Mr. Death,
Great answers; love your reasoning. I agree with a good amount of what you said above. I want to keep this a bit short, as I can’t keep writing gigantic essays. But I
do want to say this for Karrin: assuming that my WAG isn’t correct and she isn’t being somehow subtly influenced by something else, I think that she’s a pretty amazing character. She’s human, like everyone else, and makes some mistakes, but every single one is done with the best of intentions. She goes through a great amount of personal growth, and Skin Game shows it. She’s probably in the top three or four of my favorite DF characters.
One: I want to address a few of the things that you said about who should and should not have possession of the swords. Much of the responses that you’ve given state that Dresden shouldn’t be the custodian of the swords because a sword wielded for the wrong reasons is incredibly fragile. The one thing, though, is that after Grave Peril, Dresden has never, never,
NEVER had any inclination to wield a Sword. He’s very vocally against it. When he talks about the Knights, it’s not uncommon for him to drop in lines such as “And that’s why I will never be a knight.” Even when his daughter is almost certainly going to die and he crosses every line in Changes, he doesn’t pick up the sword. He gives them to others who he thinks would best use them.
In Cold Days, Harry’s in a position that he might, in a rage, do some sort of violent thing without thinking. However, that kind of rash thinking doesn't put the sword in danger if it's sitting at home in the popcorn tin by the door. To go from custodian of the sword to wielder of the sword requires that Harry must be carrying it on him, or already be planning on using it. To do either would mean that Harry would have had to make the choice to suddenly be a wielder – something that he would certainly
not do in Cold Days.
If you can show me where, post Grave Peril, Harry considers using one of the Swords in his possession, I’ll admit that there really is a danger here and that his custodianship would put the swords in danger. But I don’t believe such a thing exists.
Two: You ask how I could believe that being a custodian of the swords is not dependent on one’s own actions and moral code. The difference is in how you define the word “should.” When we ask the question of “Should Dresden be custodian?” there’s two different ways we can take it.
You and I, and Karrin and Dresden, and any mortal can debate whether someone should or should not have something. The US debates all the time on whether people should or should not have firearms, and to what extent, and under what permits. There’s ultimately no right or wrong answer; only general consensus. To us, “Should” means “I judge that this is the best possible choice, given all we know.”
The swords, though, are artifacts which are powered directly by the will of TWG. They are effective when their weilders are on mission, ineffective other times. While TWG is
not the same thing as the Christian God that people in the real world believe in, he has the same essential attributes and is intended to be a representation of the real thing. When we’re talking about a being who is omnipotent and omniscient, who has an ineffable plan for the world, “Should” takes on a different meaning. “Should” means “This is where TWG would want it to go.”
Dresden never is custodian of the sword on his own merits. He doesn’t earn the right to be keeper of the sword. Remember this bit from The Warrior, during the confrontation between Father Douglas and Michael:
“You abandoned your duty,” Douglas gasped. “The world grows darker by the day. People cry out for our help, and you would have this sword sit with this creature of witchcraft and deceit?”
“You arrogant child,” Michael snarled. “The Almighty Himself has made His will known. If you are a man of faith, then you must abide by it.”
“You have been lied to,” Douglas said. “How could God ignore His people when they need His protection so badly?”
“That is not for us to know!” Michael shouted. “Don’t you see, you fool? We are only men. We see only in one place at one time. The Lord knows all that might be. Would you presume to say that you know better than our God what should be done with the swords?”
Dresden’s not custodian because he earns it. It even seems at some times, to some people, that it must be the working of evil that he has them at all. And I know that in this moment, it seems like Harry shouldn’t hold them, either. At least, it does to Karrin. But “should” for mortals is not “should” for TWG.
Three: You ask me about the difference between Sanya and Michael. The difference comes in their particular creeds: Michael is Catholic, and Sanya is agnostic. I don’t mean by this that Michael is somehow
better than Sanya, but being Catholic means that he regularly goes to TWG in prayer and seeks his guidance on many things. Sanya, on the other hand, candidly states that the Archangel Michael and Uriel could be aliens or some sort of delusion. Obviously, he’s still a Knight; TWG is sponsoring him just as much as he is Michael. But Sanya’s actions do not reflect a proactive seeking of their will; rather, a reactive following of commands. He doesn’t pray for help and guidance and support; rather, he acts as he sees fit and remarks that if TWG has an issue with his actions, that he’s never come to him about it. This also reflects him giving the sword back to Dresden in Changes: Sanya believes that if Uriel has a problem, then he should step in.
The difference is small. But when we’re talking about angels, beings whose primary responsibility is to preserve the freedom of will and the ability to choose, there’s a big difference between a man seeking guidance and choosing based off of that guidance versus choosing first and assuming that divine intervention will step in and stop him if he chose wrong.
Oh, and here I went and wrote an essay again. *sigh*
