Yeah.  Angels don't have souls.  Angels are souls.

Yeah except as I stated in the OP, as Uriel (and C.S. Lewis) say, "You are a soul, you have a body".

Which I suppose could then beg a really interesting question - if both humans/mortals are souls, and Angels are souls, are humans/mortals and Angels one and the same? Perhaps at different ends of the spectrum? Angels are described as timeless (beyond time and space) just like mortal souls...there is clearly a strong relationship. Hmmm....

@Morriswalters: I tend to agree, I am getting sick of Bob being so unreliable. Why have a talking head otherwise? I know Jim enjoys it, but as a storytelling mechanic it becomes a bit lazy and annoying. The problem is that you begin to not really trust Bob, which then makes his scenes feel drawn out and somewhat irrelevant. I know it is a balance thing but surely there are more elegant ways to limit Bob and his impact on the story.

Curiously, we can actually tell Bob is wrong about a fair few things in that passage. Harry has in the past made it clear that some beings (such as Angels) are not just pure spirit, but are a mix of physical and spirit. Think back to the conversation with Kim Delaney in Fool Moon. Now admittedly, that might be retconned by now - but many beings actually fit that description still. Gods, immortals etc. And Harry says to Bob "So what you're saying is that soulfire doesn't let me do anything new. It just makes me more of what I already am" But in Cold Days, when Harry contests Mother Winter's will, he has the exact same revelation and says Bob didn't truly understand soulfire. Which is curious, because in this scene Bob agree with him. So which is it? Does Bob know what he is talking about or not?

Bad Alias: Thanks for bringing that to my attention. It is indeed curious that Jim often also describes magic as the forces of creation. And yet, there is a somewhat different quality to soulfire. But it is also described the same way. And Souls are described as a fundamental part of reality, an echo of Creation. So perhaps one could interpret that you need some kind of soul in order to work magic. However as we know, that isn't always the case. Many creatures of the Nevernever can work magic and don't have souls. And Necromancy seems to fly directly in the face of that (being fueled by the power of death, not life), let alone whatever fell power the Outsiders use. Perhaps Harry doesn't yet fully understand the broader nature of magic, or perhaps Jim's poetic phrasing is leading us in the wrong direction. Whatever the case, there is definitely a link and a mystery.

By the way, I wasn't saying that choice doesn't matter to the soul (in fact I said choice was vital to the soul). I was more referring to the fact that Jim had said that basically souls are largely unaffected by mortal events. Which I agree, seems contrary to their importance and relevance in the series. They seem to both be affected and affect everything around them. Perhaps this is one of those intentional discrepancies by Jim (such as the Fae being both from Mortal origins AND growing from dew drop creatures into powerful beings based on importance) and we are missing vital information that bridges the gap. As for the destruction or damning of souls...I think something Jim said sort of clarified this. He talked about how people can lose their souls everyday without any supernatural interference by being terrible humans. I think Serack had an excellent theory about the nature of souls and their components. It was similar to the Egyptian belief that a soul has many parts.

Consider this though - both Carmichael and Malcolm Dresden seem to be aware of more than the reality Harry perceives, and Malcolm seems aware of Harry's future. Perhaps they experience all time at once, like Angels do. Uriel certainly seems to.

In one of the latest DragonCon panels on Ghosts, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTq8RMv19Ek&feature=youtu.be, Jim discussed Ghosts, and obviously, Souls. around 24:50

He discussed the nature of people is by quoting C.S. Lewis "You are a soul, you have a body" (which Uriel says to Harry as well). He goes on to describe Souls as being "is something important. A soul is something vital. Something that exists beyond the bounds of Time and Space. It's here for a little while and then its gone like a flicker of sunlight. You can't really capture it; you can't catch it and you can't store it. It's beyond that - its part of the foundational energy of the universe. It's an echo of creation. And as a result it doesn't really get mired down in things like that."

So ghosts then differ as they are "some kind of remnants [of the person], some kind of memories that seem to get left over" "It's like water poured into a footprint - it's still in the shape of the original foot but its not energy" They aren't trapped but created as sort of a byproduct of a person's death. Some ghosts can change and become something else (but that would be an exceptional ghost). Most just continue in their endless cycle of being themselves.

There is a slight discrepancy in that Bob thinks Harry burns off his Soul when he uses Soulfire. But the way Jim puts it here, is that mortal concerns shouldn't really affect Souls.

But the more interesting implication is the sheer importance of a Soul. Something that comes from the beginning of Creation, that is Timeless and foundational. And vital. I would propose that it is vital to reality that Souls exists and have Choice. Perhaps why the Angels take it so seriously. Not to mention, it helps explain the incredible properties of Soulfire. Often called "the Life Fire" or "the Fires of Creation" - which makes sense considering it is fueled by the very energy of creation. Pure creative energy, I suppose. Perhaps this is why mortals have such a unique edge against the supernatural.

But then why then are Angels able to use Soulfire? They don't have Souls, that is a uniquely mortal thing... Except perhaps it isn't totally.

My WAG is then that perhaps Angels have something like a Soul, similar yet limited. The prototype version. But because they are so big and powerful, they could not have "Free" Will. They were allowed Will (in order for them to be at least somewhat autonomous) and had a degree of Choice (as Uriel displayed when he gave up his grace, or when the Fallen fell - different acts of course but required Choice). But they weren't given the full range of Choice as they had too much power or something like that. So naturally, some Angels then resented when Humans get the full range of Choice. What does that mean? I cannot be sure, but I suspect that it means Mortals have access to the Source or something like it, basically allowing them to Choose their own shape and destiny (dictated not by their wishes, but their Choices). An Angel cannot fully choose it's own shape or destiny. It may appear to alter things, but that is always in accordance with the plan. They have the illusion of Choice. Not sure I can delve into the mechanics much beyond that - but you get the idea I hope. 

Well most of the Red King's family was still around before the end of the Reds...so why would Lord Raith's family members being alive be so strange? When it comes to immortals (in the eternal youth/no dying of old age sense - not godlike sense) I think they do their best NOT to get killed. Giving up Eternity is a big thing. There have probably been many attempts to kill Lord Raith over the decades and centuries...but why risk direct combat where you might lose when you can keep throwing dangerous enemies at them whilst maintaining your life and plausible deniability? The White King killed his brother as he was gaining too much power and became a real threat. Perhaps he wasn't before that. Although the fact Lord Raith HAS a brother does indicate somewhat that they had a sire...whoever that was. But the idea that just because he has family still alive today which makes him not old enough to be at least one of the originals, if not the original, doesn't really work with immortals. I mean Lara Raith is over 2 centuries old, whereas Thomas is maybe 10 years at most older than Harry. That could be 150 years between siblings. Harry's mother could have almost been 100 when she had him. His Grandfather is 250 years older. So I wouldn't get too hung up on how relatively recent things happened, and which family members are alive.

Lara has always been one of those background villains, the devil you know. But definitely more worrying than even Marcone - she has better networks and has been in the game longer. Which isn't to say people should underestimate Marcone, but I think strategically she is expanding faster than he is. I think she is aware that things are about to shake up and is preparing accordingly. But I also think she is the epitome of her race, patient and dangerous but not apathetic. The appearance of being a good option, an easy ally. The White Court kill you with comfort. I always remember that line from Madeline Raith "We have pens for the kine. We call them cities". I think I am paraphrasing, but you get the point. Chilling words - using our own structures against us.

Yeah Nemesis is tricky, and either there are hard limits on how many and who it can infect or it imposes limits on itself and chooses selectively. Curiously, I always thought Titania was a good candidate for infection. She told Harry its name (which doesn't rule her - Maeve told Lily so we know that is one tactic it employs) but after that chat Harry sees the Mothers, and I feel if they were worried about that they would have implied that was the case. WOJ is that Titania will only really start having a bigger role during the BAT, which suggests she is going to make some big moves.

Just to be clear - canon is currently that Victor Sells was infected. I know that Maeve could have fed Lily misinformation, but until we get actual contradictory evidence, all we are actually doing is speculating. I am not entirely sure why we all believe that it is so unlikely that Nemesis can infect mortals/humans. Remember Leonid Kravos and the FBI agents were also in that list - which makes sense. The Gatekeeper virtually confirms this when he tells Harry that whether he meant to or not, his cases have resulted in placing thumbs in the Adversary's eye (or something to that effect).
Lily also refers to it as "a disease, a parasite, a poison...a contagion" "a spiritual malady. A mental plague. An infection spreading slowly across the earth". So she is saying it is a sentient virus of sorts. All virus' are living things so to distinguish between an infection and an entity when discussing a malevolent spiritual entity is sort of redundant. Remember Titania and the Mothers remind Harry not to say Nemesis but rather say the Adversary "lest it hear you" so it at least is somewhat sentient. It also takes full control of Cat Sith for a moment so the evidence tends to support the fact it is a sentient creature.

Lily says it "changes which ought not to change. It destroys a father's love for his family by twisting it into maniacal ambition. It distorts and corrupts the good intentions of agents of mortal law into violence and death. It erodes the sensible fear that keeps a weakly talented sorcerer from reaching out for more power, no matter the cost". All of which is true. Now we might all speculate that there is other reasons that they were corrupted. But Occam's Razor - simplest explanation is the right one.

I had not heard the theory Mab was infected...but it seems rather unlikely. And Mira, not a fact either - it certainly isn't yet canon just speculation at this point. Mab has always acted like Mab - the seeds of doubt were there true enough. But mostly Maeve was the one pointing the finger (so we know that is pretty questionable). Could Mab even stop it if she were infected? Despite all of Leah's power, she was no match. Attacks from within are the hardest to defend against. Most people Harry talked to, including the Gatekeeper and the Mothers seemed to believe being Mab was no obstacle to being infected. I always infered that Mab was hiding in that garden due to secondary events that were happening - namely she wanted to see the rescue of Molly. Which was one of her plans all along - else none of them would have ever left. Mab never just has one plan and she was setting up Molly to be a potential Winter Lady one way or another.

Winter seems to have a fundamental property that is related to pain and logic that seems to be a counter to the corrupting nature of the Outside. Almost like it was specifically built for it. I suspect that is partly why it is Winter, not Summer, that guards the Outer Gates. That cold and terrible power seems to be somewhere between an immune system, antibody and cure (within limits) to the Outsider corruption. Not necessarily Nemesis specifically, but it worked well enough. Both Winter's nature and structure is that of a defense for reality.

Kbrizzle: I am not sure I agree with the idea that the Athame carried a presence at all. I think there was a WOJ that discussed how Nemesis infects its victims and whilst Jim was tight-lipped about it, there was the indication that it was something to do with the possibility of infection. Which was implied to be an imbalance of power. So I don't think there was a sentience in the knife, rather that the power of the knife itself was tainted and allowed for an opening into the Leanansidhe. So it doesn't really need to split, rather it extends itself. Whether the Athame is still tainted or not is hard to say...although you will notice that Mab was wearing it after she imprisoned Lea so I would say not. 

Bad Alias: I think you are pretty much right about magic. There is the kind of dark magic which is based in the same origins as good magic (to be so simplistic) - origins are from Inside, from Life. Then there is a kind of black magic, including Necromancy, that's source is Outsider based or at least Outside based. There definitely is a qualitative difference in the black magic that say, Corpsetaker uses, and the black magic Leonid Kravos or Victor Sells uses. Which isn't to say that one cannot use both types of black magic, and that there is no connection at all, but there is definitely a descriptive difference (that even Dresden notices). Curiously, Cowl's "normal" magic seems to be of the first kind of black magic (the source is Life). It seems he plays with both kinds.

I like the concept of Drakul being an outsider trapped and unable to die.  Perhaps Vlad II was a real man who sacrificed his own life and existence to save his people from this evil and became a human prison for it? Or was some evil person who sought power but didn't understand the price.   Like how Fallen is trapped in a coin and, when it has a host, a human-shaped can.  They can do more things but are still limited by a human's reach.

As for SoS and Dracula being born, two possibilities.  If Drakul is the human-shaped can the outsider is in, then some of that plumbing still works and there could be enough of his soul left to care for someone to produce a child.  And like that, maybe Lucifer will posses a human to conceive a child that way.  He will use the love of these two mortals to force the creation of his offspring.  After all, Nicodemus shows his plumbing still works in having made a daughter after he was possessed, and several centuries after he found the coin.

And while love is nice in the creation of a new soul, I don't think it is needed in all cases, otherwise you set a bad precedent for when rape causes pregnancy.  I don't think you want to say there is love in that moment when the victim is against this from happening,  nor that any kid born from rape is "soulless" as the parents' souls didn't merge into a third.

It is just that an act of love is a type of creation but not all types of creation are acts of love.

Just to be clear, I am not saying love is necessary to create life, Jim did (via Harry). I quite agree that such a simplistic idea runs into very obvious and much more complex problems, but read that whole passage where Harry talks (I think to Susan) about it. He talks about primal forces of energy and stuff. True, I did embellish and discuss it in more depth than the original passage, but that was what I inferred. Perhaps Jim will clarify one day I hope, I certainly don't believe it myself. Hence why I put the disclaimer at the bottom of that post.

Your theory is good, although I couldn't tell if you were saying Lucifer was an Outsider or not...I think Jim makes a pretty strong distinction that he isn't. He also has stated that they are not working together, and that Lucifer isn't Nfected. Something to do with Archangels being Absolute and such. And that Lucifer wants Creation to exist, he is merely engaged in an argument with God about its nature or some such. Where as the Outsiders just want to obliterate it.

I agree that there is enough *something* for Lucifer to produce a child. Even Drakul can. Which would imply that "love" and indeed GTWG are not necessarily directly required to create life. But that opens up a whole new can of worms.

Guys: I think we also in this argument should consider how Jim writes, and talks, about Free Will. Whilst it might not be the entirety of his views, I do suspect there are a fair bit of them embedded in his works and comments. So in terms of the Dresdenverse, I think that there is always Choice. I think to Jim's way of thinking (if I can be so bold as to guess his mind), no Free Will and no Choice, amounts to one and the same - which is tyranny. It is so fundamental to the series, and the universe he has created, I cannot imagine there is any part of Creation that has no Choice for Mortals. Outside is quite likely different. But I think Inside you always have a Choice. If not several.

Bad Alias: Whilst your argument is logically sound, I don't think it fits the structure of the series. Which is probably more a fault in Jim's planning than anything else. Will he ever correct this? Probably not, unless it imposes a major issue on the story.

Bad Alias & Kbrizzle: Whilst BA and I have no hard evidence that Lord Raith is the first Wamp, he seems a helluva lot stronger than the next Wamp. Lara never would have tried such an overt assault had he been at full strength, and he was almost completely drained. He certainly fits the description that Jim talked about (if a Wamp had strong sorcerer-level powers). He had his 'Kiss of Death' move, a one shot feeding move. Very dangerous in close-quaters. I imagine before Margaret stymied his ability to feed, he would have generally had a big reserve tank of energy (which he likely replenished often). He seemed to have extensive knowledge and powers that his rivals seemed unable to match. None of which make him the oldest, but we really haven't seen or heard of anyone in the White Court coming close. Plus his apparent immunity to magic (even from the Blackstaff - that is incredibly significant, that we haven't even met any other being who is so protected - including the ALL the Faerie Queens i.e. even the Mothers). Whilst Uriel seems to ignore the normal rules a lot of the time, we cannot be sure even he is so protected. So I think that even if he isn't the progenitor of his race, it hardly matters. There is a reason why he became the White King, and the others didn't. I imagine he is one of the oldest at any rate. The White Court is very Darwinian, they don't let threats survive. Rather like humanity - they don't rush to punch everything in the nose that is dangerous to them. They find the appropriate tools and learn as much as they can about their foes. Then they trap or kill them. There is a very good reason why they are still around, and the Reds and the Black Court (who might be overtly stronger), are not.

Kbrizzle: I pretty much agree with everything your saying there. My only point of contention is that the Whites are the oldest. The "Cradle of Civilisation" exists in a lot of places, but Italy isn't one. South America, particularly Peru and Norte Chico, are far older appearing between 4700-3200BC (roughly 5-7000 years old) whereas the Estruscans appeared roughly after 900BC.  Which makes a lot of sense in a way. The Red Court, whilst highly organised and hierarchical, is a theocracy. The White Court is much like the Ancient Romans, with great Houses and Nobles, and a nominal King or Emperor ruling over - a Monarchy. The Whites are more overtly refined and subtle (though not necessarily more complex) than the Reds who are more aggressive and savage. They seem to reflect the periods they may have risen in, just as much as the surrounding culture and area that they came from. The fact that they predate the White Council is not that surprising, considering Merlin would have existed not much earlier than 500C.E. which is 1400 years later...and Merlin formed the White Council. But yes, the Red King is probably at least 4000 years old, if not quite a bit older. He and the Lords of the Outer Night are in a different league to the Whites in terms of raw power. Probably why the Blamps were so hated is they became a significant, if not one of the most significant, Powers in the space of a few decades and/or centuries when normally it takes a few millennia to become a major player and it scared the crap out of everyone.

KurtinStGeorge: Yes the constant retconning does make it hard to keep up, but the normal rule as you say is to go with the most recent information. It does make sense of course that Jim would change a few minor details, as he gets older and better as a writer he can see better and more interesting paths to take, and ones that will create less problems. I don't mind a lot of the changes he has made by and large as most have been necessary and for the better. I would love a sort of Q&A answer that tidied up the plot holes and inconsistencies, but I am just being lazy. You can fix those problems if you think about it. For instance, it might be that the Reds ARE creatures of the Nevernever and have trouble with threshholds (like all magical creatures) but they also have work arounds (like Wizards), AND soul gazes aren't likely as they don't have what HARRY would call a soul, but have *something* that remains of their original soul and of course have their hypnotic stare ability. It is even hinted and somewhat discussed that a Soul isn't merely one thing but more a collection of things, and how you define, interact, gain or lose it is highly complex and doesn't always fall into the magic system that Harry understands. So there is actually quite a bit of wriggle room left.

isoycrazy: Thanks for the heads up, I haven't read Bigfoot yet! But I think, as you speculate yourself, that perhaps she wasn't as inclined to kill him not just because of True Love (which would have killed her demon), but perhaps because she was feeding on a non-human mortal that was probably a bigger meal magically speaking. I also imagine it is exceedingly rare, to the point that Thomas seemed certain that the first feeding was always fatal. Also you will notice apart from Connie, no other Wamp has been mentioned as being in this category (past or present). Shame, fear and perhaps survival all might play there part in that. Which of course shows the gap in Thomas' knowledge (and could also be a retcon/rewrite of Jim's) but essentially means that without killing your first feed, the chances of becoming a full-blown White Court Vampire are very very slim. Which also lends itself nicely to the idea of mortals and choice, in that you as a mortal can still subvert the normal rules with your choices in ways the more supernatural creatures find difficult. Choosing to feed and not kill? Would definitely make you an unusual vampire to say the least. I wonder what effects that would have?

Just Al: Quite possibly, but not necessarily. The time frame doesn't work as well if it were Aztecs. Although as that passage also mentions, this story is quite possibly somewhat apocryphal and a mix of half-truths and fantasies. The main point is that the Reds captured a bunch of scary Gods, and the LoON and the Red King fed on them. Interestingly, that Paranet Papers update discusses that those Gods were still alive when the Reds were destroyed, and might be making a come back.

Well true enough. Assuming there is a continuum of reality and unreality. There are no certainties in life.

The way it was looked at in ancient times is that reality was sort of like a cosmic egg, floating in an endless sea of chaos. If you consider it that way, the borders are the shell of the egg, and the sea is the Outside.

In a way, everything is a matter of definition. But for the purposes of the series, I think the Walls are very much a literal barrier with a fundamental difference to the matter of the Outside (for want of a better word...can unreality have matter? Mordite?)

The easiest and most clear definition would be to understand what existed before reality (if there even was a before...although Jim says the Angels predate Time itself - which makes the whole concept of before somewhat pointless). Cause and Effect have no place in such an existence. Which then would lead us to the nature of TWG and Creation itself, and it/their purpose. I would love Jim to write a fantastic theory that suits the rules that he has made, but I cannot be sure he will go that deep.

Language makes this whole thing more complicated. In many cultures and languages other than English, Past is not "before" and Future is not "after". Sometime Past is "left" and Future is "right", sometimes "below" and "above" respectively. And many others.

So as you imply, it comes down to how you look at it, in that way. But I also think the Author's intent should not be diminished or dismissed - and I think in a quantitative sense, he considers the Nevernever and our Universe distinctly and intrinsically separate. Food for thought!

Arjan, while I normally love a qualitative answer, at this stage this answer isn't.

It has been flatly, explicitly stated several times in the books and in WOJs that there is an intrinsic difference between The Outside/The Netherworld and the Nevernever and our world. We are not told why. This is a fundamental mystery to the series.

Ortega explains the origins of Mordite to Susan in Blood Rites, in Turn Coat Harry makes the statement the Mistfiend is from the Nevernever and is infused with Mordite (although later Harry always refers to the Mistfiend as an Outsider...so this seems to be either a mistake in Turn Coat or a full on retcon), and many many more examples besides. But they constantly and consistently distinguish The Outside/The Netherworld as something different from the Nevernever and our universe/world. One such WOJ even explains that Outsiders look different depending on which universe they are trying to get into, implying the Nevernever is unique to Dresden's universe.

I do get what you're saying, sometimes the ambiguity is on purpose and is up to the reader to interpret. But not in this case. I have yet to see or hear of one reference since the book started that says the Outsiders are part of the Nevernever. The clue is in the name OUTsiders. They are Outside trying to get In. If they are already in the Nevernever, they wouldn't be called the Outsiders.

In DnD - Outsiders are part of the established multi-verse just in some far corner. Whilst this could be the case, it seems Jim has written it differently on purpose.