The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
Did Michael lie?
nadia.skylark:
--- Quote ---Michael is not a magic dude. He's just plain not well-versed in how magic works.
--- End quote ---
Which is why he might reasonably get mixed up.
--- Quote ---So wait -- you find 3 unlikely because Nicodemus would have suppressed any information about how the Shadow works, but 1 is likely because Michael would have been able to get information about how the Shadow works?
--- End quote ---
I think Nicodemus would be far more likely to get rid of information about how to get rid of a shadow than he would be to get rid of information saying that there is no way to get rid of a shadow without taking up the coin. This is because the former information in detrimental to Nic's cause, while the latter information is beneficial.
--- Quote ---The Doom of Damocles, as far as we know, only mandates Molly's death if Harry dies; to my knowledge, it doesn't say anything about what happens to Molly if Harry retires. After all, even if Harry doesn't use magic himself, he still has the knowledge to tell Molly how to do things.
--- End quote ---
Maybe. On the other hand, if Harry is no longer a wizard, he would presumably have no authority to sponsor Molly under the Doom, causing her to be killed by default. Honestly, we don't know enough about how the White Council works to know for sure.
--- Quote ---So, to reiterate what I said before, the whole idea of his lying is predicated on him not saying an extra clause that would only bog down the sentence because both he and Harry know it obviously hasn't happened in Harry's case, so it would be pointless to bring up?
This is a conversation between two human beings -- two emotional human beings, one of whom is worried that his friend is being taken over by a fallen angel. It is not a legal brief wherein they have to exhaustively list every if, and, or but. That is just not how people talk.
When people talk and they're emotional, they get right to the point and speak directly. They typically don't bog down their speeches with extra and/or clauses that are not relevant to the thing they're saying.
--- End quote ---
The point is that I consider there to be a substantial difference between the statements "No one as ever done x" and "The only people who have done x have also done y." I don't consider being accurate to a reasonable standard as something which "only bogs a sentence down," nor do I consider the information you are claiming Michael didn't mention as irrelevant. For one thing, it is possible to temporarily not use your magic and then pick it up again. (A lot of the issue here revolves around what Michael means when he says "give up your magic,"--if he means that Harry must believe that using his magic is intrinsically wrong, then I doubt that Harry could get it back later, but if it means pretty much anything else then I don't see why he couldn't go back to using magic after the shadow was gone.)
--- Quote ---That is not my claim.
My claim is that Michael is concerned about Harry; concerned with helping Harry get rid of the Shadow, and he has faith that the world will continue to spin if Harry doesn't have his magic. Michael is a small-picture guy, who believes that doing the right thing on a personal level will lead to good happening in the larger world.
He is there to help his friend Harry; he will also gladly help the rest of the world the same way he's helping Harry, but he's not making a cold, rational, tactical decision on the state of the War With [Insert Nasty Supernatural Here] because that is just not who he is.
Michael is not responsible for arguing against saving Harry's life and soul to let Harry take up dark power for the "greater good." That is the exact opposite of his personal beliefs and his calling as a Knight.
--- End quote ---
You might want to reread my arguments on the subject. One of my early posts in this thread explains the risk that if Harry followed Michael's advice it could make him more likely to pick up Lasciel's coin. I'll re-post it here:
--- Quote ---I mean, what happens if Harry goes through with it, gives up his powers, and still has the shadow? Is he just going to be fine with it? Given that Harry uses his powers to protect people (and based on the books, it is entirely likely that Harry would have to deal with innocent people dying because he refuses to use his power to save them) I think if he realized that Michael had lied to him he would be far more likely to disregard everything that Michael says/has said...and given that Harry still has Lasciel's shadow...
--- End quote ---
Mr. Death:
--- Quote from: nadia.skylark on February 27, 2019, 08:48:08 PM ---Which is why he might reasonably get mixed up.
--- End quote ---
More likely that he just wouldn't be aware of it enough that it'd be in the forefront of his mind. But eh.
--- Quote ---I think Nicodemus would be far more likely to get rid of information about how to get rid of a shadow than he would be to get rid of information saying that there is no way to get rid of a shadow without taking up the coin. This is because the former information in detrimental to Nic's cause, while the latter information is beneficial.
--- End quote ---
The description we have is just of Nicodemus destroying records. Saying that he's picking and choosing with that exactness smacks of trying to have cake and eat it too. He's only destroying the records whose existence would support my position, but he leaves around the records that support yours?
--- Quote ---Maybe. On the other hand, if Harry is no longer a wizard, he would presumably have no authority to sponsor Molly under the Doom, causing her to be killed by default. Honestly, we don't know enough about how the White Council works to know for sure.
--- End quote ---
True.
--- Quote ---The point is that I consider there to be a substantial difference between the statements "No one as ever done x" and "The only people who have done x have also done y." I don't consider being accurate to a reasonable standard as something which "only bogs a sentence down," nor do I consider the information you are claiming Michael didn't mention as irrelevant. For one thing, it is possible to temporarily not use your magic and then pick it up again. (A lot of the issue here revolves around what Michael means when he says "give up your magic,"--if he means that Harry must believe that using his magic is intrinsically wrong, then I doubt that Harry could get it back later, but if it means pretty much anything else then I don't see why he couldn't go back to using magic after the shadow was gone.)
--- End quote ---
"Accurate to a reasonable standard," again, they are not debating this in a courtroom. This is an arbitrarily exacting criteria to put on Michael while he's in a personal, emotional conversation. We can't expect him to be talking like a lawyer in that context.
That is what I'm saying is unreasonable.
And I say the point is irrelevant because obviously Harry hasn't given up his magic; ergo, there's no point in bringing it up as a point.
--- Quote ---You might want to reread my arguments on the subject. One of my early posts in this thread explains the risk that if Harry followed Michael's advice it could make him more likely to pick up Lasciel's coin. I'll re-post it here:
--- End quote ---
That argument is predicated on the unsupported idea that Harry giving up his magic will not get rid of the Shadow, and the even more unsupported idea that Michael knows or should know this; therefore, I don't find it at all relevant to anything Michael would or should have done.
nadia.skylark:
--- Quote ---The description we have is just of Nicodemus destroying records. Saying that he's picking and choosing with that exactness smacks of trying to have cake and eat it too. He's only destroying the records whose existence would support my position, but he leaves around the records that support yours?
--- End quote ---
There is every possibility that he is destroying all records. But if he does destroy records selectively, then it would indeed be in such a way that it would support my position rather than yours ;D
--- Quote ---"Accurate to a reasonable standard," again, they are not debating this in a courtroom. This is an arbitrarily exacting criteria to put on Michael while he's in a personal, emotional conversation. We can't expect him to be talking like a lawyer in that context.
That is what I'm saying is unreasonable.
And I say the point is irrelevant because obviously Harry hasn't given up his magic; ergo, there's no point in bringing it up as a point.
--- End quote ---
I think the issue here is that you and I have very different conversational expectations. What I am saying is reasonable by the expectations of myself, my family, and my friends. That is obviously not the case with you.
--- Quote ---That argument is predicated on the unsupported idea that Harry giving up his magic will not get rid of the Shadow, and the even more unsupported idea that Michael knows or should know this; therefore, I don't find it at all relevant to anything Michael would or should have done.
--- End quote ---
No. This argument is predicated on the very-much-supported idea that Michael can be wrong and should know that his information can be wrong because he points it out himself in Small Favor when he says that the Church sometimes doesn't discover the lies of the Fallen in their information for centuries. It is also predicated on the idea that Michael could be lying/exaggerating, which he definitely would know.
The possibilities here are:
1) Michael believes that he is right and is presenting a theory with evidence, but knows that it is possible that evidence is compromised.
2) Michael believes that he is right but is presenting a theory with no evidence.
3) Michael is lying/exaggerating in an attempt to help Harry.
4) Michael knows he is right because he was told by TWG.
5) Michael knows he is right because he has seen someone/knows someone who has seen someone who has gotten rid of the shadow by giving up their magic, and never mentions this for...reasons.
In scenarios 1-3, I believe that he should at least consider the consequences if he is wrong, and I am explicitly disregarding scenario 4. I find scenario 5 to be exceedingly unlikely, especially since he (according to his actual words) explicitly contradicts the possibility in Small Favor.
Mr. Death:
--- Quote from: nadia.skylark on February 27, 2019, 10:57:00 PM ---There is every possibility that he is destroying all records. But if he does destroy records selectively, then it would indeed be in such a way that it would support my position rather than yours ;D
--- End quote ---
So, like I said, trying to have your cake and eat it too.
This is also assuming that "wizards getting rid of a Shadow" is such a big problem that Nicodemus is not only aware of the possibility but actively working against it. Consider the events of Small Favor, where Nicodemus is caught completely off guard by the fact Harry no longer has the Shadow, plus Lash's own admission that she's never had to tempt anyone for more than a couple weeks before they gave in.
If anything, that indicates that Nicodemus isn't even aware it can be done, not that he's actively and specifically controlling information about that specific thing. Harry getting rid of the Shadow is such a rare thing that, even if it's technically possible, it's so unlikely that the one person on the planet with the most knowledge and experience with the coins completely ignores the possibility that it happened.
--- Quote ---I think the issue here is that you and I have very different conversational expectations. What I am saying is reasonable by the expectations of myself, my family, and my friends. That is obviously not the case with you.
--- End quote ---
I honestly don't see how it's a reasonable expectation -- certainly not to the point of calling someone a liar if they don't conform to that expectation.
--- Quote ---No. This argument is predicated on the very-much-supported idea that Michael can be wrong and should know that his information can be wrong because he points it out himself in Small Favor when he says that the Church sometimes doesn't discover the lies of the Fallen in their information for centuries. It is also predicated on the idea that Michael could be lying/exaggerating, which he definitely would know.
--- End quote ---
Michael believes that he's saying something that is true. He would not be saying it if he did not believe it to be true. When you say things you believe to be true -- to the point you're advising your best friend on a pivotal life choice without an ounce of hesitation or doubt -- do you immediately follow up with, "If I'm wrong, this won't work and you'll be worse off than if I'd never said anything"?
What you're proposing is that after Michael says something that he fully believes is true, he should immediately contradict himself and tell Harry the exact opposite of what he was just saying, otherwise he's a liar.
That is, again, not a reasonable expectation.
Mira:
--- Quote ---
In Proven Guilty, Michael tells Harry that if he gives up his magic then it will absolutely rid him of the shadow. In Small Favor, Michael tells Harry that no one has ever gotten rid of the shadow without first picking up the coin. These statements appear contradictory.
--- End quote ---
No, he doesn't make that claim.. The exact quote from Proven Guilty is page 459 paper back
--- Quote ---"Give up the coin of your own free will. And set aside your power. If you do, Lasciel's shadow will dwindle with it and waste away."
"What do you mean set aside my power?"
"Walk away from your magic," he said. "Forsake it. Forever."
--- End quote ---
Let's not forget that this is what Michael's own wife did to keep from becoming a warlock and it worked. Something that is very unusual because most of the time when the line is crossed there is no going back that is why most would be warlocks get the chop. So it stands to reason he thinks it might work in Harry's case. However he wasn't "absolute" about it and when Harry said, "fuck that." He didn't argue the point
--- Quote ---No. This argument is predicated on the very-much-supported idea that Michael can be wrong and should know that his information can be wrong because he points it out himself in Small Favor when he says that the Church sometimes doesn't discover the lies of the Fallen in their information for centuries. It is also predicated on the idea that Michael could be lying/exaggerating, which he definitely would know.
--- End quote ---
But makes Michael mistaken, not a liar.. If Michael deliberately had told Harry to give up his power knowing it wouldn't work.. That would be a lie.... That isn't what he did, more importantly there is no motive for Michael to lie to Harry in the first place... It isn't Michael's motive to get Harry to forsake his power, it is to rid him of the shadow.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version