you do believe my statement. Having lots of WoJ is just a very nice bonus.

<snip>

I'm not sure how much I agree with what you're saying but I just want to give props for obviously putting effort into making such a detailed and comprehensive post (one thing though, LTW goes to medical school every few decades to brush up on his medical knowledge. He needs to actually know how the body works in order to heal).

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT:

I thought about getting up and checking out Gard’s case, maybe calling Michael and Murphy, but the weariness that suddenly settled on my limbs made all of that sound impossibly difficult. So I settled in a little more comfortably and found sleep coming swiftly to me as well.

The last thing I noticed, before I dropped off, was that under all the blankets I was entirely undressed.

And I was clean.

This was a snippet in Small Favor from when Harry,Luccio, Kincaid, Ivy, and Michael are driving in his car to Harry's house. Harry gets really cold and stumbles into his house when they get there and blacks out on his couch. Then he wakes up and ogles Luccio who's trying to hint to him by cleaning herself in front of the couch. These are the last words before the next chapter.

So if I'm not mistaken, the implication here is that Luccio undressed and cleaned Harry while he was blacked out from weariness. Did this strike anyone else as slightly creepy?

[Rakaydos]

So if I'm not mistaken, the implication here is that Luccio undressed and cleaned Harry while he was blacked out from weariness. Did this strike anyone else as slightly creepy?

Perhaps from a modern perspective- but was it really that out of line centuries ago for a european female to do that? Suc as when Luccio was as old as her body is now?

[123456789blaaa]

Perhaps from a modern perspective- but was it really that out of line centuries ago for a european female to do that? Suc as when Luccio was as old as her body is now?

I don't know much about the lives of European females from centuries ago so I couldn't really say.

But Luccio is knows about Harry's modern perspective. Is the explanation here that she knew he wouldn't be skeeved out since she was a hot women?

And suppose the genders of the characters were switched. Luccio is a dude who undresses and cleans the body of a blacked out female colleague. Would that the readers still accept that kind of explanation?

I'm not sure of my own views here but I'm surprised no one else I've seen at least brought it up.

[One Tin Soldier]

As for the "Does Business with Physics" thing, *snip
*

This is pretty much what my view on the whole business is. Even aside from the observational evidence you've described here, we've also had other spellcasters say outright that they don't think of magic like Harry does. Billy specifically said that his description of werewolves as "casters who only know one spell" was totally different than how they were taught. So clearly his view is not the only view, or even the best one. (Since there are, after all, wizards way better than Harry.)

The other aspect of this whole thing, which people have touched on in this conversation, is that Jim probably thought he was doing perfectly ok with the whole physics thing. And/or decided that getting into the real nitty-gritty past what could make for interesting story or fight scenes wasn't worth getting worked up over. I mean, when I've thought up magic powers in the past, that's about the level of realistic physics that I operated on. I.e. just enough to lead to interesting applications and restrictions of the power.

[Avilan the Grey]

So if I'm not mistaken, the implication here is that Luccio undressed and cleaned Harry while he was blacked out from weariness. Did this strike anyone else as slightly creepy?

No.

Why would it?

[123456789blaaa]

No.

Why would it?

Generally, I prefer the people who rub the dirt of my naked body -while I'm blacked out and without my prior approval- to be closer than colleagues. Am I in the minority here?

I think what makes it even skeevier is that Luccio has amorous intentions towards Harry. It wasn't purely a practical matter (which you could at least make an argument for).