their

killing her

delectable.

he, or nothing at all.

good

him, perhaps?


Will Harry find all the coins? What about this:

I think it's rather that the sword has accomplished its mission with Harry and now will wait for 'proper' knight.

The revenge idea seems illogical, if it was true the sword would be unmade after it helped Harry deal with nameless dark wizard in the end of TDR.

 

Wrong...

 

I would say he is the last and theres only one Denarian left. Its now up to Michael and Sanya.

BUT Im hoping that isnt the case as I really wanted to see Namshiel fight Harry.

 

You asked for a shortlist for changes. I don't really know how the fight could be made better. Perhaps Taure or someone can come up with one. I will say this however. Given that Harry barely won this fight, how will you make the final battle against Voldemort look different and cool(er)? I mean it would be rather lame if the battle against Voldemort would be about as difficult and similar as the one against a nobody like Tessa? Unless you are planning on Voldemort winning?

How exactly does the whole Meciel having mortal descendants thing work? Is it a case of Meciel having a child with a human prior to her fall, and then that child having others? I thought God had decreed that all of them should be killed which is why Meciel fell in the first place? Or do you mean that Meciel considers children her hosts have had to be her own? If so why is she not more eager to help Amaris?

Finally I must say that I do not understand why Harry stopped being a knight here. Could you explain?

I mean ok, I suppose I can see this being the type of final scene with all other denarians killed, but the problem here is that it assumes that the only purpose of the swords is to kill denarians. That is not true. We have seen both in the Dresden Files and even in your own story that the swords are used to oppose all sort of evil, not just the fallen. Heck, it is even explicitly mentioned by Sanya in Small Favor that just because the denarians were defeated would not mean that the work would be done. There is lots of evil left.

Evil such as Voldemort. That is why I find this so confusing. I mean if Harry had decided to retire or somesuch then I could see the sword deciding to reject him. But unless you are planning on something totally bizarre, I do expect that there will yet be a final confrontation in the story between Voldemort and Harry because he is the main rival and not having a confrontation would be just weak. So why would the sword not want to help Harry defeat Voldemort who is arguably potentially as evil and destructive as the denarians? Heck we have seen the swords oppose Voldemort before when Michaels and Sanyas swords led them to the graveyard to fight him.

The swords have been consistently painted as holy and good what with its dislike of dark magic, its desire to help the helpless and the fact that it cannot abide blood of innocents. And yet it seems to me that its actions here will (or atleast logically should) cause more harm than good.

For one, it will prove Harry right and Michael wrong, implying that Harry was only a tool to be used to take out the other denarians, to be thrown aside the instant he was no longer necessary. That could end up making Harry angry and more likely to slide down on the morality scale and oppose God even more, something that would only be detrimental to the swords interests. I mean so far he has been for the most part on the side of good, relatively speaking anyway, so why would the sword not want to continue supporting that. Then there is the fact that without the sword, Harry is less likely to stop Voldemort, which again would lead into the deaths of lots of and lots of innocents.

If you really want Harry to get rid of the sword then I wonder if having it be Harry who rejects the sword would not be better? I mean I admit that would be pretty stupid of him too, what with Voldemort still to be defeated but it would atleast make more sense to me than this. Unless you have some good explanation that explains why this happened now that I am failing to see?

 

We don't know that the sword has rejected Harry, only that he won't wield it again. For all we know it could be that it gets stolen or destroyed.

With regards to what changes to make... I'd say leave it as it is. A majorly adjusted chapter never reads as well as the original. I mean, you could add the odd sentence in there to make it look like Tessa's dominating Harry less (something like the odd concerned look breaking through her cheerful facade), or offer some kind of explanation as to her drawing power from a ley line or something like that... but it might mess with the flow.

 

This is old, and I'm not sure if you've already covered this before. If you have, well shit, but there are a lot of pages of reviews to sift through. Anyway, I was rereading some of the earlier chapters on FFNet and came upon this in Chapter 6:

Does this section mean what I think it means? It seems as if you are saying that Dumbledore will not be killing himself through Snape like in HBP, but rather Fawkes has somehow contained the curse in such a way that keeps it from further harming Dumbledore.

EDIT:

As for Meciel having children, we can't really speculate until an actual time line is given. When in history was Meciel leader of the Blackened Order, and when did Nicodemus overthrow her? If I remember my Bible right, angels mated with humans first and as a result they were cast out of heaven. The children of those angels grew up to be essentially superhuman in size, strength, etc., but also wicked, and wreaked havoc with their above human strengths. Wiping them out was partly the reason why the great flood with Noah's Ark and everything happened. So it just all depends on a time line that we haven't been given, so speculation right now would be pointless and most likely erroneous.

Why wouldn't Harry stop being a Knight? The Knights may be people and God may be just and everything, but in the end, the Knights are still just tools of God, to be replaced when necessary. Michael was severely injured in the line of duty and he passed on his Sword because he acknowledged that his usefulness had ended, and the Sword may even have urged him to do it. In both the Dresden Files and this story, God is not depicted as the perfect, all-powerful, all-merciful, beloved creator. Sure, God watches out for his chosen, but if you step out of line, the punishments are cruel and merciless. God is being pragmatic here, Harry is the perfect tool to take on the Blackened Order, a powerful Denarian with a powerful host driven by revenge? God couldn't have asked for a better tool unless he started sending Archangels, and the result is all so poetic: destroyed by the one they betrayed, wielding the weapon of their enemy......Just the kind of ironic justice the God of the Dresden Files and this story would love.

As of right now, Harry's usefulness has ended, there's no reason for him to continue wielding the Sword. Compared to the Blackened Order, an international, ancient, immortal organization, Voldemort with his little group of sycophants is nothing. I imagine that had Harry and Meciel shown even the slightest inclination towards redemption and forever following God's will, the Sword would have stayed with them. However, there was no such indication, so it's time to get that Sword into the hands of someone more loyal, and if Harry starts having trouble with Voldemort, there will be a new Knight ready to lend a hand.

Second EDIT: Does this mean Harry gets his bonewyrm form back?

 

If that were true that the sword only cares about the Denarians then why has the sword been sending Harry to rescue random people all throughout the story. Why does Michael fight ghosts and outsiders and other nasties to save lives in Dresdenverse? We have clearly been shown that the sword cares about all that, not JUST denarians.

In Dresdenverse god and religion has been for the most part shown as far more benevolent and good than in real life. The swords especially. Somehow the idea of the sword just kicking Harry out like this does not fit all that well. But maybe its just me.

As for the sword rejecting Harry because he is not willing to blindly follow god. I would remind that of the 3 knights in Dresdenverse, only one was truly faithfull. Sanya is an atheist, and Shiro became religious purely by accident (He actually wanted to meet Elvis). And I would say that so far as Harry is willing to do the swords bidding in exchange for its power, his magical abilities make him the MOST usefull of knights. Far more so than either Michael or Sanya or any new random knight could be.

 

You do have a point. But from my side, I'm not saying that the Swords only care about Denarians, they care about evil in general. Just that in this case, they prefer to care about it in the hands of someone other than Harry.

God and the Sword recognize that Harry follows their urgings only very grudgingly. If it weren't for the potential strengths the Sword brings, Harry would probably just laugh at most of those poor bastards. The real Knights on the other hand do their work eagerly and without hesitation.

Harry held the Sword for as long as he did because he was the most useful weapon against the Blackened Order, which is something much more dangerous than Voldemort. Now that it's over, the Sword goes to a much more fitting wielder, and it adds another number to the Knights to potentially assist Harry against Voldemort should the situation get out of hand.

I'll admit that it doesn't make as much sense for the Sword to leave Harry now rather than when he finishes off Voldemort. But nevertheless, I'm kind of looking forward to Harry fighting Voldemort with just his own power and Meciel, ending it like the way he began it.

 

We also know how Harry felt after last rescue:

Besides, if God is as benevolent as DF indicated, he'd rather have Harry capable to fight without help of the sword (hence his forgetfulness) and doing "good" out of his own free will rather than being forced to.

 

Exactly.

So if Harry saves people when he has the sword.

And does not save people when he does not have the sword.

Then why does the sword think that choosing the option that ends up with Harry not saving people is the better choice?

It seems to me that from the swords perspective, using Harrys desire for the protection/power that it offers to subtly try and get him to be more used to the idea of helping others and being a good guy would be far better than going to someone that already IS a good guy thats helping others.

Afterall, from the view of pure effectiveness, so long as Harry is willing to go along with the sword in exchange for its power against his enemies like Maeve and Voldemort and such, the work gets done anyway. Except that so long as the sword remains with Harry, it gets to direct his violent impulses to a more usefull purpose by letting him whack monsters and such and preventing him from going all evil. Abandoning Harry now when he has not actually done anything all that wrong or evil might only lead to him getting pissed at god for this "betrayal" and possibly causing him to become an enemy of the knights again.


I dunno. I suppose a part of me is a bit disappointed that this is how the sword-arc ended. I mean originally, the idea of a denarian getting the sword seemed like such a big thing and I was wondering where it would lead. Heck the fact that Harry was a knight even made it into the title of the 2nd story emphasizing it even more.

But it now looks as though its not going to lead anywhere and the swords only purpose in the story was to be a magical toy for Harry to wave around and nothing more. I think its a bit of a letdown. Then again I don't really know what would have been a good ending. Ohwell, I am sure there is other cool stuff still ahead.

 

You seem to be forgetting that Harry planned on destroying the sword once its usefulness ended. It makes total sense for the sword to ditch Harry now when the Blackened Order has been destroyed. The moment Harry stops being a Knight he also loses the ability to wield the sword, and thus the ability to destroy it.

 

I think you are overthinking this all Sword deal - Harry pretty much "outgrew" it, and in a short time Sword will be more hindrance than help in a duels to Harry. Sword recognized that this would be a waste of resources and will chose another master.

 

He did? Huh. Must have missed that. I suppose it makes sense then.

Though I wonder if Harry would actually do that. It would be quite a blow to his character. I am not going to start the whole "is Harry evil" discussion again but I will say that whats required to destroy the sword would probably be the most evil thing Harry has done. Killing someone purely innocent with it. I seem to remember Dumbledore and Harry discussing that actually.

Thats pretty much what would be required to destroy the sword I think. Doing this would certainly turn Dumbledore against Harry. I dunno, it just seems too extreme an act for Harry to do and I would expect the sword to know that.

Then again maybe I am totally wrong and the series will actually end with Harry murdering Amanda in cold blood and taking the place of Nicodemus in trying to bring about the apocalypse.


EDIT:

As powerfull as Harry has become, he is not neutralizing highly lethal magics like Fiendfyre and the killing curse with ease, and neither is he altering chance and fate (the luck of god) at will the way the sword is.


In any case I have once again went on too long about this whole thing. I am sure it will be fine whatever Shezza writes.

 

Amanda's hardly innocent.

 

I agree. This is wishful thinking on my part, but to me Amanda is to Harry as Bellatrix is to Voldemort. Note, that Shezza could easily disprove this analogy by focusing more on Amanda (hint, wtb more Amanda scenes).

Oh, and screw you Mindless for celebrating the death of Tessa. Yes, she may have come out of nowhere and been possibly overpowered, but she was the most fun antagonist to read. Much more enjoyable than Nicodermius or Vesper.

 

He can't make her innocent again. She killed and she liked it.

 

Eh... In canon, killing a slutty drug-using wannabe-vampire would destroy the sword. If she qualifies as 'innocent,' killing any small-time criminal that annoys him would suffice. And considering the fact that Harry totally ignores the collateral damage he causes, it's more than likely that he has already killed innocents. Killing someone with the sword wouldn't change anything (except unmake the sword).

 

Actually, we don't know much about that 'slutty drug-using wannabe-vampire', except that she had been suffering from a bad magical condition for years, apparently to the point of attempting suicide.

 

Really? Where is it then? We all want to read it!

 

I'd rather he moves forward with vengance after Amanda gets killed by Death Eaters in the school.

THis. this. this.