Kincaid microfiction "Goodbye"

[Dina]

Oh, I thought you were talking about me.
Ok, perhaps this has taken a bad turn, this argument should be about the book, we are not supposed to engage in personal attacks. So perhaps we can all calm down? Seriously, considering all what is happening now I rather have a stress-free forum where I can visit to chill with friends. I admit I like discussions and I have several sore spots about the books (like Susan behavior or Maggie Jr. very existence) but I don't want to attack any real person behind their screens. Don't you feel the same? This place should be a safe one where we all can feel good.
So sorry if I said something too harsh and please, let's disengage.

[g33k]

... please, let's disengage.

Am I misremembering, or isn't this (Kim/Harry & blame) one of the forum's regular temper-flaring topics?  I think I've roasted in these flamewars before...   

[Avernite]

@Bad Alias

This isn't really about apportioning blame.  This is about Harry growing as a character.  If he doesn't make mistakes than how does he grow? In Kim's case you can either read it as he misjudged her or that he was so wrapped up in that sandwich that he lost track of his obligation as teacher.  But if you read it as he acted without error than exactly where do you go after that?

In point of fact the WC does advertise the Laws of Magic.  It comes up a couple of times.  Charity and the group she is with is warned about it pre Michael.  Bock's Books gets inspected.

I think what I would add is - Harry doesn't only learn from his mistakes, but also from his missed opportunities. Was Harry responsible for the kid in 'Warrior', that he saved from the car and abuse? No. But what he's steadily learning is that to be a true master, you can help others avoid the harshest consequences of their own mistakes. That doesn't make you responsible for their mistakes - but you are a better person for being able to do it.

[Arjan]

Am I misremembering, or isn't this (Kim/Harry & blame) one of the forum's regular temper-flaring topics?  I think I've roasted in these flamewars before...   

It is about flaming the arguments and not the person

[Mira]

I think what I would add is - Harry doesn't only learn from his mistakes, but also from his missed opportunities. Was Harry responsible for the kid in 'Warrior', that he saved from the car and abuse? No. But what he's steadily learning is that to be a true master, you can help others avoid the harshest consequences of their own mistakes. That doesn't make you responsible for their mistakes - but you are a better person for being able to do it.

 Yes, I think Harry engages in " woulda, shoulda, coulda" a lot, or " if only", but as my old dad used to say, "if, is half of life."  Harry got dragged into the whole thing when Kim showed up asking her question.  Then she refuses to give him the information he needs to make a good decision.  She omits the bit about MacFinn, and lies about everything else.  Harry hasn't enough information to risk physically retraining her, nor would she allow herself to be verbally restrained or redirected.  So he does, what he did, try to warn her in no uncertain terms that this is dangerous and she isn't up to the task. 

If there was a lesson in there for him here, it would be that not everyone can be saved.  Kim was apparently a zealot for the environmental cause.  She was high enough in it to know what MacFinn was and what would happen if word got out about him, he needed help to rebuild the circle, the only one who could do that was Harry.  She knew that, but she was also determined to keep MacFinn's secret.  I doubt that physically retraining her would get her to betray MacFinn.  Her mistake was thinking that 1] Harry would give her the information once it strayed into forbidden topics. 2] That she had the juice to pull off such a circle. 3] Most importantly, if she had just told him the truth in the first place, she could have trusted him not just to help, but to keep it quiet.  Not everyone can be saved, hopefully Harry has forgiven himself over Kim, because there is really nothing to forgive... He did do the right thing, but the right thing doesn't always have a happy ending.

[Dina]

Am I misremembering, or isn't this (Kim/Harry & blame) one of the forum's regular temper-flaring topics?  I think I've roasted in these flamewars before...   

I wouldn't know. But the time I come here to the forum, too many books had come after FM and everybody were discussing the new ones. I don't remember having been in a discussion about Kim before, but a) I am not in all discussion. In fact, I use to spend months away of discussions because they can be very intense b) I was "intense" about Susan and Maggie many times, but I promise I am trying to be calmer. I am doing my best.

[Bad Alias]

I have several sore spots about the books (like Susan behavior or Maggie Jr. very existence).

While I know what your reasons for hating Maggie are and don't really "get it," for some reason it tickles me to no end. I smile just about every time you bring it up. Susan's kind of a week character (plot wise) in the first three books, and I think, that has a lot to do with why Jim "put her on a bus" in Grave Peril.

I think what I would add is - Harry doesn't only learn from his mistakes, but also from his missed opportunities. Was Harry responsible for the kid in 'Warrior', that he saved from the car and abuse? No. But what he's steadily learning is that to be a true master, you can help others avoid the harshest consequences of their own mistakes. That doesn't make you responsible for their mistakes - but you are a better person for being able to do it.

Yes. And that's kind of what I'm getting at with the question, and attempted answers, to what could he have done differently that would have been a net positive. If the answer is nothing, how can we say he is at fault? If the answer relies on hindsight, how can we say he is at fault? What degree of foresight do we require? I think blaming Harry for Kim and/or Susan^* is basically taking up Ancient Mai's position in Summer Knight that, to mix my literary references, a wizard should know better.

Morris can correct me if I'm misrepresenting his position, but I think he is saying that Harry is responsible because of Harry's relationship with Kim as master/apprentice, no matter how informal it was. Harry has taken responsibility for Kim by teaching her. I can respect that position, but I don't really agree with it.

And this, or close enough to this, debate has happened since Skin Game came out.

^*Her turning, not death, that's another discussion entirely.

[Mira]

  Yeah, well it is kind of like the responsibility we take up when we become parents.  As parents supposedly we are responsible for everything our children do.  That is a nice sentiment, it works when the children are young and cannot responsibly make there own decisions.  The theory goes as a child matures into an adult, it can make it's own decisions based on the principles their parents taught them.  Usually this holds true, but sometimes in spite of the best efforts of the parents, things go very wrong with the child.  Very good parents can have a bad child, and very bad parents sometimes have a child that turns out very good.  Either way, at some point the child becomes an adult and must make their own choices, who is responsible then?   

[morriswalters]

Harry is responsible because he took the responsibility.  Nobody made him. As I've said, the metaphor of the Doom of Damocles is applicable.  Once you choose to take responsibility for a warlock, you're all in, and can't get loose without finishing what you start.  You either succeed with them or die with them.  I know Kim isn't a warlock before anyone points it out. But the metaphor is the point. Explicitly, don't start anything with someone at this level if you aren't prepared to share the same fate as the person you choose to involve yourself with. 

The Doom of Damocles is about setting the stakes in the book.  It's about the level that Harry is playing at.  In the Dresden Olympics you either get the Gold or a coffin.  Harry's choices have consequences both for him and his allies.  But that's my book, the one that I read. And if it doesn't match with the one anybody else reads, that's OK.

[Bad Alias]

What's the finish line with the Doom of Damocles? Is it when the apprentice becomes a full wizard? I don't think we have the answers to these questions. The books don't say, but I don't think Eb was ever under the Doom with Harry. Harry was considered a full wizard when he killed Justin, but he was still a minor so he wasn't going to be left to his own devices. I'm sure there was more to it than that, but Harry doesn't really know what was going on then, so how can we?

Where's the finish line with the Doom analogy? What has Harry agreed to and what level of responsibility comes with that? For example, if Harry agrees to teach Kim enough to control her powers so she doesn't accidentally cause harm, what is he responsible for? Would it be a different level of responsibility than if he agreed to teach her some stuff about magic?

[Dina]

While I know what your reasons for hating Maggie are and don't really "get it," for some reason it tickles me to no end. I smile just about every time you bring it up. Susan's kind of a week character (plot wise) in the first three books, and I think, that has a lot to do with why Jim "put her on a bus" in Grave Peril.

Glad to make you smile 

morriswalter, I simply disagree.

[morriswalters]

@Bad Alias
You have to ask Jim if you ever get the chance, that level of detail doesn't exist.  The idea of the Doom of Damocles is not Jim's contrivance.  Nor is it out of the comic books. And I paraphrased the tale when I said that Harry's actions have consequences.

The sword of Damocles is frequently used in allusion to this tale, epitomizing the imminent and ever-present peril faced by those in positions of power. More generally, it is used to denote the sense of foreboding engendered by a precarious situation,[5] especially one in which the onset of tragedy is restrained only by a delicate trigger or chance.

That's from the Wikipedia and the last is the salient point in this discussion I believe. And you either can see what I mean or you can't. I can't make it any clearer.

@Dina
You and almost everyone else.  But it's your book, read it as you please.

[Dina]

 

[Bad Alias]

I don't think the sword of Damocles applies to the Kim situation. It's more of a butterfly effect thing. No matter what Harry does or doesn't do, there will be consequences. Most of them unforeseeable and seemingly random. Harry can push things harder than most people, so he does have to be more careful. He does have a greater general level of responsibility. But I still don't see the different path that he could have taken that would have been more responsible. I don't see how Harry caused Kim's death in Fool Moon. I can see how there is a chain of events starting with Harry helping Kim whenever they met that leads to her death when Harry meets her, but such a thing is so attenuated that saying her death is in any way Harry's fault because of that seems a bridge too far to me.

The Sword of Damocles is a tale about the consequences of unjust actions coming home to roost. Normally I hear the phrase used more as something hanging over someone's head generally and not necessarily because they acted unjustly. Kind of how I often see the Albatross reference misused.

Harry "causing" Kim's death is more of a consequence of going to Burger King instead of McDonald's kind of thing. A decision with no moral weight having grave consequences that were quite unforeseen.

Kim was dead the moment she agreed to help MacFinn and decided not to play it straight with Harry. The only way Harry caused that is by putting an ad in the Yellow Pages in order to help people.

[Bad Alias]

I was going over this thread to see how we started down this path. The thing is the books, aka Harry, say that Kim/Susan died/turned because Harry concealed crucial information from them. My position is this is false. No one has been able to show me what information he concealed from them that would have made a bit of difference.

Some claim Harry gave too much information. I don't see how that's the case either, but it would refute the premise that he withheld critical information.

Harry probably should have had the Walmart talk with Murphy in book one. Chapter 2 or 3 of Fool Moon at the latest. That's the only withholding of critical information I blame Harry for. But I also blame Murphy for it. She was pretty irrational in books 1&2 because Jim was writing to the noir p.i. detective mold, and Murphy was the obstructionist law enforcement colleague role, and they were Jim's first professional quality books. Also, these characters would be both pretty boring and unbelievable if they made all the right moves.

Morris and I disagree about where moral responsibility comes from, and that's fine. Where moral responsibility comes from is also beyond the point of whether or not Harry withheld critical information that would have changed either situation.