The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
Did Michael lie?
nadia.skylark:
--- Quote ---No, it doesn't... That is the whole point, when something is taken on faith it isn't taken on any material basis at all... It really doesn't matter whether Michael's faith is in the Almighty or pink elephants, it's the belief that counts....
--- End quote ---
All right, let's go with that. Even if that's how Michael's faith in general works, I believe he had to have some reason to believe what he told Harry besides some nebulous "faith." I.e. he had to have some reason why he had faith in that particular solution as opposed to others.
--- Quote ---But Michael does see Harry as a good man, with or without his power, he'd still be a good man... As to giving up his power to save lives or souls, if Harry failed to rid himself of the shadow, how many do you think he'd kill? He came very close to losing it and killing innocents because he thought he had a handle on the shadow as it is, he was fooling himself.. Also who is to say that if he gave up his power to rid himself of the shadow that Harry could have become an effective Holy Knight, or save people in other ways. Michael would simply have said it was all the plan of the Almighty and not for mere mortals to question.
--- End quote ---
My objection to this has nothing to do with what Michael believed about it; the issue is what it would imply about TWG if the only reason was "sacrifice." I mean, set this a few years later: would TWG get rid of the shadow if Harry murdered Maggie? It would be an incredible sacrifice, and you could plausibly say that is was saving lives on the basis that if someone else harmed Maggie then Harry would end up killing a lot of people. But I don't think TWG would ask Harry to murder his child, because if He did then he would be a villain, and I don't believe that He is one in the books (not in real life either, but we're not discussing that).
morriswalters:
--- Quote ---All right, let's go with that. Even if that's how Michael's faith in general works, I believe he had to have some reason to believe what he told Harry besides some nebulous "faith." I.e. he had to have some reason why he had faith in that particular solution as opposed to others.
--- End quote ---
Your exercising a version of faith. You do realize that don't you?
The simplest explanation has been that Michael is talking about two separate ways of dealing with the Shadow. Telling Harry that the Shadow will fade if he quits feeding it, but that the only way to get rid of it permanently is to take up the coin and find redemption.
If you want to find a contradiction, that right there is a beauty. To get rid of the coin he has to do evil and then repent, but if he doesn't take up the coin and do evil then he can never be truly free. How f**ked up is that?
Given that, the moral choice is to give up his magic and never do evil, which is what Michael suggests.
nadia.skylark:
--- Quote ---The simplest explanation has been that Michael is talking about two separate ways of dealing with the Shadow. Telling Harry that the Shadow will fade if he quits feeding it, but that the only way to get rid of it permanently is to take up the coin and find redemption.
If you want to find a contradiction, that right there is a beauty. To get rid of the coin he has to do evil and then repent, but if he doesn't take up the coin and do evil then he can never be truly free. How f**ked up is that?
Given that, the moral choice is to give up his magic and never do evil, which is what Michael suggests.
--- End quote ---
I agree. This is why I said Michael would be willing to exaggerate in this case.
Mira:
--- Quote from: nadia.skylark on March 01, 2019, 06:46:38 PM ---I agree. This is why I said Michael would be willing to exaggerate in this case.
--- End quote ---
But he isn't, simply because the only way the coin/Fallen/shadow has been gotten rid of before is to accept it, reject it, and redeem one's self... Now it could be the reason no one has heard of the shadow being gotten rid of is there is no physical evidence except perhaps the change of behavior in the would be host.
nadia.skylark:
--- Quote ---But he isn't, simply because the only way the coin/Fallen/shadow has been gotten rid of before is to accept it, reject it, and redeem one's self... Now it could be the reason no one has heard of the shadow being gotten rid of is there is no physical evidence except perhaps the change of behavior in the would be host.
--- End quote ---
...What? I'm talking about in Proven Guilty. Michael says that giving up his magic would get rid of the shadow completely, and I was referring to the possibility that what Michael actually believed was that it would substantially reduce the shadow's hold, but would not actually destroy it. Morriswalters' post had a really good explanation for why Michael would say that the shadow would be destroyed completely in that situation.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version