Malcolm gives Harry more to bargain for

[OutsideIn]

Even though I think Harry was given his names for bargaining power (4 names) when dealing with "name taker's" I think the magicians of the day were wizards. And when time comes they're particular abilities will trigger understanding in Harry in Stars and Stones. We'll soon get inner dialogue as Harry talks about The magicians in coming books. Just a guess.

[OutsideIn]

Learning to escape (Houdini),  illusions, making something disappear etc..

I think Stars and Stones is some type of Harry Potter Goblet of fire trial X10 lol

[g33k]

Even though I think Harry was given his names for bargaining power (4 names) when dealing with "name taker's" I think the magicians of the day were wizards...

To be clear:  are you suggesting that the "magicians of the day" (Harry Houdini, David Copperfield, Harry Blackstone (Sr. & Jr.)) were all actual wizards (e.g. White Council or the like), instead of mundane "stage magicians" (like Malcolm was)?

I tend to think not.  "Stage magic" is a well-understood (if intentionally obscure) art, and we don't have to posit "real" magicians faking that they are faking their magic (tho it's an amusing idea).
 

[Mira]

To be clear:  are you suggesting that the "magicians of the day" (Harry Houdini, David Copperfield, Harry Blackstone (Sr. & Jr.)) were all actual wizards (e.g. White Council or the like), instead of mundane "stage magicians" (like Malcolm was)?

I tend to think not.  "Stage magic" is a well-understood (if intentionally obscure) art, and we don't have to posit "real" magicians faking that they are faking their magic (tho it's an amusing idea).

Agreed, what Malcolm knew and performed were strictly stage vanilla human tricks and illusions.  Though I think it is fair to say that Malcolm knew Margaret was a wizard, I think less clear, how much he knew of her world.  He knew enough apparently to go along with her desire to give birth to a star child.  However the more subtle aspects like the power of names and why one should be very careful giving one's name to a demon for example as Harry explained back in Fool Moon when he called up Chauncy is another matter.  I doubt that Malcolm's knowledge was that extensive and it is what it is, he named Harry after a magician that he admired, not so Harry would have a lot of names to bargain with later on in his life.

[The_Sibelis]

We know who Harry was named after, but it's actually entirely a logical leap that it was Malcolm who named him at all.. Padme didn't survive child birth and she named her kids.
And since classically the third name itself is a direct result of the 'hidden name's convention', I find it highly unlikely he just happened to get two. Wasn't for bargaining, it's for it's original purposes, protection.

[Mira]

We know who Harry was named after, but it's actually entirely a logical leap that it was Malcolm who named him at all.. Padme didn't survive child birth and she named her kids.
And since classically the third name itself is a direct result of the 'hidden name's convention', I find it highly unlikely he just happened to get two. Wasn't for bargaining, it's for it's original purposes, protection.

So are you saying that Jim stole the idea from Star Wars?  Even if he did, Harry was born before the prequels to the original Star Wars trilby came out, the first one 1999.  So yeah, possible, but at the same time unlikely.  Just as likely that Malcolm a vanilla human stage magician would name his son after a well known and I imagine admired stage magicians, Harry Houdini and David Copperfield.  In fact I believe Harry said that back in Storm Front.. Now Malcolm could have lied to him about that, but what would be the point.

[g33k]

... Though I think it is fair to say that Malcolm knew Margaret was a wizard, I think less clear, how much he knew of her world ...

IS that fair to say, though?  It's a viable speculation, but do we have any unambiguous canonical statement (or WoJ) that speaks directly to this?

I'm not saying you are wrong, I just don't recall any such clarity.

... He knew enough apparently to go along with her desire to give birth to a star child ...

Again:  do we know this?  Was he on-board with the "starborn" scheme?  I don't really count the scene in the dream (around the campfire), because it's evident that Malcolm was VERY clued-in at that point.

... he named Harry after a magician that he admired ...

Three(4?) magicians:  Harry Houdini, David Copperfield, & the Blackstones (Sr. & Jr),  if you'll forgive the nitpick.

[The_Sibelis]

So are you saying that Jim stole the idea from Star Wars?

pointing out the loosest of tropes existing elsewhere is not 'stealing'. Honestly, the things people focus on...

Even if he did, Harry was born before the prequels to the original Star Wars trilby came out, the first one 1999.  So yeah, possible, but at the same time unlikely.  Just as likely that Malcolm a vanilla human stage magician would name his son after a well known and I imagine admired stage magicians, Harry Houdini and David Copperfield.  In fact I believe Harry said that back in Storm Front.. Now Malcolm could have lied to him about that, but what would be the point.

Harry the unreliable narrator with a very confusing backstory even without the constant shifts?
Let's jump back to Star wars for the metaphor of chosen Orphan. Did luke know... Anything that was true? Leia what about Rey?
I find it far more likely they named him together, as they were indeed together before her death 👀
I find it fair less likely Malcolm named him unilaterally and just by happenstance gave him the extra protection of names in a verse where such things actually matter.(Something Harry mentioned in storm front, FM, GP, ECT)
I also find it fair more likely anything i say would be disagreed with lmao. I wish when people did that they'd see just how untenable their opinion quickly becomes. Lotta extra waffle when,' i personally disagree" would do just as well.

[Mira]

Harry the unreliable narrator with a very confusing backstory even without the constant shifts?

Is he?  Everyone says that yet outside of a few short stories he is the only narrator we've got. So is he a liar? Just stupid? Maybe senile when he wrote his story?  Unless you got an alternative story out there..

Let's jump back to Star wars for the metaphor of chosen Orphan. Did luke know... Anything that was true? Leia what about Rey?

What has that to do with anything?  Harry is a starborn, he would be so whether he was an orphan or not.  As far as his names go as Harry explains back in Fool Moon, it isn't the names themselves that would give Chauncy power over him, it is giving him, his names..  Harry was careful even to change the inflection of how to say the names he did give him to try and prevent Chauncy from having power over him..  Didn't matter if his name was John Jinglehimer Smith, or Harry David Copperfield Dresden, it was giving his name or part of his name that gave Chauncy power over him and what he bargained for.

I find it far more likely they named him together, as they were indeed together before her death 👀

So what if they did? Harry's name in of itself has no power, at least up to this point it hasn't shown itself to have power of any kind or protection.

I find it fair less likely Malcolm named him unilaterally and just by happenstance gave him the extra protection of names in a verse where such things actually matter.(Something Harry mentioned in storm front, FM, GP, ECT)

Whether Malcolm did or didn't give him those names unilaterally doesn't matter.  The name, Harry, in of itself has no power or protection, nor David, nor Copperfield, nor Dresden, what gives power is that they are his names.

Again:  do we know this?  Was he on-board with the "starborn" scheme?  I don't really count the scene in the dream (around the campfire), because it's evident that Malcolm was VERY clued-in at that point.

Oh I think he was more clued in than you think, at least the importance of the conception, even if he didn't fully understand.  This is hinted at both by Margaret herself during Harry's soul gaze with Thomas in Blood Rites and when Lash begins to tell him about his power over Outsiders in White Night.  It takes two to make a baby, and that's even more important in the case of a star born.

[The_Sibelis]

Is he?  Everyone says that yet outside of a few short stories he is the only narrator we've got. So is he a liar? Just stupid? Maybe senile when he wrote his story?  Unless you got an alternative story out there..

s'matter of fact. We can rehash the slipping timelines theory anytime, just be ready to get dirty in there lol.
Oh, and this is a non sequitur I think, it doesn't dispute anything directly nor make any other points... Redirect to the straw man of other theories perhaps?

What has that to do with anything?  Harry is a starborn, he would be so whether he was an orphan or not.

and what does THAT have to do with anything?

As far as his names go as Harry explains back in Fool Moon, it isn't the names themselves that would give Chauncy power over him, it is giving him, his names..  Harry was careful even to change the inflection of how to say the names he did give him to try and prevent Chauncy from having power over him..  Didn't matter if his name was John Jinglehimer Smith, or Harry David Copperfield Dresden, it was giving his name or part of his name that gave Chauncy power over him and what he bargained for.

and? You're losing me here. Let's try to stay on the topic of whom could have contributed his names please. Like a mother and father might.🤷‍♂️

So what if they did? Harry's name in of itself has no power, at least up to this point it hasn't shown itself to have power of any kind or protection.

first you call up the exact point, more names is more insulation and then completely ignore that very simple supposition. The original purposes of naming, not just in the DF, but historically, biblically even. That's part of why it's your Christian name. 👀 So ya don't go giving yourself over to demons.

Whether Malcolm did or didn't give him those names unilaterally doesn't matter.  The name, Harry, in of itself has no power or protection, nor David, nor Copperfield, nor Dresden, what gives power is that they are his names.

what? I think its happening again where the correlation questions needed asking for clarification instead of jumping to wrong conclusions. None of that is Germain in response.

Oh I think he was more clued in than you think, at least the importance of the conception, even if he didn't fully understand.  This is hinted at both by Margaret herself during Harry's soul gaze with Thomas in Blood Rites and when Lash begins to tell him about his power over Outsiders in White Night.  It takes two to make a baby, and that's even more important in the case of a star born.

Somebody tell me where I failed to communicate, 1 we cant know the process or causation behind his receiving multiple names but considering the real world connections to the meta verse of the DFs true naming convention its likely someone(s) given him more insulation from being controlled intentionally.
cause I just don't get it man...🤷‍♂️

[Mira]

Three(4?) magicians:  Harry Houdini, David Copperfield, & the Blackstones (Sr. & Jr),  if you'll forgive the nitpick.

You are right, been down with COVID, forgot about Blackstone..  However nothing really magical about the names except the men who had them.. However though all three were great illusionists and vanilla magicians, it was all stage craft and no wizard powers involved.  Natural that they would be Malcolm's idols and that he'd name his son after them and hope that someday young Harry would follow in his footsteps.   

[g33k]

RE "Harry the Unreliable Narrator" --

Is he?  Everyone says that yet outside of a few short stories he is the only narrator we've got. So is he a liar? Just stupid? Maybe senile when he wrote his story?  Unless you got an alternative story out there ...

Harry is simply ignorant; that's different from "stupid."  But most of his training came from Justin, who seems to have kept him intentionally-uninformed about many facets of the supernatural world.  There's good Doylist reasons for this -- we have the talking-head character who can lore-dump to us (the readers), even as he educates Harry on the fundamentals.

It's a 1st-person-POV story, so Harry only "knows" what the author writes him as knowing... and as noticing, in the moment (for example, there's the scene where Lash reveals there was a veiled figure at the Ordo Lebes meeting); though Harry is a keen observer, e.g. Harry noticed Abby's medic-alert bracelet.

But most of all, Jim himself attests that Harry is an unreliable narrator, and that Harry has a fairly simple & "straightforward" perspective, and mostly doesn't  grasp the subtler (and more-correct) nuances of many situations & individuals.

Some examples where Harry "narrates unreliably:"

• Early Morgan was written as a flat, 2-dimensional, nearly-villainous character; a bully who had pre-judged Harry and was unwilling to revise his thinking.  Later we learn a much more favorable and nuanced view of Morgan, making him a hard but heroic figure & decidedly one of the "good guys," who was continuously testing Harry, but always giving him room to prove himself.
• Early Mab was written as the stereotypical "mythical villain" figure, the archetype and prototype of all Evil Queens (and Kings, &c); later we see that she's cold&hard because she's Winter, but possibly the single mightiest champion who's fighting on behalf of Creation.
• Early Demonreach is written as "spooky ruins," whereas in reality it's a vitally-active prison, and the strongest we know of (other than places like Hades' realm).
• All of Proven Guilty was a long-con story (probably Mab's), whereas Harry saw it as just the phobophages preying upon SplatterCon!!! attendees, likely with some spell-caster who was summoning them in a bid for personal power.

In the end, Harry must be an "unreliable narrator," for the sake of the story.  He grows in power throughout the story, but more importantly he grows in perspective and knowledge.  If he began the story fully-informed, there wouldn't be much of a story to tell (or at least, it'd be a very different one).

Harry's "unreliable" narration is from a place of ignorance, & an unrealistically-simplistic perspective.
 

[Mira]

It's a 1st-person-POV story, so Harry only "knows" what the author writes him as knowing... and as noticing, in the moment (for example, there's the scene where Lash reveals there was a veiled figure at the Ordo Lebes meeting); though Harry is a keen observer, e.g. Harry noticed Abby's medic-alert bracelet.

It is, what it is, right? 

But most of all, Jim himself attests that Harry is an unreliable narrator, and that Harry has a fairly simple & "straightforward" perspective, and mostly doesn't  grasp the subtler (and more-correct) nuances of many situations & individuals.

Or more to the point, the author is giving himself wiggle room for changing his mind later in a long series or CYAing for his own mistakes that his "Beta Readers" might miss.  So it all has to be taken with a grain of salt.  I just think too many times it is a convenient excuse for posters who fail to adequately back up their own posts.  If they can't prove their point the fall back line is Harry is an unreliable narrator..

Early Mab was written as the stereotypical "mythical villain" figure, the archetype and prototype of all Evil Queens (and Kings, &c); later we see that she's cold&hard because she's Winter, but possibly the single mightiest champion who's fighting on behalf of Creation.

But Harry's early perceptions of Mab,or of Morgan for that matter, don't make Harry an unreliable narrator.  They were accurate as he saw them at the time as a young inexperienced wizard.  When we first meet Harry he is a young wizard in his mid-twenties, a lot has happened to him, the characters, and the world around him in the last 35 years, and with them his perceptions  Though he writes in first person, he writes not as a historian beginning the first page of the book," back in 1982 these are the events as I remember them.." No, his tale reads in first person, in that time period, as he perceived it in that time as a young man.  I bet if you were to try and narrate a story about your life at 25, even with a daily diary, you'd do some correcting about the people you've met and how you saw the world at that time, at 50 you see the people you have met and the world around you differently.  So for as he saw it at the time, right or wrongly, I think Harry is quite reliable.. That doesn't make him always correct, but for that moment as he saw it, he was.. Now often he will correct or admit he was wrong about events and characters as the series goes along.  Events, information have changed his impressions of characters like Mab and Morgan in addition to his own maturity.

Harry's "unreliable" narration is from a place of ignorance, & an unrealistically-simplistic perspective.

No more than any human perspective, looking at the series as a whole, I think you can say Harry's perspective is a hell of a lot less simplistic in the last five books, from what it was in the first five..  Harry's narration is reliable for the time period he was writing in, it has shown mental and emotional growth over the series.  His world has become more complex, he has a character has become more complex and matured.

"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years." -Mark Twain.Mar 24, 2015

The same can be said of Harry..

[g33k]

... But Harry's early perceptions of Mab,or of Morgan for that matter, don't make Harry an unreliable narrator ...

Yes they do.

... They were accurate as he saw them at the time as a young inexperienced wizard ...

"Unreliable narrator" is a specific literary term, a method/technique authors use; it has a specific meaning.  Jim Butcher says he's using it, and shows us this in the books.

Being "naive" (inexperienced, ignorant) is very-specifically one well-known form of this "unreliable narrator" method.
 

[Mira]

Yes they do.

"Unreliable narrator" is a specific literary term, a method/technique authors use; it has a specific meaning.  Jim Butcher says he's using it, and shows us this in the books.

Being "naive" (inexperienced, ignorant) is very-specifically one well-known form of this "unreliable narrator" method.

I understand, but if you go back and read the different definitions of what an unreliable narrator is, Harry really doesn't fit, at least not consistently.  Yes, he makes mistakes, can be inexperienced, and sometimes ignorant, but not consistently.  I would like to see in context of what Jim actually said about Harry.  Is Harry more reliable in the later books as he and we the readers learn more?  Or can anything be believed since 95% of the time it is Harry who is doing the story telling?  Harry who is lot more experienced and a lot less ignorant than he was in the early books, is he more reliable now?  What I am saying is both can be true at the same time.  Too many times the term "unreliable narrator" is the fall back crutch when there is no evidence to prove the poster's point one way or another. 

The series is told in first person, this does present problems in the narration of the story.  The teller can be wrong as Harry has been from time to time, especially in the early books when he was younger and trying to figure out what was going on.  If this was a consistent pattern of his through out the books, would you enjoy reading the story if you believed the story teller was full of BS 90% of the time?  Don't think so, and as the series has gone on, Harry alters his views about other characters and events as we do in life..