I think Murphy is going to get killed here is why

[Wolfeyes]

They both backslide and you can't backslide without first improving. It's not surprising that they backslide either, as I said.

We know why Harry has these character flaws. We don't know where Murphy's come from.

Personally, I think there's a lot that can be inferred. There's a lot of pieces to her on top of her short story that helps put together how she could turn out the way she did. After all, we don't ask *why* Morgan or Langtry or Ebenezer have their flaws though we know how they've messed up and how they've developed.

The story repeatedly says that SI division is not treated well since it's considered a deadend career-wise, and in books like FM we see where her association with Harry becomes a point of stress (and FM is where she has her worst moments before undergoing several books of character development). Then, she loses everything she worked for because she had to make another difficult choice.

Harry also recognizes she has trust issues in regards to getting into relationships after being twice divorced, one being because she was supposedly ignoring him for the job, which doesn't make it difficult to see it extending to other aspects of her life. And that's not even getting into her father's suicide when she was 11.

[huangjimmy108]

They both backslide and you can't backslide without first improving. It's not surprising that they backslide either, as I said.

We know why Harry has these character flaws. We don't know where Murphy's come from.

Being a female in a mostly male dominated police station should explain some of it. She have to be tough, or at least to be perceive as such by others.

Working as the director of SI equivalent to be exiled to Siberia in political terms should explain some more. It is relatively reasonable to assume she has been backstab many times in office politics.

Facing the dark side of society as a criminal officer and the dark side of the supernatural world as Harry's partner should explain some more. She is condition to be cautious and suspicious, in the love hurts SS I think she explain some of this. Well, maybe not in the "Love hurts" but it is certainly in "Side jobs". I can't remember clearly . It is the one with Mac's bar being attacked.

Trusting the system of the law and yet being disappointed again and again could explain even more.

And all this without Murphy being the main PoV character. Who knows what else she is facing off screen?

[huangjimmy108]

Wow. Just...wow. This is the single most victim-blaming statement I have ever read. If you can't understand what's wrong with what you said, then I don't really want to talk to you.

Of course I find nothing wrong with it. At least for now. The relationship between Harry and Murphy is not 1 or 2 months, it is years. 15 years and maybe more. If you have such a manipulative friend for such a long time and you can still trust this person with your life, there is something wrong right there.

[nadia.skylark]

Of course I find nothing wrong with it. At least for now. The relationship between Harry and Murphy is not 1 or 2 months, it is years. 15 years and maybe more. If you have such a manipulative friend for such a long time and you can still trust this person with your life, there is something wrong right there.

The part of your post that I had a problem with was you insulting everyone who'd ever been on the wrong end of an abusive relationship.

The Murphy-Harry thing is you not reading/not understanding my previous posts again.

[huangjimmy108]

The part of your post that I had a problem with was you insulting everyone who'd ever been on the wrong end of an abusive relationship.

The Murphy-Harry thing is you not reading/not understanding my previous posts again.

Everyone else is normal people. Harry is a wizard.

And yes, if you are in an abusive relationship and you know it and you allow it, part of the wrong is with you. The only exception to this is if the abusive relationship is between a parent and a child or something like that, with the parent aka the one with the greater power as the one who is dishing out the abuse. When the abusive relationship is with people of equal status, there is a problem with both parties.

If anything, the power balance between Harry and Murphy leans more on Harry. Harry is the one with greater power and knowledge. If he is the one who kept being manipulated, there is something wrong right there.

It is not that I don't understand you. I just do not accept the reasoning. A wizard of Harry's caliber should not have made such a low level mistake, even under those circumstances and issues, not after 6 years. If he is that ggullable, Mab would have turn him into an obedient puppet by now. Or do you think Mab is less ccapable than Murphy.

[forumghost]

Last I checked being a Wizard doesn't magically (heh) negate decades worth of abandonment issues, guilt complexes, and self-depreciation, so what the heck are you on about?

[nadia.skylark]

Everyone else is normal people. Harry is a wizard.

Forumghost's reply answers this better than I could.

And yes, if you are in an abusive relationship and you know it and you allow it, part of the wrong is with you. The only exception to this is if the abusive relationship is between a parent and a child or something like that, with the parent aka the one with the greater power as the one who is dishing out the abuse. When the abusive relationship is with people of equal status, there is a problem with both parties.

I will do you the courtesy of assuming you don't know how abusive relationships work, because otherwise this reflects rather negatively on you as a person.

If anything, the power balance between Harry and Murphy leans more on Harry. Harry is the one with greater power and knowledge.

Murphy is an officer of the law with the ability to arrest Harry. She is also his primary source of income, without which he will starve. Harry's ability to exercise power over Murphy is sharply limited, because if he does exercise it, it means that people will be hurt or die. Murphy's power over Harry does not suffer from the same limitation.

If he is the one who kept being manipulated, there is something wrong right there.

This is what I meant when I said you are not comprehending what I've posted. I have never claimed that Harry has kept being manipulated by Murphy throughout the course of the books. I have said that he was manipulated by Murphy in Storm Front (which he admits in the beginning) and is badly treated and assaulted in Fool Moon. Then, at the end of Fool Moon, Murphy realizes how much she screwed up and stops manipulating and treating Harry badly. Then, during Cold Days, when Murphy has some reason not to trust Harry and when Harry is emotionally extremely vulnerable, she starts manipulating Harry again. I have also stated that my interpretation of Cold Days is not what Jim intended--I simply cannot manage to read it differently, and I have tried.

It is not that I don't understand you. I just do not accept the reasoning. A wizard of Harry's caliber should not have made such a low level mistake, even under those circumstances and issues, not after 6 years.

Harry didn't flub a magic spell! I don't see what him being a wizard has to do with anything.

If he is that ggullable, Mab would have turn him into an obedient puppet by now. Or do you think Mab is less ccapable than Murphy.

I think that Harry is specifically vulnerable to manipulation from those he cares about, in a way he is vulnerable to no one else. It's a weak point in his defenses. Obviously, he does not care at all about Mab.

[Kindler]

I think Murphy serves a completely different purpose in SF and FM than she does for pretty much every other book. She's there to be the antagonist Harry isn't allowed to smash to pieces or burn to ashes, not because she's got more power than him, but because he fundamentally doesn't want to hurt her.

Also, Harry's definition of "good cop" probably isn't "a cop who adheres to police procedures to the letter and would never harm a suspect in custody." It's probably more like "a cop who tries to save as many people as possible and who wouldn't hesitate to put themselves in harm's way to protect an innocent." You saw what the cops did to Binder in Turn Coat. Harry had a total blast screwing with Binder when he was in the interrogation room. If Murphy had clocked him, nobody would've minded, and Harry would still think of them as "good cops." You would probably disagree, but you're not Harry.

[Blaze]

People, take it down a notch. 

Go reread the precepts.  https://www.paranetonline.com/index.php/topic,23096.0.html

We are not speaking about real world situations on this forum.

We do not make statements about forum users, only characters.

Courtesy is expected.

Remember this applies to everyone.

~Blaze
as Mod.

 

[Bad Alias]

After all, we don't ask *why* Morgan or Langtry or Ebenezer have their flaws though we know how they've messed up and how they've developed.

I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said. I'd just say we don't ask this of them because they are side characters. Murphy is probably the second most important character in the books. As to Morgan specifically, I think his motivations are explained pretty well throughout the books. Especially Turn Coat.

[1.] Being a female in a mostly male dominated police station should explain some of it. She have to be tough, or at least to be perceive as such by others.

[2.] Working as the director of SI equivalent to be exiled to Siberia in political terms should explain some more. It is relatively reasonable to assume she has been backstab many times in office politics.

[3.] Facing the dark side of society as a criminal officer and the dark side of the supernatural world as Harry's partner should explain some more. She is condition to be cautious and suspicious, in the love hurts SS I think she explain some of this. [4.] Well, maybe not in the "Love hurts" but it is certainly in "Side jobs". I can't remember clearly . It is the one with Mac's bar being attacked.

[5.] Trusting the system of the law and yet being disappointed again and again could explain even more.

And all this without Murphy being the main PoV character. [6.] Who knows what else she is facing off screen?

1. I think that has a lot more to do with Murphy than anyone else. Murphy has had a meteoric rise in the ranks. (Technically, it's impossible under current requirements).
2. Probably not by Fool Moon.
3. Again, probably not by Fool Moon.
4. Last Call.
5. Once again, probably not by Fool Moon.
6. Exactly my point. I'm sure there is something there to explain it.

I think Murphy serves a completely different purpose in SF and FM than she does for pretty much every other book. She's there to be the antagonist Harry isn't allowed to smash to pieces or burn to ashes, not because she's got more power than him, but because he fundamentally doesn't want to hurt her.

Also, Harry's definition of "good cop" probably isn't "a cop who adheres to police procedures to the letter and would never harm a suspect in custody." It's probably more like "a cop who tries to save as many people as possible and who wouldn't hesitate to put themselves in harm's way to protect an innocent." You saw what the cops did to Binder in Turn Coat. Harry had a total blast screwing with Binder when he was in the interrogation room. If Murphy had clocked him, nobody would've minded, and Harry would still think of them as "good cops." You would probably disagree, but you're not Harry.

100%. As to your first paragraph, JB has specifically stated that he was following a P.I. format of a "friendly" police officer adversary. That explains why from a story writing perspective why Murphy would be an obstacle to Dresden. It doesn't explain her actions from a character perspective.

My original point is that Murphy's antagonism to Dresden in Fool Moon isn't properly set up, and we have to read between the lines in the rest of the series to back fill it. Even then, there is great debate on whether or not her actions are explainable.

[nadia.skylark]

Sorry, huangjimmy108, for my statement about your character.

My original point is that Murphy's antagonism to Dresden in Fool Moon isn't properly set up, and we have to read between the lines in the rest of the series to back fill it. Even then, there is great debate on whether or not her actions are explainable.

This.

[Mira]

My original point is that Murphy's antagonism to Dresden in Fool Moon isn't properly set up, and we have to read between the lines in the rest of the series to back fill it. Even then, there is great debate on whether or not her actions are explainable.

Perhaps, however it works very well in pointing out her major character flaw, which comes back to bite her big time in the latest book.  If one of Harry's major flaw is his propensity to be over protective, which often backfires because he holds back information when he should be up front.. Murphy's major flaw is when she thinks she is right she shuts her mind and jumps to conclusions.

[g33k]

Another point to bear in mind -- people are fundamentally irrational.   
Emotion
Upbringing
Cognitive bias
Etc.

And the more we focus on rationality, and ignore those irrational parts?  The more they influence us without our even knowing; and then we lie to ourselves, tell ourselves we are being rational, rationalize our irrational choices, invest our emotions and sense of self-worth into those having been rational choices.   

I'm irrational.  Jim Butcher is irrational.  You  -- whoever's reading this post -- are irrational.
Harry isn't immune to this, even if he's a wizard, one of "the Wise."  It's an inescapable thing.   
 
We see it OFTEN in the Dresdenverse.  Sometimes, Harry even sees it in himself.   

[Bad Alias]

We can be trained to spot a lot of that irrationality ... but pretty much only in others. Also there's that old saying "the difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make sense."

[Kindler]

We can be trained to spot a lot of that irrationality ... but pretty much only in others. Also there's that old saying "the difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make sense."

That's especially true with dialogue. It's extraordinarily frustrating when you realize that human beings very rarely speak in complete sentences. We stop, pause, clear our throats, cut in with random exclamations, get interrupted and interrupt in turn, drop sentence fragments, respond to things someone said ten minutes ago, and generally make sure we're as understood as poorly as possible. It's my favorite thing when I read fiction and one character is speaking whole paragraphs. My reaction is generally, "There is no possible way that this person said this this clearly, or all at once." Exceptions are speeches and lectures, of course, but then those are more monologues than dialogues. One of my favorite things to write are conversations with three or four people, solely because I'm justified in including all of the realistic interruptions and cut-ins for comedic purposes.