Talk:The Dresden Files characters

Untitled

I would recommend placing any reference to the "Black Council" in quotation marks, as of Turn Coat this is still just Harry's conspiracy theory. There is no reason to assume that the "Black Council" is a cohesive unit. There should be a distinction when it is used instead of known cohesive groups such as The Circle and the White Council.--72.242.184.238 (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there is little doubt that Lara Raith, and Toot are recurring characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.157.10 (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Toot Toot. I changed the comment about Toot not understanding English. He is mistaken about the meaning of a few long words (he mistakes generous and general), which puts him on the same level as most people writing this article. Harry gives him detailed instructions in English, and Toot obviously speaks it as well as anyone. He might not understand some human concepts or vocabulary but his language skills are very well developed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.157.10 (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC) As of Changes, Toot-toot converses with Sanya, a Knight of the Cross, in Russian and is puzzled when Harry asks him how he is able to speak Russian. From that, it appears that ability to use various human languages is something which Toot assumes is automatically available to anyone.

A wizard's power comes from his or her own power base. A weaker wizard cannot learn to be stronger no matter how much he reads. So, NO, it is not learning based.

• The Archive

The page as written claims that The Archive can have power that is "at most" that of the strongest wizard. Think this through: wizards power comes from their knowledge of their discipline; with the accumulated knowledge of every wizard that ever lived, the Archive is far more powerful than any single wizard, no matter how powerful. In any event, the statement as written in the page represents original research, as it is not made anywhere within the text, and should be expurgated.

• Cowl

Cowl is a recurring nemesis of Harry Dresden who appears in two books White Night and Dead Beat. Cowl is definitely a major character and deserves to be included in this article. Hourglasseyes-CG 13:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• The Merlin

Is that Arthur or Alfred? Ebenezar calls him Alfred, in Summer Knight, doesn't he? DannyBoy2k 16:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thomas

Unless someone can think of a good reason why, I'm going to delete the snippet under Thomas. The main article link is much more extensive, and covers all the same information contained in the summary. Considering we don't summarize Harry or Karrin, I don't see why we'd do one for a recurring character either.Brinlong (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nicodemus Archleon

I find it strange that he doesn't have at least a paragraph on him. Even Ortega has a portion in this article, and he was killed in the only book that featured him prominently. (His bit appearence in Grave Peril does not count as prominent.) Nick, however, has been a major character in 2 books now, and given that Harry merely dumped his unconscious body off into the water instead of taking his coin and making SURE he was dead, I have a good feeling that SmF isn't the last book we'll see him in. 132.228.195.206 (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Inari Raith belongs to the minor characters list: she appears only in one book (Blood Rites). (De fideli (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

• Donald Morgan

Added wizard classification, and changed to past tense. (Except the final paragraph which is itself referring to the plot of turn coat and not exclusively the character.)
>>Chuck-Chuck Razool

Perhaps Shinto should be added to the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.249.52 (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor Characters

Why on earth is Sandra Marling on the list? She's about as insignificant as Dresden Files characters get. Only appears in one book, doesn't play an important part in it, is just your average vanilla human, ect. Including her would preclude the inclusion of every named character in any of the books. I suggest simply deleting her from the list, possibly replacing her with a more interesting character. Mab, Lily, Fix, Cowl, Madrigal Raith, Laura Raith, Lord Raith, Sanya, Helen Beckitt, Maeve, even Deirdre and Cassius; all of them are recurring characters with significance. There are even Non-recurring characters to by far deserve to be on the list more: Shiro, Tessa, Anna Ash, Bock, even Grevane & Corpsetaker. So why on earth should Sandra be on the list? Nimnengil (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Some additional information on Marling is given in the RPG books (one of which includes detailed stats and info on many characters from the books). Without spoiling, suffice to say that Marling is probably much, much more important than she appears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.130.238 (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Binder isn't on the list

Regarding Butters It is written in the article: "In Dead Beat, he informed Harry that, as a wizard, Harry has uncharted regenerative capabilities and could one day recover the use of his hand." This refers more to Harry than Butters. However, I'd like to add the following: Since Butters is aware of Harry's magical abilities, Harry uses him as his MD. or something that that effect. (De fideli (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

Archive

I think the Archive should be a recurring character. she is a mian character in Small Favor and appears in other books —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin127 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Carpenters

They should get their own article. I don't think they are interesting enough to write about, but they really should.

When are some of them going to get their own articles? Not the Jawas or Charity but Michael's been a main character in more books then Thomas has and Molly's officially been Harry's apprentice since the end of Proven Guilty (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't read the series in a while) so shouldn't one of them get an article (most likely Molly since a. she's his apprentice and thus guaranteed main character status for a couple more books (assuming Turn Coat doesn't kill her, which I HIGHLY doubt) and Michael's heavily implied as being royally screwed at the end of small favor. And don't get me started on Rodriguez... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.172.179 (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Mouse and How we Rank these Characters

I've upgraded Mouse from a Minor Character to a Recurring Character. Bob the Skull has been sitting in the third slot of this list for several books, but in Turn Coat, I feel like Mouse has become more of a sidekick to Harry than Bob ever was. He's becoming roundly developed as a character, and the frequency with which he provides comic relief has risen sharply. I near moved him into a slot below Molly, but I figured that would trigger a knee-jerk undo rather than the appropriate discussion. I think that Mouse more than any other character raised the question of whether characters should be ranked by their importance to the series as a whole or just to the latest book in the series. - User:Pipedreamergrey (talk) 11:45, April 14, 2009 (UTC)

On the ranking of characters

There's definitely some cleaning up to do here.

• I am not against your upgrade of Mouse to the main characters list, but in this case, I would move Thomas there as well, since he has played a role similar to Murphy's since his apparition in Blood rites.
• There's some discrepancies in the way the characters are presented when it comes to the Senior council and the fairie courts.
• The list of recurring characters is getting very long. We could always split it into major and minor recurring characters. Any thoughts?
• The order of the characters should also be reviewed: we can stick to alphabetical order, try to determine an order or importance, define broad categories (like it's been done for the Senior Council and the Fairie courts), or something else.
• We should keep in mind that this is a list of the characters of the books. It doesn't have to list all of them, and shouldn't duplicate the list of organizations and groups. For example, do the Queen mothers belong here?

(De fideli (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

I agree emphatically about the dog and the brother. This has come to my attention by a note from a friend, bogged down in White Night because of a reference to Cowl. Granted that Cowl has not had a lot of print coverage overall, but he's a top-drawer scary, and I expect that he has not had more prominence only because the later books focus on whatever they're focusing on. Or Jim forgot. GcT (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

removal of links

An editor made several changes on the 13th removing several links for no apparant reason in order to italicize book titles. This change can be done without removing the links. Please do so. SeanNovack (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

McAnally

In response to a question by tailkinker: the "unfortunate" part of the name is the cognate formed if you remove the Mc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riventree (talk • contribs) 02:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I see what you're getting at. Thanks - I was a bit confused at that, simply because I've never pronounced it that way. Once it's pointed out, yes, I see what you mean. --Tailkinker (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

In at least one of the paperbacks, it's spelled with two n's. — Eli Schwartz (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Cold Days information

Why is there information from Cold Days (beyond the 4 released chapters on jim butchers website) on here. In addition to being massive spoilers, wouldn't that information have to come from illegal sources, due to the book being unreleased? Its very disrespectful to fans and the Author to have that information available today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.197.4.157 (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC) According to my logs I received my Kindle copy a couple of hours before your comment. I happened to be asleep but some night owls may be fast readers. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.168.132.18 (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This seriously needs fixing...

The article is literally filled with original syntheses - some of which outhright contradict the published novels (such as Tera West - soulgaze only works on human beings), others that are nothing but unverified hypotheses and finally unencyclopedic personal remarks from previous editors.

That's really not a state we should allow to continue. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Fifth Horseman:

That, in itself, was enough to make my jaw drop incredulously. I continued the stare, and she didn't blink, didn't turn away -and didn't fall into soulgaze with me. I shuddered in reaction. What was going on? Why didn't the 'gaze begin? There were only two kinds of people whose eyes I could meet for more than a second or two: the people who had already met my eyes in a soulgaze were one kind; inhuman beings from the Nevernever were the other.

I had never looked upon Tera West's soul before. I remembered a soulgaze, every time it happened. The experience wasn't the sort of thing you could forget. That only left one conclusion.

Whoever she was -whatever she was, Tera West wasn't human.

— Jim Butcher, Fool Moon

How exactly does that contradict the novel? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Addendum For the record, all of the changes you made today were good ones, I'm just not sure what you're getting at with the reference to soulgazes. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this one is going to take a bit of explaining.

Preceding the quote you included is Harry questioning as to why did the soulgaze fail - followed by his thoughts that he knows (first-person narrator, remember?) only two kinds of "people" it can't work on (one of which are creatures from Nevernever, the other being humans he already soulgazed) and arrival at the no soulgaze -> not human conclusion rather than explicitly settling on no soulgaze -> creature from Nevernever. The latter is either synthesis or undue weight, and contradicts the eventual reveal at the end of the novel. IIRC, the books do not state if soulgaze works on animals; the wording "people" is counter-indicative, and the RPG postulates a mortal (human) soul is required.

My other point is that we should not go adding every single potential explanation regardless of actual relevance, or lengthy descriptions of events in the series where a substantially briefer summary would get across the same information. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's only synthesis if the editor is following the train of logic to arrive at a conclusion. If it's a character in a book, it's just plot. And I don't understand how either the original phrasing or your edited phrasing is synthesis with regards to Tera West not being human, as it clearly states that the character notices this, then came to a conclusion. It's just not synthesis to re-phrase plot information without adding to it. Both your wording and the original do exactly that. Observe:

Tera, the fiancée of Harley MacFinn in the book Fool Moon, was seen as a supernatural being, most likely from the NeverNever, as when she looked into Harry's eyes there was no soulgaze. She was able to change form into that of a wolf at will and seemed to move much more gracefully than any other of the types of werewolf. At the end of the novel, she transformed into a wolf and joined a pack, causing Harry to surmise that she was, in fact, actually a wolf that was able to take on the form of a human, using similar means as that of a "classic" werewolf.

— The original

In the book Fool Moon, Tera is the fiancée of Harley MacFinn. The lack of a soulgaze on eye contact with her leads Harry to conclude she is not human. She was able to change into a wolf at will and seemed to move more gracefully than other werewolf variants introduced in the novel. At the end of the story, she transforms into a wolf and joins a pack, leadin Harry to surmise that, in an inversion of the werewolf concept, she was a wolf able to take on a human form.

— Your edit

In both cases, the article states that Tera had certain qualities (she doesn't soulgaze), repeats the exposition regarding those qualities given in the book (creatures from the nevernever and humans Harry has already soulgazed don't soulgaze), repeats the character's conclusion ("Tera West wasn't human."), then states what is implied by the novel (she is a wolf who can become human, not a human who can become a wolf) at the end. In fact, the only thing one could argue is synthesis is the last part, which your edit still includes. Even then, the argument would be that it's synthesis because the book implies it instead of outright stating it, but the implication is obvious, transparent, and has been explicitly stated to be the case by the author. Also, even if it is synthesis, it doesn't contradict the novel. The novel never states that Tera isn't from the Nevernever, just that she lives in the Pacific Northwest.

Regarding your last point, It would be synthesis if the section stated that Tera West was an X because she has these traits in the book and X has those traits in the Y people's mythology. But the article never did that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

How exactly do you suggest to fix the problem? Sinthesys (included your edits), it certainly is, but it is all derived from the book series. MinorStoop (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I got your drift. MinorStoop (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Faerie courts

Should we be adding the Faerie kings to these two courts ... as of Cold Days, both Kringle and the Erlking seem to be "out" as kings of their respective courts. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I read through Cold Days, but they're definitely not kings of summer and winter. If memory serves, both of them were at the party in the beginning of the book as "foreign" dignitaries. Kringle is Vadderung/Odin and not fae at all (already mentioned in his section), and the Erlking is lord of the goblins (possibly of all Wyldfae, I don't remember). That said, I am rather surprised the Erlking isn't listed here. I don't have easy access to the books right now or I'd do it... --ElHef (Meep?) 01:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The Erlking is a lord of the wild fae, not the king of any fae court, and Kringle is not (at least not entirely) fae at all, just a notable person in the nevernever. The books are quite explicit about this, with Bob explaining to Harry in no uncertain terms that there are no kings of the fae courts in (I believe) Cold Days. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, at 6:30 in here the Erlking and Santa Claus are mentioned as the Summer King and the Winter King respectively. If this is good enough as a source, I don't see why we should not mention them on the page. MinorStoop (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

They are mentioned as a Summer King and a Winter King -- a, not the. Nothing says there is one single king in either court as direct counterpart to Mab and Titania. In fact, from a Reddit AMA:

The Faerie realms just aren't that structured. It's more accurate to say that he is /a/ Winter King. Or even more accurately, that he is a free Wyld Fae who is of a power level that is on par with Mab's and happens to neighbor her sphere of influence, and finds it simpler to show up to family dinners during the holidays and make polite than to start staking out boundaries and establishing treaties.

I could support a mention for the Erlking that he's a king of Faerie aligned with Summer, but would put him in the section with the minor characters, or create a new subheading for Wyld Fae under the Faerie section. Same thing for Vadderung - in the mantle of Kringle, he's a king of Faerie aligned with Winter. I'd still leave his section where it is, and Kringle definitely shouldn't have a separate entry from Vadderung. --ElHef (Meep?) 12:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I can live with that. Give it a shot, if you feel like it - you're probably more conversant with the issue than I am. MinorStoop (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You're right, he calls them kings in that panel. Now he's contradicting Bob, which -having seen many interviews with Jim- leaves me completely confused about who to believe. I suppose we have to take Jim's word for it, but I tell you, I don't trust that guy... I'm convinced that Injun' Joe is secretly Cowl, and Jim is working hard to cover it up.

PS I'm joking, of course. The author's word is canon, in all cases. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I've added this in to Vadderung. I'll work up an entry for the Erlking when I get a chance, though if someone else wants to take a swing at it feel free. --ElHef (Meep?) 00:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I just threw one up, but it was typed up off the top of my head in ten minutes. It could almost certainly benefit from another voice or two. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

In Universe perspective

To all watching this page: I've noticed that virtually all of the character descriptions herein are written from a decidedly in-universe perspective. Now, I understand that making every sentence come from what is clearly an out-of-universe perspective would make the article unreadable, but I have a more achievable goal in mind. At the list of good articles about fiction there are a few "List of _____ Characters" articles, and one thing I notice they have in common is that they always start by describing the character's role in the stories. So I propose we do that, here. Identify each character as a protagonist, antagonist, major, minor or one-off character in the opening of their description. Also, we should add a short blurb about those characters who have their own pages. Perhaps copy out the lead from their pages. If you're reading this, I'm asking for your help, as this will require a lot of edits to get done. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help, but I'll require some studying and practicing - studying the lists you mention is at the top of the list. MinorStoop (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You could also check out the ones I've worked on. Mostly, I just think they should be identified as characters in the first sentence (by stating the book they first appeared in, or their status as a supporting or main character, for example). I had removed the synth hat from the top, but I did find a little bit of synth scattered in. Be sure to keep an eye out for that kind of stuff. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Completed Entries

These are the entries I've edited to give more of a real world voice. Please add any entries you fix here so we can all keep track of them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Main characters

• Harry Dresden  Done
• "Bob"  Done
• Molly Carpenter  Done
• Karrin Murphy  Done
• Thomas Raith  Done

Recurring characters

• The Archive (Ivy)  Done
• Georgia Borden  Done
• William Borden  Done
• Waldo Butters  Done
• Charity Carpenter  Done
• Michael Carpenter  Done
• Corpsetaker
• Jared Kincaid/Hellhound
• Anastasia Luccio
• "Gentleman" Johnny Marcone
• Donald Morgan
• Mouse
• Lara Raith
• Carlos Ramirez
• Susan Rodriguez
• Sanya

The Senior Council

• Gregori Cristos
• Aleron LaFortier
• Arthur Langtry (the Merlin)
• Martha Liberty
• Joseph Listens-to-Wind (AKA "Injun Joe")
• Ancient Mai
• Ebenezar McCoy
• Simon Petrovich
• Rashid, the Gatekeeper

Faerie Courts

• Mother Winter and Mother Summer

Winter Court

• Queen Mab
• Maeve
• Lloyd Slate
• Cat Sith
• Jenny Greenteeth
• Lacuna
• The Leanansidhe
• Redcap

Summer Court

• Queen Titania
• Aurora
• Lily
• Sarissa
• Ronald Reuel
• Fix

Minor characters

• Andi
• Meditrina Bassarid
• Ron Carmichael
• Nick Christian
• Demonreach
• Malcolm Dresden
• Justin DuMorne
• Ferrovax
• Father Anthony Forthill
• Goodman Grey  Done
• The Genowskwa  Done (commented out for now)
• Hades
• He Who Walks Before
• He Who Walks Behind
• Hendricks
• Justine
• Kirby
• Lasciel
• Lash
• Mortimer Lindquist
• Margaret Gwendolyn LeFay McCoy Dresden
• "Mac" McAnally
• Elaine Mallory
• The Erlking
• Margaret Angelica Mendoza (Dresden)
• Martin
• Mavra
• Mister
• Captain Jack Murphy  Done
• Nicodemus
• Polonius Lartessa
• Don Paolo Ortega
• Samuel Peabody
• Dr. Helena Pounder
• Irwin Pounder
• Inari Raith
• Henry Rawlins
• Rudolph
• Sigrun/Ms. Gard
• Sir Stuart Winchester
• Shiro
• The Naagloshii (Shagnasty)
• John Stallings
• Strength of a River in His Shoulders
• Bianca St. Claire
• Agent Barry Tilly
• Toot-Toot
• Uriel
• Donar Vadderung
• Anna Valmont
• Tera West

Evil Bob

@MjolnirPants: What do we do about Evil Bob? Do we give him/it its/his own entry or should we treat him/it as an appendix to Bob's page? MinorStoop (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I say we leave him out of this page for now. We might add him later, but I think we should try to keep this simple for the moment. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me. I'll keep reining in the characters from the "Introduced characters" section of the books, and let you decide when the characters are done. :) MinorStoop (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Improvements

I'm working on this page. The claims of OR made when redirecting this page are bizarre: This is in-universe information, so the books themselves are sufficient sourcing. The question of notability is moot: These are the characters of a notable book series. So the criteria here should be WP:DUE.

With that in mind, I'm going to be trimming a lot of these descriptions, specifically to get rid of the book-by-book summaries. There's also some updating needed. Happy (Slap me) 15:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)