Dresden Files discussion

Ok, first of all feel free to shoot me down here if im wrong im just trying to get this sorted out because I can't quite get my head around it.

Now if i've got things correct, (view spoiler)[ we learn in earlier books that the swords wielded by the Knights of the cross require you to be related to a historical king in order to use the swords as magical objects and not just as well... normal swords. Such as Michaels family relating back to Charlemagne.

What I can't understand therefore is Murphy and Susan using them in changes, yes its been hinted before that Murphy may indeed by Knight of the cross Material but Susan as well? it just seems a bit too convenient that Harry appears to be unable to move for risk of hitting someone whose ancestor is a dead king. I can understand Susan being able to use the sword as just a sword but she obviously is able do more than that when she made it glow during the fight with the vamps. <\spoiler>

Anyone else noticed this or better yet found some sort of plot point i've missed to tell why this is. (hide spoiler)]

Susan was granted limited use of the sword for the duration of the rescue after that the sword would revert back into Harry's keeping as before. The same can be said for Karrin's use of the sword as well. (view spoiler)[She has the potential to use Shiro's sword Faith which is what is reflected in each of her uses for the sword. Harry even asks her if she wants the job but declines saying that she already has a job. (hide spoiler)]

Make sense?

And I think Susan was able to use it temporarily because it was being used for true and pure purposes.

Also, seeing how many kings there have been, it wouldn't surprise me if half of mankind is a descendant to a king in one way or another.

In addition to that, I think that the rules are bendable (as the posters before me imply :) ).

Murphy comes from an old and distinguished household which might very well have descended from some king(Irish?).

I think Susan could use it because she was using in one of the truest, purest forms of love, which is what the sword is named. Though that may be the cheesy romantic in me. :)

Yeh, I can understand it from the cheesy rightness of how it fit into the story, but just bugged me I guess that they make up this rule as to who can use em, and then seem to ignore it completely :P

Well the books don't really come out and say that they can only be used by the descendants of kings. At least I don't remember anyone saying that it was an absolute requirement.

Maybe they are best used by the descendants of kings?

Plus Susan never brought out the full potential of the sword Murph and sanya went super knight over there.

Harry never determined that the swords were "required" to be wielded by people descended from royal lines. He's has come to believe that the wielders seem to be chosen from royal lines. I think it may turn out that the royals it goes back to were the ones that understood the "protector" role of a king or queen.

(view spoiler)[ Like many I suppose I'm hoping that Karen will finally take up the Katana, Fidelacchius. I have my own opinion about Amoracchius, but I'll not say anything yet. :) (hide spoiler)]

Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "Harry never determined that the swords were "required" to be wielded by people descended from royal lines. He's has come to believe that the wielders seem to be chosen from royal lines. I think it ..."

I think after changes we know one person who will eventually take up a sword.

(view spoiler)[ Amoracchius is obviously gonna end up with Daniel Carpenter though imo after him being in ghost story it seems likely (hide spoiler)]

But Micheal is paralyzed how can he possibly take up the sword again?

Adria wrote: "But Micheal is paralyzed how can he possibly take up the sword again?"

Sorry check it again, put wrong name in :P have edited to say who I meant

Okay yeah lol..now that makes more sense :P and I agree he could definitely wield a sword for sure. And now that Karrin is unemployed, she should take up the other one. But I guess she still needs convincing.

The Swords seem to decide (or the power behind the Swords, IE God) who can use them and for what they can be used. Harry mentions that Susan should be able to use the Sword for the one purpose.

Like some of you I also think Karen could easily be from a line of (for example) Irish royalty.

I had to go back and enter a letter that was left out. I think I may need a new keyboard. There are a few letters that I need to be sure register and occasionally the "y" sticks so it looks like I'm going, "yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy". :)

I hope she takes up the sword, but there's a lot of mileage in that job. She wouldn't be as invested in chicago.

Richard wrote: "Ok, first of all feel free to shoot me down here if im wrong im just trying to get this sorted out because I can't quite get my head around it.

Now if i've got things correct, we learn in earlie..."

Going all the way back to the first post, is it possible that the Red King was the son of an ancient Maya king? His bloodline descended through the spread of vampirism. Therefore, Susan could be indirectly linked to a true ancient king. Or it could be simpler than that. The Red King was king of the Red Court. Same process of lineage with the same result.

Maybe Thomas will take up Michael's sword, as he has found true love.

Interesting thought, Damian. Maybe he has a shot at redemption? Regardless, that would be a fascinating turn of events. And it would irritate Harry so. ;-)

I'd so far thought the royal lineage was a theory Harry ahead, with mounting evidence to support it, but not an absolute. I also thought it was what he thought was part of the choosing of a Knight, not the ability to wield a sword. It seems anyone can wield them, Susan because of her motive aligning with the swords purpose, Love, Karrin lined up with Faith. Earlier in the series, Susan was burned by touching a sword, so I think that shows that she only could weild it because of the motive at the time. When the sword was not under its usual protection, after Harry used it for an untrue purpose, anyone at all could wield it. It was almost purposefully unmade by spilling the blood of an innocent with it, then. (Lydia).

I do like the idea of Thomas taking one up, but it is problematic. Love is anathema to the white court, true love their kryptonite, so I'm guessing Michaels sword is out. He multiple times would not enter the church of St. Mary's, the sword of faith is a bad fit. Hope fits him best, but Sonya holds that one.

If he did hold the sword of love, would he only be able to use it depending on if he and Justine had been together without a third previously or not?

Thomas is probably the best example of the series of true love, so the Sword of Love is certainly fitting. Besides, he is also the son of Margarent LeFay, so we have that tied up too.

As for the Anathema thing, maybe it will be an insurmountable obstacle, but with a sword of the cross almost anything is possible.

How are we defining "King?" Should we actually be defining it more as "nobility?" I mean this isn't so much written as implied in Butcher's books, but basically the Knights do have a certain level of "nobility." I think, PERSONALLY, it's less about the blood line inheritance than the character. If it was strictly an inheritance thing the swords would pass down royal lines endlessly. Amoracchius wouldn't have been given to Merlin after King Arthur's death, it would have gone onto other kin if blood was the only factor.

Nobility, as I understand it, is a willingness to put the needs of "the people" (vague amorphous term meaning all you out there) above one's own needs. A sense of responsibility to protect, defend and care for. To make the tough decisions that no one else wants to or can, to make a better world in the end. These can all be basically tied into the Faith and God concepts that Butcher discusses in relation to the swords and what God expects the Knights to be. Therefore, are the Knights not more an image of God's will and again nobility? Now, yes, the Knights do seem to be descendants of Kings, but is that more a result of nurture than nature? A result of the Kings having and passing along a certain level of defacto nobility?

If we go on this hypothesis, let's examine our potential Knights.

Karrin Murphy
Chosen field: Law Enforcement/Leader of the Chicago Alliance
Character traits: Inquisitive, brave, willing to put self on the line to protect others. Always looking to defend Chicago in general. Sense of responsibility, definitely. Requirements to qualify as modern "nobility" acquired.

Susan Rodriguez
Chosen Field: Investigative Reporter/Member of Fellowship of Saint Giles
Character traits: Inquisitive, brave, willing to put self on the line to protect others (maybe not as much as Karrin). Sense of responsibility to her readers as a reporter, check. Sense of responsibility as a Member of Fellowship of Saint Giles, check. Sense of responsibility to save her daughter from the Red Court, check. Requirements for modern "nobility," likely.
Negative things impacting decision- Infected by Red Court, possible "evil" taint.
Ability to transcend this obstacle? Keeper of Amoracchius, aka Harry Dresden, entrusts her with it in the service of saving an innocent. Noble purpose achieved.

I don't know....that's my opinion anyway. Sorry that's a little roughly laid out, but it's the general ideas. *Shrugs*

***General philosophical side note***

We have already seen in the case of Sanya that a belief in God is not necessary to be a Knight. We have seen in Shiro that being born into the Christian faith is not necessary, though he does seem to have converted. We have seen in the case of Harry, that just being a good guy most of the time and generally having good intentions isn't good enough to wield the swords and that tainted intentions while generally being good can end badly.

For example, even though we know it was for the best that Harry NOT go with his Godmother, the fact that using the sword was tainted by the broken word he'd given was nearly the undoing of Amoracchius. I don't think anyone's going to say that Harry's a bad guy or doesn't have noble intentions most of the time. The fact that he still qualifies for a Keeper, if not a weilder of the swords, proves that he's still pretty good.

Melanie wrote: "How are we defining "King?" Should we actually be defining it more as "nobility?" I mean this isn't so much written as implied in Butcher's books, but basically the Knights do have a certain leve..."

I think what qualified Harry as the keeper of the Swords is his sense of duty. Harry is not noble, as you define it. Given trust and a clear mission, though, Harry will work to uphold that trust and complete the mission to the very best of his ability, no matter what it takes.

I do not believe your argument of nurture vs nature works out with Sanya. He once fell to the Denarians. He later rejected the coin. If he was an example of passing on genetic noble traits, I doubt he would have fallen in the first place.

You do make some good arguments for why Susan and Murphy qualify to bear the Swords, though.

Stutley wrote: "I think what qualified Harry as the keeper of the Swords is his sense of duty. Harry is not noble, as you define it. Given trust and a clear mission, though, Harry will work to uphold that trust and complete the mission to the very best of his ability, no matter what it takes...."

Agreed about Harry (though I still think he's a generally good guy, not "noble," but good) and Sanya. As I said, that was roughly outlined and I didn't explain it well. What I meant was: Is the fact that descendants of Kings becoming Knights more a case of nurture rather than nature. That it is not NECESSARILY a pre-requirement that you be a descendant as much as it is that you be a noble person.

Yes, Sanya did fall to the Denarians. I don't think that we can say that he was saved by faith or what have you, as much as we can say that Sanya's character changed and made him compatible. I'm not saying I'm right, these are just my hypothesis' and they do have holes. ;-)

I think we're missing a point here. Harry mentioned this in passing in one of the books, but the thing is that according to medieval philosophy kings were appointed by God to rule over men. In this sense, if the swords are also a manifestation of God's power, then it stands to reason that "kings" be the ones to wield it, as they are the representatives of God in this earth.

Having said the above, I think is valid the argument about "nobility". So far it would appear that you need to be a "king" (bloodline here) to wield a sword, but it doesn't mean that "every king" should wield the sword. Only those worthy, only those "noble".

Regarding the passing of the sword from Arthur to Merlin, there's an important distintction to do here: Merlin was only the keeper of the sword (same as Harry), not its wielder. So it would appear that while only a king can wield it, others are also fit to guard it.

Now, all of the above is just a theory, posited by Harry. And we will see if it's true or not soon (I hope...). After all, we still don't know if Murphy is descendant of kings or not.

Marco wrote: "I think we're missing a point here. Harry mentioned this in passing in one of the books, but the thing is that according to medieval philosophy kings were appointed by God to rule over men. In this..."

More than likely, Murphy descends from an ancient clan chief among the Celts.

Marco wrote: "I think we're missing a point here. Harry mentioned this in passing in one of the books, but the thing is that according to medieval philosophy kings were appointed by God to rule over men. In this..."

Yes, Marco, I recall divine right from high school. Assuming that this is true though, I still say that there is something within a person that would make him the chosen of God. I just...don't buy the inheritance angle. *Shrugs* I mean it's Butcher's books and if that's the way he ends up writing it definitively...

I did not mean to imply in anyway that Merlin was a weilder, it hadn't occurred to me in context that it would be taken that way. I thought I had pointed out only that it was not simply an inheritance issue. My memory of history of the time period that the Merlin would have held it (though rusty and vague because I learned these lessons almost....18 years ago?) tell me that the "Kings" that came after Arthur were not all that great.

Meh, I guess I'm just hoping this is going to be more about the divine good in the human soul than "oh, you're so-and-so's 6 times removed second cousin's brother's daughter, here you go, you meet requirements. Oh and by the way you're a good person."

I believe that there's still a way that Harry's findings of the King's descendants being chosen is not mutually exclusive to a new "chosen" being made just because of their inherent good...or nobility or whatever you want to deem it. Again, I think that the inheritance angle is still more a case of the character that was passed on through learning/re-learning than a simple genetic disposition. Nurture vs. nature.

I don't know. I don't mean to be argumentative....I just...feel like it'd be a let down to be based on inheritance rather than good. I guess we'll get an answer soon one way or another.

Sorry.

Hey, it's a "discussion" forum. Arguing is what this place is for!

I understand your position. But I think it's more based more on a modern way of seeing life (personal virtue, nurture above nature, etc.), so in a way it's sort of wishful thinking (I personally share this view, by the way). But in the Dresden world nature has a very important part. No matter how good is Toot-toot's soul, he'll never be a king; and no matter how noble or well intentioned Thoms is, he will never be able to survive the touch of true love (without the loophole we all know).

My point is that there are things in the Dresdenverse that are beyond an individual's choices. And I think being able to wield one the swords is one of them, and in this case the inheritance of a royal bloodline. Remember also that there is power in the blood, Dresden has always said this, and royal blood should be no different.

You got to remember--all of this is based on magic. It's not based on actual faith, but the magic of faith. So whether it is based on inheritance and/or true worth of character, it will be because of the magic behind it.

Zeenat wrote: "You got to remember--all of this is based on magic. It's not based on actual faith, but the magic of faith. So whether it is based on inheritance and/or true worth of character, it will be because ..."

A solid point, Zeenat. I would only add that it is based on the magic that Jim Butcher has outlined in the Dresden universe. We must always consider that folklore and myth do not necessarily match what is in the books.

Right, the Dresdenverse magic works in that way.

Random comment: Harry does think Karrin is descended from nobility. It's in one of the more recent books, I'm sure of it. When I find it in my reread, I'll share.

Also, I'm not sure if Karrin would be suited to be a Knight now. She seems like she's lost some of her inner goodness, or become jaded, or something.

Kind of like how Sanya was a denarian before he took up his sword?

Damian wrote: "Kind of like how Sanya was a denarian before he took up his sword?"

Maaayyyybe.

Good point, Damian. And I think Karrin's more jaded than anything. If she's more willing to bend rules, it's from becoming more realistic and understanding the need to bend or even ignore them, when mortal law can't address a problem or save people's lives.

i think the end to skin game kinda made this whole discussion obsolete....lol

Not necessarily, the person your talking about could be related to a king. :-) (view spoiler)[King David? (hide spoiler)]

Natasha wrote: "Random comment: Harry does think Karrin is descended from nobility. It's in one of the more recent books, I'm sure of it. When I find it in my reread, I'll share.

Also, I'm not sure if Karrin wou..."

This is what i have been thinking lately. But you posted this WELL BEFORE SkinGame....Amazing!!!

Mike wrote: "i think the end to skin game kinda made this whole discussion obsolete....lol"

Actually I think it enhances or slants the discussion a bit but the general ideas is the same. Just as when Harry waded into the gray in Dead Beat, I think Harry's death and Murphy's forced retirement pushed her into the world where right and wrong aren't so clear. As she said in Cold Days, “I work with a lot of monsters these days."