so ... soulgaze? the Sight?

[g33k]

It has struck me that we don't know a huge amount about soulgazes in the Dresdenverse.

Like... we know wizards initiate , and very-minor talents do not; but also, that power-level is a continuum not in discrete power-up levels.  So where's the can/cannot soulgaze division, exactly?

It's a facet of the "wizard's Sight" and so the same question applies:  who exactly has the Sight, and doesn't?

Are some people just natively stronger with the Sight, more "inSightful?"

Can the Sight and/or soulgazing be cultivated, improved?  Better-controlled, e.g. could an "experienced soulgazer" stave-off a 'gaze, not initiate it?  Can they force a 'gaze instantly (without giving someone the chance to avert the gaze)?  Can they learn to see more than others do, or keep others from seeing as clearly, learning as much?  Does it more or less automatically improve with experience (i.e. do older wizards automatically See more)?

Can it be blocked (we know Angelic beings can disrupt an attempt; but that isn't the same thing)?

... etc ...
 

[Dina]

I have wondered some of those things since the beginning.
I have the (unproved) idea that yes, there are wizards who are more insightful, as you said. Just like Harry is very good at fire magic, I think he is good at Sight and soulgazes.
I wish there were more talking about that in the books.
And, I need to say it, I want to see what people sees when they soulgaze Harry.

[Mira]

  Agreed, we don't know a whole lot, but neither apparently does your average young wizard.  In the beginning of the series, Harry doesn't seem to have a whole lot of control as to when they happen, i.e. his soul gaze with the Denarian back in Death Masks wasn't intentional on Harry's part.  As the books go on he learns to be more careful about eye contact.  There is also a bit of arrogance about them as well, Harry gets the idea that a soul gaze with him can be intimidating.. However he also learns that that doesn't always work, as in the case of his soul gaze with Marcone.  I don't know what the difference is, but I don't think while they might seem to be related, I don't think they are the same or even use the same talent.  A wizard can use his sight at any distance to view something as it really is, but for a soul gaze eye contact is essential.

"experienced soulgazer" stave-off a 'gaze, not initiate it?

Yes, in the later books more than once Harry has said that he felt the beginnings of a soul gaze and broke it off before it began.  If you are asking whether or not an experienced soul gazer force another into one?  Maybe, but then if it is about eye contact, closing one's eyes should be enough to stave one off.

Can they force a 'gaze instantly (without giving someone the chance to avert the gaze)?

I think so if one of the gazers has no experience with them, and doesn't know enough to avert their gaze to break it off.  Again in the beginning of the series this happened a couple of times to Harry, where he looked into someone's eyes, starting and in effect forcing a soul gaze before the person was aware of what was happening to him or her.

[g33k]

...
Yes, in the later books more than once Harry has said that he felt the beginnings of a soul gaze and broke it off before it began.  If you are asking whether or not an experienced soul gazer force another into one?  Maybe, but then if it is about eye contact, closing one's eyes should be enough to stave one off.
I think so if one of the gazers has no experience with them, and doesn't know enough to avert their gaze to break it off.  Again in the beginning of the series this happened a couple of times to Harry, where he looked into someone's eyes, starting and in effect forcing a soul gaze before the person was aware of what was happening to him or her.

Yes, breaking eye-contact can stop the Soulgaze.

I'm asking, can a sufficiently-strong and/or sufficiently-experienced Soulgazer just look into somebody's eyes and NOPE the forming soulgaze?  Just... turn it off, by force of will or mental discipline?

By the same token, could a strong/experienced 'gazer force an insta-gaze, where the person being 'gazed -- even if they know to close their eyes / look away -- has no chance to do that, because it happens too fast?

[g33k]

... I don't know what the difference is, but I don't think while they might seem to be related, I don't think they are the same or even use the same talent ...

Harry thinks they're the same.
Or at least, Jim thought that Harry thought that, as of Grave Peril:

When a mortal looks on something with the Sight, really looks, as a wizard may, the memories of what he sees are indelibly imprinted on him.  And when a wizard looks into a person’s eyes, it’s just another way of using the Sight.  A two-way use of it, because the person you look at gets to peer back at you, too.

early-episode-weirdness cannot be dismissed:  it was only GP.
and of course Harry's an unreliable narrator.

But -- as with a Soulgaze -- wizards using their Sight see things differently, depending on their own psyche's and backgrounds...  I guess Jim used to be active here, back in the day?  Anyhow, this Q is credited to @Miss Demeanor (who I see hasn't been here since '07):

Let’s say that Wizard A grew up in America, and may consider the embodiment of evil to be a devil-like figure.  Wizard B is from India, and might instead associate evil with a rakshasa.  They each view a subject with their third sight.  The subject is a vile and malicious person.  Would this be revealed to them both in the same way, or would what each one sees be influenced by his own cultural background?

Jim:

Not only would the Western-raised wizard and Eastern-raised wizard perceive things according to the cultural biases and subjective experiences, they might not even perceive them with the same /senses/.

The Third Sight is different for everyone, subjective, and inherently slanted towards ones own experiences and background.  So while two wizards might look on some totally-gone, bloodthirsty warlock and see a bloodthirsty warlock, they might see it in very different ways.

... Harry looks on him and sees some Hannibal-Lectery figure crouched on the floor grinning and soaked in blood.
... Ancient Mai looks on him and sees a bare, twisted white tree in the center of an unbroken field of white snow, representative of the individual’s loss of spirit and humanity. 
... Rodriguez looks at him and hears some kind of hideous music that accompanies the individual and makes the hair on the back of Carlos’ neck stand up...
... Listens-to-Wind looks on the warlock and smells something rotted and vile.

^{-- https://wordof.jim-butcher.com/index.php/word-of-jim-woj-compilation/woj-on-magic-in-the-dresden-files-part-2/}

Sight & Soulgaze are far more alike than they are dissimilar; the entire section of the WoJ-file I just quoted from is about "3rd sight and Soulgaze" and it's clear from the various Q&A that their same-ness was a common assumption on both sides.


edit:  in fact, here's the Paranet thread where she asked, and Jim answered...
https://www.paranetonline.com/index.php/topic,1419.0.html

[g33k]

I know it's kinda "bad form" to self-quote, but it seemed the best way to insert this info:

...  So where's the can/cannot soulgaze division, exactly?

It's a facet of the "wizard's Sight" and so the same question applies:  who exactly has the Sight, and doesn't?

In researching replies upthread, I found the following:

Q:  If Charity has some power when she met Michael. How did she avoid looking him in the eye and starting a soulgaze? I have to assume it never happened since he doesn’t know about her abilities.  I assume it took years for her abilities to fade away and from what I read, it sounds like they were a couple fairly soon after he rescued her.
A: You got to have some serious magical chops before a soulgaze is an issue–and yes, it’s one of the markers that the Council uses to see if you make the cut, though it’s far from the only one.  There are folks running around who can do it who aren’t on the Council, but not many of them.
Charity was small potatoes in the magic department, for a number of reasons.  It was never an issue with her.

Which is as much WoJ as I know of on the subject (hence my asking).

[Mira]

early-episode-weirdness cannot be dismissed:  it was only GP.
and of course Harry's an unreliable narrator.

That's the thing though isn't it.  A soul gaze is a two way street, the wizard's sight isn't.  In a soul gaze the gazer opens his or herself up equally to the person who's eyes he or she is gazing into.  Susan fainted during her soul gaze with Harry, Marcone took his own measure of Harry, at that point in time neither Marcone nor Susan had any magical ability to be able to read Harry's soul.  If either Susan or Marcone at that time looked into another vanilla human's eyes it wouldn't result in a soul gaze because they weren't wizards.. Marcone can now presumably, because he is now a wizard.

Sight & Soulgaze are far more alike than they are dissimilar; the entire section of the WoJ-file I just quoted from is about "3rd sight and Soulgaze" and it's clear from the various Q&A that their same-ness was a common assumption on both sides.

Are they?  I think they appear alike because both give information, but they are not alike..  Here is why, in a trial before the Council the arresting Warden or whatever Warden is in charge of the prisoner performs a soul gaze on the prisoner, and testifies as to what he or she saw,it is admissible evidence on the character and guilt or innocence of the prisoner.  

However  the wizard's sight isn't permissible in court because it is unreliable for the following reasons.

The Third Sight is different for everyone, subjective, and inherently slanted towards ones own experiences and background.  So while two wizards might look on some totally-gone, bloodthirsty warlock and see a bloodthirsty warlock, they might see it in very different ways.

... Harry looks on him and sees some Hannibal-Lectery figure crouched on the floor grinning and soaked in blood.
... Ancient Mai looks on him and sees a bare, twisted white tree in the center of an unbroken field of white snow, representative of the individual’s loss of spirit and humanity.
... Rodriguez looks at him and hears some kind of hideous music that accompanies the individual and makes the hair on the back of Carlos’ neck stand up...
... Listens-to-Wind looks on the warlock and smells something rotted and vile.

That means the evidence from the Wizard's Sight is completely prejudicial based on the gazer's own biases and experience. However this apparently isn't the case with a soul gaze.  Did the Merlin insist on a collaborative soul gaze of the Korean Kid before his head was chopped off?  Not in the book anyway, the Merlin simply told Harry that he had soul gazed the Korean Kid himself and he found him to be guilty of many crimes.. However if the Wizard's Sight was like a soul gaze. from the above quote Harry or Eb or some other wizard could have seen the Korean Kid in a totally different light.. Yet the kid was found guilty and killed on the strength of a single soul gaze.   Where as I doubt it could be done on the strength of the above reasons, each wizard sees different things when looking at the same thing with the sight.  So while they appear to be the same, they are not.

I'm asking, can a sufficiently-strong and/or sufficiently-experienced Soulgazer just look into somebody's eyes and NOPE the forming soulgaze?  Just... turn it off, by force of will or mental discipline?

Yes, it can, several times in the later books Harry speaks of feeling the beginnings of soul gaze with someone he doesn't want to have a soul gaze with and he breaks it off.  We all know the strength of Harry's will.

[Dina]

I agree the two-way street is the main difference, but I believe there is some sort of WoJ about  soulgazes being also subjective and also changing according to the moment that happened. Ebenezer probably did not see the same thing that Butters would see if he soulgazed Harry after BG. I am not sure about the different senses. Pehaps Ramirez always hears music with soulgazing someone. A music he cannot forget.

[Mira]

I agree the two-way street is the main difference, but I believe there is some sort of WoJ about  soulgazes being also subjective and also changing according to the moment that happened. Ebenezer probably did not see the same thing that Butters would see if he soulgazed Harry after BG. I am not sure about the different senses. Pehaps Ramirez always hears music with soulgazing someone. A music he cannot forget.

If the soul gaze is so subjective, then it never be used  as evidence when someone is being judged.  The Merlin soul gazing the Korean kid is the big example, one has to ask whether or not the Merlin was sure of what he'd find before he performed it?  In other words, if the Merlin was sure before hand that the kid was guilty, that is what he'd find in his soul gaze with the kid.  Still while Harry advocated for not chopping the kid's head off, he neither questioned what the Merlin said he saw in his gaze with the kid, nor did Harry insist on doing and seeing for himself what was in the kid's mind. When Harry soul gazed Molly he saw a mixed bag of possible futures for her, ranging from good to evil like any of us when we are that young.

[BugBear]

For what it's worth, the RPG calls soulgazes an aspect of the Sight. The most relevant paragraphs being on page 226 of Your World:

When it comes right down to it, a soulgaze is a narrow, focused, specific application of the Sight—using the Sight to See one person, with the dials turned up to eleven. This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to look past the outer surface and into the very heart of who a person is, what’s going on with him, and who he might become. Unfortunately, the target of a soulgaze also gains this sort of insight into the gazer—even if that target is a vanilla mortal.

Of course, it’s not as simple as all that. Because soulgazes are a facet of the Sight, metaphor jumbles up the results for each party. You’re barking up the wrong tree if you think a soulgaze is “asking a question” about another person. The “answer” is going to make as much nonsense as it makes sense.

Of course this is a secondary source, but the stuff in here was looked over to be canon-ish. I vaguely recall that Jim had to ask the authors to cut some things, because they were guessing spoilery details ahead of time. Of course, that was also the canon Jim had in mind in 2010. Still, it seems like he's had a very definite plan in mind for soulgazes (particularly Harry's) from day one.

I would call this quality of evidence one level below word of Jim/canon Jim personally wrote, but still pretty good. I also can't find any sources from the primary material, only implications.

[g33k]

If the soul gaze is so subjective, then it never be used  as evidence when someone is being judged ...

WoJ (same source doc) on Soulgazes:

What it shows you is /true/.  But it isn’t necessarily /all/.

For instance, a ‘gaze could show you that a man was self-disciplined, sober, highly organized, dedicated to his principles, and that he loved dogs, and all of that would be true.

But it doesn’t tell you everything about Adolf Hitler.

Granted, a soulgaze of Hitler would probably have given off a big vibe of either “crazy” or “ruthless” too.  They tend to give you a pretty good core sample of the individual in question.  However, every wizard gets things a little bit differently than any other, in terms of how the soulgaze is perceived.  Not every wizard sees things in symbols and allegory, the way Harry does.  There’s a whole spectrum of different “filters,” I suppose, of how the basic natures of others are perceived.

[Mira]

WoJ (same source doc) on Soulgazes:    What it shows you is /true/.  But it isn’t necessarily /all/.

    For instance, a ‘gaze could show you that a man was self-disciplined, sober, highly organized, dedicated to his principles, and that he loved dogs, and all of that would be true.

    But it doesn’t tell you everything about Adolf Hitler.

    Granted, a soulgaze of Hitler would probably have given off a big vibe of either “crazy” or “ruthless” too.  They tend to give you a pretty good core sample of the individual in question.  However, every wizard gets things a little bit differently than any other, in terms of how the soulgaze is perceived.  Not every wizard sees things in symbols and allegory, the way Harry does.  There’s a whole spectrum of different “filters,” I suppose, of how the basic natures of others are perceived.

Which is why given the Merlin's admitted prejudice against talented kids who screw up because dark magic is easier and they don't know better, he shouldn't have been the one to soul gaze the Korean kid.  Because the Merlin believes that trying to rehab these kids is a waste of time and dangerous, he'd only see the worst and nothing redeeming about the kid.  Why Harry didn't argue that point?  At least request that he, himself, also gaze the Korean kid or another more neutral minded wizard do it.  The outcome might have still been the same, but the process would have perhaps been seen as a bit more fair.

[Tinfoil hat]

Which is why given the Merlin's admitted prejudice against talented kids who screw up because dark magic is easier and they don't know better, he shouldn't have been the one to soul gaze the Korean kid.  Because the Merlin believes that trying to rehab these kids is a waste of time and dangerous, he'd only see the worst and nothing redeeming about the kid.  Why Harry didn't argue that point?  At least request that he, himself, also gaze the Korean kid or another more neutral minded wizard do it.  The outcome might have still been the same, but the process would have perhaps been seen as a bit more fair.

First of all the Korean kid was too far gone, just reading about his crimes told everyone that he was to far gone. He had bent to many minds to his will twisting his own in the process. I suspect the soulgaze was a formality.
Molly on the other hand had bent 2 minds, one a willing participant at that , the other willing from a certain point of view.
Both the soulgaze and the sight are linked snd subjective but so is almost everything we do.
I tend to view them like an interrogation techniques. A trained officer with years of experience can usually tell a suspect is quilty , or at least hiding something that is crucial from a simple interview. Of course the same officers can let the bias lend them to make the wrong conclusion but most of the time their instincts are right.
Lie detectors which are not based in science at all Work the same way. An experienced operator can tell the person is lying but again their own bias will cloud the results.
The Merlin is old and experienced sure he is biased but hopefully he can separate his feelings from the situ

[g33k]

... Molly on the other hand had bent 2 minds, one a willing participant at that , the other willing from a certain point of view ...

AFAIK, Molly got permission from neither Nelson nor Rosie.
Nelson was cold-bloodedly chosen as a lab-rat, a sacrificial test-case.

[Mira]

First of all the Korean kid was too far gone, just reading about his crimes told everyone that he was to far gone. He had bent to many minds to his will twisting his own in the process. I suspect the soulgaze was a formality.

Formality?  That should never be in a capital case.