ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DF Spoilers => Topic started by: Con on January 18, 2020, 06:01:43 AM
-
Rereading Grave Peril, at the Masquerade ball Michael Identifies/Prayer/Threats Mavra as 'Blood of the Dragon'. Significant given that in the same party we meet Ferrofax and find out about Siriothrax.
For a long time we've assumed Drakul was an Outsider. But the fact that the Black Court was made/sponsored by his son Dracula in addition to the fact that both names mean Dragon, and both were historically members of Order of the Dragon.
Seems fairly conclusive that they themselves are Dragon or Dragon related. The specific WOJ is this.
"Drakul wasn't a scion of anything! He was something entirely unhuman that got trapped in human form. Dracula was his half-human child, who naturally had enormous paternal issues, and wound up creating himself as the first Black Court Vampire in an effort to win his father's approval.
It didn't work out so well."
So entirely unhuman could mean Dragon.
Or from what we know of Outsiders at some point a lot of them were Dark Gods exiled to the Outer Gates, given how powerful Dragons are they could outrank said gods, so are therefore applicable to be cast out.
-
I had made a similar guess regarding Drakul - that he is a Dragon trapped in human form, perhaps even Nfected.
-
Well I think there has been a healthy amount of debate on this subject.
There isn't much new evidence or new theories I have yet seen that cast more light on this.
I would contend that not everyone, perhaps not even most, consider Drakul to be an Outsider. At least when I suggested the idea I got a fair amount of disagreement at the notion. I would say the going theory is that he is a Dragon trapped in human form.
However as I have outlined before, I myself don't think that is the case. I do think Jim is deliberately being misleading when it comes to Drakul in book, and people are reading into somethings more than they should.
I suppose in response to your theory and kbrizzle's etc. I would ask: Why do you think that a dragon would have a son that would create a Vampire Court (or join one) in order to impress it? Why would a dragon (at least in the Ferrovax sense) even care about such small things?
Ferrovax type of Dragons were semi-divine guardians of the universe. I think they have more to do with Angels and that level of things than the mortal end.
And I challenge that the WOJ you cited is fairly conclusive evidence of them being Dragon related. It is only really conclusive that Drakul isn't really human at all - despite the original canon being that he was a scion, Jim later contradicts this.
Entirely unhuman could mean anything that isn't a carbon-based life form, or anything that shares very little DNA with us. Entirely unhuman likely means a being that is well beyond the human life-form, like an Angel or God or Demon. But we have no idea.
As I have said before, I think Jim's language in that sentence gives a bit of a hint to his origins myself.
Also just to correct you, the Outsiders have never specifically been called Dark Gods. They are almost always described as alien, something completely different from anything inside reality. They are more than mere demons, their thinking is so bizarre that it is beyond comprehension. In theory. The Old Ones, who are the rulers of the Outsiders (and may be Outsiders themselves - but this is a little unclear), were trapped. A race of demon gods who once ruled reality. Indeed it seems that while their foot soldiers (the Outsiders) were banished beyond the Outer Gates, the Old Ones were trapped here. Trapped.
Who else, indeed what else, was entirely unhuman that got trapped here? Sounds like a big nasty Outsider or Old One to me.
Besides I haven't seen anything that connects Dragons in general to Outsiders, directly or otherwise. Whereas the Black Court (and all Vampires shown so far) seem to have strong links to the Outsiders, particularly the Black Court.
I would also again like to point out that Michael's exclamation "Blood of the Dragon" was more like a curse or swearing, rather than a specific statement of origin. Indeed he never uses it again. And the old french word Dragon comes from the greek word Drakon and latin Draco, meaning sea serpent and large serpent respectively. Which is why the Devil in the Bible is often called both the Dragon and the Serpent, as the original translation was the same word. And often Christians both in the past and present call any sort of non-christian, unholy being a spawn of the Devil. And the Devil has been conflated with the Serpent in the Garden of Eden and with the Great Red Dragon of Revelation.
So my money is on him being an Outsider, or the Devil himself bound in human form.
-
And the Devil has been conflated with the Serpent in the Garden of Eden and with the Great Red Dragon of Revelation.
So my money is on him being an Outsider, or the Devil himself bound in human form.
The problem with a lot of the theories is his status as a freeholding lord under the Accords. I don't see how Mab would accept an Old One / ranking Outsider who's actually aligned with the forces trying to break down the Gates having a seat at her table. Maybe a 'cousin' of their same general order of primordial being, but he'd have to be pretty clearly 'not with them'.
As for Lucifer, his whole thing is kind of not accepting authority over him, so playing by someone else' accorded rules is as out for him as Mab accepting an outsider to sign on. Plus if he was on earth, the Denarians wouldn't have needed the power for the pentagrams in Small Favour to be sponsored remotely.
-
I mean the Red Court and the Lords of the Outer Night, which by their vary name are Outsider related, as well as the fact that they regularly used Outsiders in battle, yet they were still in the Accords. A major nation within the Accords at that
-
That the forces of Winter had a major part in exterminating.
-
True. Four thousand years of existing later. Hell even the Fomor a signatories of the accords.
-
Four thousand years after having a name that has the same root word as Winter's primary enemy. A few years after being explicitly in league with Outsiders.
-
It doesn't necessarily have the same root word in Maya or Olmec or whatever. Lords of Distant Night could be as good a translation as Outer Night.
Nor does "outer" and "outside" mean the same thing, even without the added Dresdenverse meanings.
-
SK - I suppose that's true, why would Mab accept such a being on her accords? But there are a few things to consider.
1. Drakul is one of the beings who could take Mab out - in terms of pure horsepower.
2. He isn't necessarily an Outsider, he could be the Devil. Or perhaps his trapped form is something else.
3. Consider Demonreach - strong enough to trap Mab, but only within his GPS coordinates. Outside of that he knows next to nothing and can do almost nothing. Maybe Drakul too is limited in such a way.
4. Jim says the reason many beings signed the accords is that she has millions of nightmarish creatures, is most powerful in Faerie and would hardly ever battle any of her real foes alone. But consider that some of those who have signed may have not been cowed into it, but wanted in. Or perhaps it is something of a stalemate. After all - the point of the accords was to balance power in the supernatural world (or that is the current stated reason anyway)
5. Mab was much more respectful of Anduriel than Nic. Which says to me that the Accords bind the Knights of the Blackened Denarius more than their Angelic doubles partners. She quite clearly wouldn't have a chance against an Archangel unleashed, however perhaps Drakul (if he is the Devil) would be much more limited. Consider two nuclear nations capable of wiping each other out, you can't go head on unless you are crazy. You have to try much more unconventional forms of warfare.
6. There was an old theory about TWG being a rebel or even the first Outsider, and there is also an old theory about Drakul being an Outsider that rebelled. Perhaps that is why Mab accepts Drakul.
As I have said above, Lucifer might need an ally if he were limited or vulnerable. At least in the Dresdenverse, his "whole thing" is more to do with an argument with god than not accepting divine authority. And why would he not sponsor the signs remotely if on earth? Why would he show up to a literal kidnapping? Perhaps he can't even leave his domain. There are many reasons why he could be Lucifer.
Noblehunter - true enough in the real world, but in literary terms it seems like something of a hint. But time will tell on that one.
-
It's hinted at in Changes and claimed in one of the Paranet Papers manuals that the Red Court vampires are only masquerading as the Lords of the Outer Night.
-
It's hinted at in Changes and claimed in one of the Paranet Papers manuals that the Red Court vampires are only masquerading as the Lords of the Outer Night ...
We don't actually know the origin of Red Court vamps (we know, in contrast, the Black Court came from a Drakul-scion's efforts to impress Daddy).
But I'm pretty sure it's confirmed that some ancient Ramp's in mesoamerica found weakened "gods" there, and managed to kill them and absorb some of their powers. So the Ramp king and the Ramp LotON were kinda-sorta "Ramps on 'Roids."
Whether the beings whose powers they stole (and then had inside themselves) were using Outsider-Powers isn't something we know: AFAIK, the only hints so are in the "Out" bits of the names.
Which isn't nothing! But isn't definitive.
-
We do know the origin of every Red Court vampire save one, and that is the Red King (both the one we don't know the origin of and the origin of all the others). We have substantial evidence of the origin of the Lords of the Outer Night title for the Red Court elite.
It's never said that they killed the old gods. It's even hinted that those old gods were freed when the Dresden killed all the RCV.
I would say the "Outer" part of it is pretty scant evidence that the original LotON are/were Outsiders/Outsider affiliates.
-
^^Yep. The paranet papers imply (while leaving wiggle room for Jim) that the Lord of the Outer Night were feeding on some old dark gods, but kept them alive and weakened, and by feeding on them boosted their powers considerably. However when the Red Court was destroyed it appears they may be rising again.
No, it is true we don't really know the origins of any but the Black Court. But they all appear linked by something - despite very different physiological, magical and social characteristics. There is an implied shared origin or link, something that links them closer than to other demons or other supernatural types. Hence why they are all part of the Vampire Courts. The current leading WAG is that they all are related to Outsiders or perhaps Drakul in some way, as he is the only known being to be linked to the creation of a Vampire Court.
-
And there is enough contradictory material to argue that we don't know the origin of the Black Court. What's said in the books conflicts with some of the WoJ about it. See generally https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod). I generally take WoJ at face value, though.
-
And there is enough contradictory material to argue that we don't know the origin of the Black Court. What's said in the books conflicts with some of the WoJ about it...
But the "facts" in the books are clearly & explicitly from the POV's of the characters, and limited by their biases and by what they know, including false information that they "know."
WoJ is explicitly clear about the origin of the BC (with support for that account hinted-at in various books; the fact that other origins are hinted-at only confirms that the characters themselves do not know the true facts ... ).
...Dracula was <Drakul's> half-human child, who ... creat(ed) himself as the first Black Court Vampire...
(https://wordof.jim-butcher.com/index.php/word-of-jim-woj-compilation/woj-on-vampires/)
The only supportable idea that we "don't know the origin of the BC" is the possibility (very unlikely, IMHO; but not impossible!!!) that Jim has decided to actively deceive the fans, presumably so he can spring a surprise alternate-origin... We do have WoJ that he admits to a few active lies to the fans, in the furtherance of dramatic tension &c in the DF series... or maybe just his own twisted amusement... whatever: so long as he keeps on writing Dresden, we forgive him!
-
@g33k: I feel like you completely ignored both the link and my sentence saying I don't subscribe to the "if it isn't in the books, it didn't happen" mentality. Said mentality is a supportable idea that we "don't know the origin of the BC." Jim has gone back on WoJ before, said things that were clearly incorrect, and explained that it does happen because he has at least six or seven versions of each book in his mind. I'm not sure if that should be counted as another "idea" or just support for the anti-WoG mentality.
See generally https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod). I generally take WoJ at face value, though.
-
@g33k: I feel like you completely ignored both the link and my sentence saying I don't subscribe to the "if it isn't in the books, it didn't happen" mentality. Said mentality is a supportable idea that we "don't know the origin of the BC." Jim has gone back on WoJ before, said things that were clearly incorrect, and explained that it does happen because he has at least six or seven versions of each book in his mind. I'm not sure if that should be counted as another "idea" or just support for the anti-WoG mentality.
Hmm. I'm unclear, reading this...
On the one hand, you say: I don't subscribe to the "if it isn't in the books, it didn't happen" mentality
which (stripping out the double negative) I interpret to mean that you prefer to consider both the books AND the WoJ sources.
On the other hand, you said: Jim has gone back on WoJ before, said things that were clearly incorrect, and explained that it does happen because he has at least six or seven versions of each book in his mind. I'm not sure if that should be counted as another "idea" or just support for the anti-WoG mentality.
And the link to the tvtropes seems to be how "WoG" content is dubious at best.
So, ummm... I feel like you've prompted me to engage further with you, but I honestly don't know what to be SAYING; I don't understand your POV, to speak to it. I think I'd better go take more caffeine!
-
I think WoJ should be considered at least as authoritative as the texts (unless we have good reason to believe otherwise, like he said something before book X and the opposite happens in book X).
On the other hand, I'm not willing to say that someone who says "if it isn't in the books, it didn't happen is wrong." The tv tropes link is just to demonstrate that this is a belief people have (including literary professor types).
Jim has gone back on WoJ before, said things that were clearly incorrect, and explained that it does happen because he has at least six or seven versions of each book in his mind. I'm not sure if that should be counted as another "idea" or just support for the anti-WoG mentality.
My point here is that Jim has basically stated that he is often an unreliable narrator even if he isn't intentionally being deceptive. This admission could be evidence in support of the WoG isn't canon position or as support of a "we need to be cautious about it" position.
-
Well my original quote that gave the notion was from Michael in text, at Bianca's Ball immediately after having run into Ferrovax and talking about Siriothrax. So even if you doubt or disregard the WOJ entirely, there's still in text reference.
Besides which Ebenezar later confirms the Dracula teenage rebellion thing in Blood Rites.
Most common theory about Black Court is that they are tied or created to something wholly evil. Appathetic at best, outright bloodthirsty at worst. Usually this is taken as meaning they are tied to Outsiders, which is a more than possible way that Dracula tried to boost himself to Daddy Dragon dear Drakul's level.
However the fact remains Michael in his role as KotC considers them to be 'Blood of the Dragon'.
-
I think WoJ should be considered at least as authoritative as the texts (unless we have good reason to believe otherwise, like he said something before book X and the opposite happens in book X).
On the other hand, I'm not willing to say that someone who says "if it isn't in the books, it didn't happen is wrong." The tv tropes link is just to demonstrate that this is a belief people have (including literary professor types).
My point here is that Jim has basically stated that he is often an unreliable narrator even if he isn't intentionally being deceptive. This admission could be evidence in support of the WoG isn't canon position or as support of a "we need to be cautious about it" position.
TYVM for clarifying!
I'm gonna go ahead and reiterate, though, that we DO reliably know the origin of BCV's. We have sets of interlinked and mutually-reinforcing indicators that all go the same way; and it's rather clear that this is a substantive and significant bit of backstory/setting. I think it's very clear inside Jim's head.
I don't think it's subject to some of Jim's occasionally-multi-streamed ideas about some of the books.
I'll freely admit, however, that it's still possible that Jim is actively lying in order to blindside the fans alongside Harry...
-
TYVM for clarifying!
...
I think it's very clear inside Jim's head.
You're welcome.
My main point was that "what's inside Jim's head doesn't matter until it's on the page" is a valid interpretive model. I just disagree with that model. Mostly.
What's in Jim's head matters more now that it would if he wasn't writing anymore DF books because it is likely to inform where he's going. He still can put whatever's in his head in the new books. But some pronouncements from authors strain credulity. For example, I don't put a lot of faith in pronouncements from J.K. Rowling that "that character was always [insert most recent political fetish] even though I didn't put a single thing in the books to indicate that."
-
My main point was that "what's inside Jim's head doesn't matter until it's on the page" is a valid interpretive model. I just disagree with that model. Mostly.
What's in Jim's head matters more now that it would if he wasn't writing anymore DF books because it is likely to inform where he's going.
Well, here's the thing: Jim has his own "headcanon" of stuff that's going on, simultaneously with the DF stories he writes. He narrates the Harry-POV account of events (or sometimes other narrators, in the shorts), cackling insanely as he DOESN'T write down the narrations of the Evil Genius'es who are operating undetected, behind Harry's back and right under Harry's nose.
But that stuff really DOESN'T matter to those already-written books. The books stand as they are (until/unless Jim goes back to do a re-write / re-release, to eliminate Early Installment Wierdness, to alter some clue-drops to more accurately reflect what Harry would have known, etc etc etc); they are bound volumes, with no headcanon enclosed. I DO admit that it's GOING to matter in future books (although by that time, "today's" Jim-Headcanon may have evolved into something very different!).
Except it DOES matter, right now... to a few obsessive fans who analyze and dissect and WAG about it, and write way too much, way too often, in dingy little forums (with apologies to @Griffyn612) deep in the bowels of the Internet. ;D
One of our chief problems, frankly, is Jim: we're trying to dissect Jim's headcanon. It's like the game Battleship, where we make our guesses and WAGs, and call them out on AMA's and Con events and bookstore events &c. And sometimes Jim answers, and sometimes he doesn't, and sometimes he overtly lies, and sometimes his headcanon actually changes: he moves his ships around on the board!!!
... For example, I don't put a lot of faith in pronouncements from J.K. Rowling that "that character was always [insert most recent political fetish] even though I didn't put a single thing in the books to indicate that.
Speaking as someone who read the books as they came out (well... I was a year late to begin; but otherwise ...), and someone who's a straight male raised before the days when very many folks accepted gays: I found the "Dumbledore is gay, and he & Grindelwald were a couple" to be 100% on-point; it settled the character, resolving issues I had found odd and/or incongruous. Some of the other pronouncements from Rowling... yeahNO, not really feelin' it, very WTFish!
I was shocked that "Dumbledore is gay" caused so much uproar, because I found it such a "well, duh, of course he is!" element.
-
I don't really pay attention to Rowling. I'm mostly assuming it goes way past just the Dumbledore is gay thing because of the meme. For examples see https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/01/30/how-jk-rowlings-endless-updates-harry-potter-became-meme/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/01/30/how-jk-rowlings-endless-updates-harry-potter-became-meme/); https://mashable.com/article/jk-rowling-no-one-meme-harry-potter/ (https://mashable.com/article/jk-rowling-no-one-meme-harry-potter/).
Except it DOES matter, right now... to a few obsessive fans who analyze and dissect and WAG about it, and write way too much, way too often, in dingy little forums (with apologies to @Griffyn612) deep in the bowels of the Internet. ;D
(Emphasis added). Basically the same reason I argue for positions I don't even agree with.