In Proven Guilty, Michael says that Harry can get rid of Lasciel's shadow by giving up his power. Then, when Harry turns him down, Michael says that he has faith that Harry will find another way to be rid of Lasciel's shadow. However, in Small Favor Michael claims that there is no way to be rid of a shadow of the Fallen, and uses this as a justification for believing that Harry set up a little girl to be tortured.People can change their mind.
Am I misremembering/misunderstanding, or is this an outright lie about a major issue by the series' resident paladin?
In Proven Guilty, Michael says that Harry can get rid of Lasciel's shadow by giving up his power. Then, when Harry turns him down, Michael says that he has faith that Harry will find another way to be rid of Lasciel's shadow. However, in Small Favor Michael claims that there is no way to be rid of a shadow of the Fallen, and uses this as a justification for believing that Harry set up a little girl to be tortured.
Am I misremembering/misunderstanding, or is this an outright lie about a major issue by the series' resident paladin?
People can change their mind.
No, Michael didn't lie, up until Harry, what Michael said was true.
I also don't think Michael wanted to go up against his best friend, Harry, so he was grasping at straws that Harry could pull it off, but at the same time not believing it was possible.
Which time? The problem here is that Michael contradicted himself.
In the first instance Michael is trying to help Harry to do something he doesn't really think is possible.. So he suggests that if Harry gives up his power he can rid himself of the shadow... It is like if he suggested if Harry stood on his head for three minutes each day he could cure his brain tumor.. When as far as Michael's knowledge of this kind of brain cancer is concerned, it is terminal, but there is an outside chance that it could work.. Technically a lie I suppose, but it is also a bit of a prayer and a hope that if Harry was willing to do that God would remove the shadow.
Harry never handed him the coin and said, "here I reject this..."
Give up the coin of you own will. And set aside your power. If you do, Lasciel's shadow will dwindle with it and waste away.
I don't know of another way to end Lasciel's influence, but that doesn't mean there isn't one out there.
Because in two thousand years no one has rid themselves of the shadow of one of the Fallen-except by accepting the demon into them entirely, taking up the coin, and living to feel remorse and discarding it. And you claim that you never took up the coin."
"Then either the shadow is still there," Michael said, "still twisting your thoughts. Still whispering to you. Or you're lying to me about taking up the coin. Those are the only options."
*We know statement 3 is false.
In Proven Guilty, Michael says that Harry can get rid of Lasciel's shadow by giving up his power. Then, when Harry turns him down, Michael says that he has faith that Harry will find another way to be rid of Lasciel's shadow. However, in Small Favor Michael claims that there is no way to be rid of a shadow of the Fallen, and uses this as a justification for believing that Harry set up a little girl to be tortured.A misunderstanding. This is the first quote.
Am I misremembering/misunderstanding, or is this an outright lie about a major issue by the series' resident paladin?
“I don’t know of another way to end Lasciel’s influence, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one out there. If you should change your mind about the coin, Harry, if you want to get rid of it, I promise that I’ll be there for you.”This is the second.
“Then either the shadow is still there,” Michael said, “still twisting your thoughts. Still whispering to you. Or you’re lying to me about taking up the coin. Those are the only options.”First the context. Mab has brain wiped Harry, trying to keep Harry from attracting attention by using his fire magic. This makes Harry act out of character, thus leading Micheal to believe it is possible that Harry has fallen prey to the coin.
I don't think Michael lied because of who Jim wanted him to be. The perfect paladin.
In Proven Guilty, Michael says that Harry can get rid of Lasciel's shadow by giving up his power. Then, when Harry turns him down, Michael says that he has faith that Harry will find another way to be rid of Lasciel's shadow. However, in Small Favor Michael claims that there is no way to be rid of a shadow of the Fallen, and uses this as a justification for believing that Harry set up a little girl to be tortured.
Am I misremembering/misunderstanding, or is this an outright lie about a major issue by the series' resident paladin?
Him saying that there is no way to rid themselves of the Shadow is factoring in that Harry will not give up his magic. So he wasn't lying. Also Harry never did rid himself of her. She sacrificed herself resulting in her departure. We know that people can get rid of the shadow as everyone who has given up the Coin has none. The shadow is tied to the magical power a wizard possesses. So that is what Michael was talking about.
“I don’t know of another way to end Lasciel’s influence, but that
doesn’t mean there isn’t one out there. If you should change your
mind about the coin, Harry, if you want to get rid of it, I promise that
I’ll be there for you.”
I just stared at him for a minute. Then I said, "Hell's bells. And I thought wizards had a monopoly on arrogance."
He blinked.
"Or do you really expect me to believe that the Church has been there to document every single instance of anyone picking up any of the cursed coins. That they've followed through with everyone tempted by a Fallen's shadow, taken testimony. Made copies. Hell, gotten it notarized. Especially given that you've told me that Nicodemus has worked as hard as he could to destroy the Church's records and archives through the years."
Michael's weight settled back on his heels. He frowned..
I also think that Michael did not intentionally lie to Harry. That would be completely out of character for him. I think Michael stated the truth that he knew based upon his information and experience. His information was obviously incomplete. Harry pointed this out to Michael in Small Favor in the workshop:
Lash herself said that no Shadow had been with a person longer than she had been with Harry. Michael was in uncharted waters and trying to apply his experience to something that he knew nothing about. He spoke in error, but not maliciously.
Him saying that there is no way to rid themselves of the Shadow is factoring in that Harry will not give up his magic. So he wasn't lying.
The shadow is tied to the magical power a wizard possesses.
Also facts that Michael knows, no one has ever rid themselves of the shadow of a Fallen.
Point of fact, Michael does not say he has faith Harry will find another way to get rid of the Shadow.
I also think that Michael did not intentionally lie to Harry. That would be completely out of character for him. I think Michael stated the truth that he knew based upon his information and experience. His information was obviously incomplete.
Also Harry never did rid himself of her. She sacrificed herself resulting in her departure. We know that people can get rid of the shadow as everyone who has given up the Coin has none. The shadow is tied to the magical power a wizard possesses. So that is what Michael was talking about.
Do we have any evidence of this whatsoever?
The set aside your power and only by taking up and giving up the coin statements are still contradictory. No one has ever gotten a shadow and then gotten rid of it by setting aside magic (according to statement 3).
Michael's quote from Proven Guilty telling Harry to set aside his power.
Their is also some evidence that the Shadow was using only Harry to survive in White Night, but that it wasn't "healthy."
The set aside your power and only by taking up and giving up the coin statements are still contradictory. No one has ever gotten a shadow and then gotten rid of it by setting aside magic (according to statement 3).
I appear to have been unclear about what I meant here--sorry. I meant: do we have any evidence that Michael was right/do we know what evidence Michael had to base this claim on.None except maybe giving up her power prevented his wife Charity from becoming a warlock.. Also perhaps if he sacrificed his power Michael believed that the Almighty would help Harry shake off the shadow.
True, but Harry still had his magic then, so it doesn't speak to that. If anything, this is evidence for the fact that the shadow can draw some measure of strength from the Fallen in its coin, even when the host hasn't accepted the coin.Not strength so much, but knowledge, the shadow knew everything that Lasciel knew, also had all of her seductive ways.. As a wizard, Harry made full used of that knowledge and nearly was seduced by it, credit Murphy for sitting him down and making him aware of it.. It was a come to Jesus moment like confronting a drug addict who doesn't believe he has a problem..
Actually as pointed out, the records are sketchy because they have been meddled with over the centuries... The statement of the shadow verses the coin isn't contradictory, one is tangible, the coin, where as the shadow isn't tangible.. The shadow is the projection of the Fallen that after physical contact with it's coin sets up shop in the brain to soften up the would be host to eventually accept the coin. Once the coin is accepted by the host, the host is then under the control of the Fallen holding the coin.. The host benefits and usually doesn't want to give up the coin, but it happens, the influence vanishes and the man or woman if free to finish his or her life freely.. Usually with the help of a Holy Knight... The shadow is a flim-flam person selling the would be host a bill of goods... It never stops whispering, so it a lot harder to discard plus there is no tangible proof that is has been discarded... Perhaps claims of this have been made in the past, but were never true.. Remember in Small Favor, Nic was quite shocked when he called on Lasciel to take over Harry only to find out she no longer lived there.
@Morris: I'd agree with you if it weren't for statement 3. It's very hard to have that next to statement 1.Your number three.
Because in two thousand years no one has rid themselves of the shadow of one of the Fallen-except by accepting the demon into them entirely, taking up the coin, and living to feel remorse and discarding it. And you claim that you never took up the coin."Harry didn't rid himself of the Shadow. So Micheal was right. The Shadow was destroyed by a psychic attack. Statement one is more dubious. However you can read it as saying that while the Shadow is never destroyed, through disuse it can be forgotten. And Jim uses this paradigm more than once. It's basically what the Oblivion War is about. Out of sight, out of mind.
The set aside your power and only by taking up and giving up the coin statements are still contradictory. No one has ever gotten a shadow and then gotten rid of it by setting aside magic (according to statement 3).
Harry didn't rid himself of the Shadow. So Micheal was right.
Does Sonja have a shadow in his mind? He used to have a Coin. He's never mentioned it I don't think.
I appear to have been unclear about what I meant here--sorry. I meant: do we have any evidence that Michael was right/do we know what evidence Michael had to base this claim on.
True, but Harry still had his magic then, so it doesn't speak to that. If anything, this is evidence for the fact that the shadow can draw some measure of strength from the Fallen in its coin, even when the host hasn't accepted the coin.
Why would Nic go to the trouble of destroying the church's records if not to do exactly this. Perhaps it has happened in the past and Nic wanted to keep it secret in order to make someone like Michael think it was hopeless.
I cannot think of another reason than to prevent the exposure of a potential weakness.
Your number three.Harry didn't rid himself of the Shadow. So Micheal was right.
The shadow has to draw power from something.It draws its power from its Fallen.
Michael said Harry could rid himself of the shadow by giving up his magic. Then Michael said no one has rid themselves of a shadow except by doing something different.That isn't quite what he said. Your reading waste away as gone. That isn't clear. And then he says that there may be something he isn't aware of. Your 2. In your statement 3 and 4 Micheal becomes an unreliable narrator. He reports a truth as he understands it. In terms of the sequence as written he is taking counsel from his fear. He knows something is wrong and he clings to the thing he knows rather than the thing he can't verify. Jim has been pushing the narrative in that direction through the whole passage.
Your reading waste away as gone.
Michael: You've got ot get rid of the coin.
Harry: Love to. How?
Michael: Give up the coin of you own will. And set aside your power. If you do, Lasciel's shadow will dwindle with it and waste away.
The shadow has to draw power from something. If it can survive only on a wizard's power, then it would be believable that Michael believed that Harry would have to set aside his power.
Perhaps Michael was confounding black magic taint with shadow taint. Then he hit the books and realized his mistake.
The simplest explanation was that Michael lied to Harry in Proven Guilty because he believed what he later said in Small Favor. If he told Harry he had to take up the coin to rid himself of the shadow, that would be one more thing tempting him to take up the coin. Michael knows Harry better than we will ever know anyone irl. He has seen his soul. Michael could have thought that Harry's best chance of not going to hell was living for centuries with the shadow because Harry would have been too stubborn to ever take up the coin.
Statement one says the Shadow will waste away, not that it will be gone. And that can't happen since Harry won't give up his power which reinforces its existence. Which was the condition that Micheal set. This is true if you accept my use of waste away.
QuoteYour reading waste away as gone.Yes. I am.
There are two problems with this. The first is that I see no evidence that Harry's magic reinforces the existence of the shadow. The second is that I don't accept your interpretation of "waste away." If that was the sense in which Michael was using it, then he was being deliberately misleading.You don't need to accept it, it serves as an alternative explanation. We'll never know unless Jim tells us.
When I memorize numbers I reinforce them by repeating or using them. This is the sense in which magic reinforces the Shadow.
If your going to use the word lie than give me a why. I can accept a continuity error, are you suggesting something more?
I have trouble with this. I absolutely believe that drawing on hellfire for his magic causes Harry to reinforce behavioral patterns that are to the shadow's benefit, but I'm not sure why it would reinforce the shadow itself.Dependency, the more the potential host uses it, the greater the influence which eventually leads to the acceptance of the coin which is the goal of the shadow. Consider, on one level Harry was resisting Lasciel, but at the same time over time he became more and more dependent upon the use of things like hellfire, and he wasn't aware of how it was changing him.... It took Murphy's sit down and the incident with Molly and the fireball for him to realize how the shadow was changing him.
I'm interested in exploring the priorities of the Knights in general and Michael in particular. Specifically, I'm looking for an answer to the question "to what extent will a Knight do something that they would normally consider wrong to preserve a soul/souls?" We know the answer isn't that they never would, because I can't imagine a world in which Michael thinks that it is right to stand by and let a person be tortured under normal circumstances. We also know that they will refuse to compromise their beliefs most of the time no matter what is at stake, based on their refusal to threaten/kill Cassius themselves and refusal to go after the Denarians preemptively in Small Favor (even though they had taken a hostage and it really would have been a rescue mission).
(I may be slightly biased: I personally believe that letting someone else darken their soul by torturing someone is a worse act than torturing someone yourself, because you're letting someone else be harmed rather than risking yourself. I realize it wasn't intended to be read this way, but emotionally it feels like the Knights were saying that their souls had more value than those that would be hurt if they did nothing. Having Michael be lying makes me like him more, because it shows that he is human and fallible, just trying to do the best he can to help people even if it's not something he's comfortable with (meaning he didn't think what Harry did to Cassius was actually all that bad, and just objected for form's sake) rather than the perfect paladin who would never do that (meaning he stood by and let his friend corrupt his soul without even trying to intervene). )
It draws its power from its Fallen.Where is this stated? To my knowledge, the only explanation anyone has ever given for what powers the Shadow is that it's powered by Harry's magic.
Where is this stated? To my knowledge, the only explanation anyone has ever given for what powers the Shadow is that it's powered by Harry's magic.
Dependency, the more the potential host uses it, the greater the influence which eventually leads to the acceptance of the coin which is the goal of the shadow. Consider, on one level Harry was resisting Lasciel, but at the same time over time he became more and more dependent upon the use of things like hellfire, and he wasn't aware of how it was changing him.... It took Murphy's sit down and the incident with Molly and the fireball for him to realize how the shadow was changing him.
The Knights have a narrow lane with in to work, like for angels the rules are very strict. The mission is enable redemption by getting the Denarian they are fighting to give up their coins, or kill them in the process.. However once the coin is given up, it is out of their hands. That is why they refused to
mess with Cassius once he gave up his coin... Free will, it didn't matter what Cassius had done or was, without the coin he now had a chance to live the rest of his life redeeming himself ultimately or not, it was out of their hands.
That is the "catch 22" of free will, Harry's choice to punish and seek revenge over Cassius.. That isn't the job of a Knight, that is for the Almighty, what Cassius chose to do from there on out was his..
Where is this stated? To my knowledge, the only explanation anyone has ever given for what powers the Shadow is that it's powered by Harry's magic.It isn't stated explicitly. But with the Shadow Harry can use Hellfire, absent the Shadow he can't. Therefore the power for Hellfire comes from somewhere outside Harry.
It isn't stated explicitly. But with the Shadow Harry can use Hellfire, absent the Shadow he can't. Therefore the power for Hellfire comes from somewhere outside Harry.
True. But I don't think free will would have prevented Michael from trying to convince Harry not to/stop him from torturing Cassius, and if Michael truly believed that it was genuinely Wrong, as opposed to techically-wrong-but-actually-not, then he should have made the attempt.
"The Knights are here to protect freedom. To give those who are under the oppression of dark forces the chance to win free of them. I cannot sit in judgement on this man's soul, Harry Dresden. Not for you. Not for anyone. All I can do is remain faithful to my calling. Give him the chance to see hope for his future. To show him the love and the compassion any human being should show another. The rest is out of my hands."
Michael did make the attempt to stop Harry, but could not convince him to not hurt Cassius. Which pissed Harry off considerably because he doesn't understand Holy Knights or their purpose..
What you are missing is the context, Michael and company had defeated Cassius, in a ploy to save his ass, Cassius gave up his coin, which he knew would take the Holy Knights out of the fight. He had hope that his fellow Denarians would still take him back and he'd gain another coin. Harry saw though this and didn't understand the constraints that Michael has to fight under... If he had tried to continue the fight after Cassius gave up the coin, his Sword would have shattered just as Murphy's had against Nic... Harry continued to want to take him out, but now the fight was out of Michael's hands, but he did try to talk Harry out of injuring Cassius, Sanya, not so much..
It isn't stated explicitly. But with the Shadow Harry can use Hellfire, absent the Shadow he can't. Therefore the power for Hellfire comes from somewhere outside Harry.The Shadow allows Harry access to Hellfire -- that doesn't mean the Shadow is powering the Hellfire.
The Shadow allows Harry access to Hellfire -- that doesn't mean the Shadow is powering the Hellfire.When Harry buried the coin he wasn't aware of the Shadow. And he didn't understand what it was capable of. For instance Lash tells Harry in the Raith Deeps that she can show him how to summon the coin. So to me that means there is a connection.
Plus, isn't Lash being powered by Harry's power and soul part of the explanation for how she was able to grow and change?
Plus plus, Harry had buried the coin in a containment circle and cut himself off from Lasciel's whispers as soon as he got the coin.
All the evidence we have points to the Shadow being a separate entity from Lasciel, one that does not have access to her.
Plus, isn't Lash being powered by Harry's power and soul part of the explanation for how she was able to grow and change?
When Harry buried the coin he wasn't aware of the Shadow. And he didn't understand what it was capable of. For instance Lash tells Harry in the Raith Deeps that she can show him how to summon the coin. So to me that means there is a connection.Harry being unaware of the shadow is irrelevant -- Lasciel's whispers stop when he puts her in the circle. The Shadow is clearly not Lasciel, as Lash continually refers to Lasciel as a separate entity, and makes it clear that she has, at best, Lasciel's knowledge and extremely limited power.
And I didn't say the Shadow was powering the Hellfire. The Shadow exists because it is written in Harry's brain, the Shadow is doing a ride along. If Harry dies the Shadow dies. But the Shadow never acts in the real world. So where does hellfire come from?No, you said the Fallen was powering the Hellfire; I'm positing that the Fallen is not, because it's contained in the coin and therefore incapable of acting directly on or through Harry. That's rather the point of it being in a coin in the first place -- it can't act without something else willing to let it act through it.
No, you said the Fallen was powering the Hellfire; I'm positing that the Fallen is not, because it's contained in the coin and therefore incapable of acting directly on or through Harry. That's rather the point of it being in a coin in the first place -- it can't act without something else willing to let it act through it.Well, we see it differently. But maybe yours is the better theory. I'll think on it.
No, you said the Fallen was powering the Hellfire; I'm positing that the Fallen is not, because it's contained in the coin and therefore incapable of acting directly on or through Harry. That's rather the point of it being in a coin in the first place -- it can't act without something else willing to let it act through it.
I understand the context: that's why my assumption is that Michael is at least marginally okay with the torture, even though his job means that he can't acknowledge it.
Does anyone have a copy of White Night that they check? I don't have mine with me, but I think I remember something being said about this at the end (Bob saying something about how the shadow had a tiny piece of Lasciel's power that she stopped drawing on when she turned against Lasciel, I think).
"Oh, well," Bob said. "It is energy, you know. And I wonder ifSo the way Bob puts it, it doesn't sound like Lasciel was directly, actively powering it -- but that there was a "tiny bit" of Lasciel's energy that created the initial Shadow, which then started running off Harry's Soul when he started treating her like a person.
maybe… maybe… well, look, Harry. There was a tiny bit of
Lasciel's energy in you, supporting the entity, giving you access to
Hellfire. That's gone now, but the entity had to have had some kind
of power source to turn against the essence of its own originator."
"So it was running off my soul? Like I'm some kind of battery?"
"Hey," Bob said, "don't get all righteous. You gave it to her.
Encouraging her to make her own choices, to rebel, to exercise
free will." Bob shook his head. "Free will is horrible, Harry, believe
me. I'm glad I don't have it. Ugh, no, thank you. But you gave her
some. You gave her a name. The will came with it."
No, he wasn't marginally okay with it..
Hell, Michael and Sanya laugh about it.
He's a Knight and he might genuinely want to see the Denarians repent and be redeemed, but he's still a human and not above being a little glad when an asshole like Cassius gets a very-much-deserved asskicking from someone else.
Exactly. This is why I feel that Michael is reasonably okay with it.
Michael and Sanya waited for me outside the door. Sanya's face held a certain amount of satisfaction. Michael's expression was grave, worried, his eyes on mine.
"It had to be done," I said to Michael. My voice sounded cold. "He's alive. It's more than he deserves."
"Perhaps," Michael said. "But what you did, Harry. It was wrong."
A part of me felt sick. Another part felt felt satisfied. I wasn't sure which of them was bigger. "You heard what he said about Shiro. About Susan."
Michael's eyes darkened, and he nodded. "It doesn't make it right."
"No. It doesn't" I met his eyes. "Think God will forgive me?"
No, Michael wasn't okay with it, Sanya was to a degree, but then he is a former Denarian and has, shall we say a more pragmatic approach to things than Michael does..
Here is what Michael said.. pages 301-302 paperback Death Masks bolding mine
Michael goes on to say that God is merciful and that it isn't his place to judge.. Also in the conversation that takes place before Harry knocks the crap out of Cassius, Michael and Sanya before they leave do try to talk Harry out of doing anything to Cassius.. Cassius all the while enjoying and taunting Harry thinking he is off scott free and will get another coin.. After Michael and Sanya leave the room, then Cassius starts in on what he'd do to Susan the next time he sees her.. Harry loses it, also he needed to find out where Nic was, the Shroud, and Shiro.. Doesn't justify what he did to find out, but makes it understandable...
Michael was quiet for a moment, and then his expressionThat sounds like Michael isn't too broken up about it after all.
softened. He clasped my shoulder and said, "God is always
merciful."
"What you did for him was actually quite generous," Sanya said
philosophically. "Relatively speaking. He might be hurt, but he is,
after all, alive. He'll have a nice, long while to reconsider his
choices."
"Uh-huh," I said. "I'm a giver. Did it for his own good."
Sanya nodded gravely. "Good intentions."
Michael nodded. "Who are we to judge you?" His eyes flashed,
and he asked Sanya, "Did you see the snake's face, right when
Harry turned with the bat?"
Sanya smiled and started whistling as we walked through the
parking lot.
We piled into the truck. "Drop me off at my place," I said. "I need
to pick up a couple things. Make some phone calls."
"The duel?" Michael asked. "Harry, are you sure you don't want
me to—"
"Leave it to me," I said. "You've already got something on your
plate. I can handle things. I'll meet you at the airport afterward and
help you find Shiro."
"If you live," Sanya said.
"Yes. Thank you, Comrade Obvious."
The Russian grinned. "Was that a quarter you gave Cassius?"
"Yeah."
"For the phone?"
"Yeah."
Michael noted, "Phone calls cost more than that now."
I slouched back and allowed myself a small smile. "Yeah. I
know."
Sanya and Michael burst out laughing. Michael pounded on the
steering wheel.
Michael is also human, not a saint..
Considering everything, his reaction was very human. Did he disapprove of what Harry did? Yes, on no uncertain terms... However at the same time Michael knows the kind of person Cassius is and what he was and one cannot blame him for enjoying the irony of Harry giving Cassius a quarter for a phone call after he had given up a coin. He cannot be the judge of either Cassius or Harry for that matter, as a matter of his faith, judgement is for the Almighty, not him... At the same time he cannot be blamed for savoring a little dash of irony.
See, the thing is, when I disapprove of something, I don't laugh about it. Even when it might be funny, I try to avoid laughing because it undermines that disapproval.
To me, Michael laughing indicates that either he doesn't disapprove that much but feels obligated to say something or that he's being hypocritical.
I often laugh at things I disapprove. It's most common with children. They do something wrong, but hilarious. I have to control the laughter or hide and laugh silently if someone else is correcting them.
As to whether or not Michael was okay with the beating of Cassius, being okay with something and thinking it's not wrong aren't the same thing. People are often okay with the wrong thing being done.
One way to look at the Knights is to view them as both a human and a Knight. The man may be willing to do something, but the knight doesn't have the power to interfere because the action is outside his job description. Michael probably wanted to help Ascher, but he probably didn't have the power to do so.
But he wasn't laughing at Cassius being beaten up.. They were laughing at Harry giving Cassius a quarter for the phone, and the irony in that..
I thought they were laughing at Cassius' face when he was getting beaten up as well, which to me feels like the same thing as laughing at Cassius being beaten up.
They didn't watch him being beaten up.
Michael nodded. "Who are we to judge you?" His eyes flashed,
and he asked Sanya, "Did you see the snake's face, right when
Harry turned with the bat?"
Sanya smiled and started whistling as we walked through the
parking lot.
However it is possible to be totally against something yet get some satisfaction when it happens. Case in point, death penalty, one can be totally against it, yet when some really evil mass murderer gets executed it is hard to feel bad about it. What I am saying emotions are complicated, few of us are saints, and even saints have moments of weakness. Michael and Sanya are Holy Knights, it isn't their job to judge Cassius or Harry. The whole scene was complicated, Harry didn't just wack away at Cassius with the baseball bat just because he could. Cassius did all he could to provoke him and he lost it... Also there were many lives at stake and as a
last resort Harry tried to beat answers out of him... Given who Cassius had been and what he had done etc, it is very possible for Michael and Sanya to be against beating him up but at the same time find some satisfaction in Cassius getting what he perhaps richly deserved. Understanding something isn't the same as condoning something.
The way I see it is that the fallen powers the shadow continuously. There is a connection between the shadow and the fallen, so a circle isn't going to stop the fallen from feeding the shadow. A circle might break the connection between the coin and the holder, but not the fallen and the shadow.That doesn't make any sense. The whole point of the circle is to cut it off from everything else. And the whole point of the coin is to keep the Fallen from affecting anything outside the coin.
I think this because the shadow is fueled by the fallen. If the connection is broken, then the shadow will have to fade away or drain energy from Harry. If it is draining energy from Harry, he would be weaker, not stronger. In White Night, the shadow uses Harry's energy to go against the fallen. The shadow looks worn and haggard.It's not "draining" energy on that scale because it's just plain not something that big. The Shadow is, well, a Shadow -- it explicitly does not have access to the Fallen's power, just its knowledge and allows access to Hellfire. The most the Shadow does is stuff that's internal to Harry along those lines. The point of the Shadow is to be a tiny taste of the Fallen to tempt the coin holder into taking the whole thing.
Put it another way: do you think Michael would have stood by and not interfered if Harry was torturing an innocent child, just because he didn't have the right to judge Harry? I don't. Therefore, his reaction to Cassius' torture clearly indicated an exception to the rule based on circumstances.
In the same way, I am arguing, Michael normally would not lie, especially not about something important, but might reasonably make an exception to protect Harry's soul from Lasciel.
He wouldn't stand by, but Cassius isn't an innocent child
and he did try to talk Harry out of further action and he and Sanya walked away before what went down, went down...
Michael still would not presume to judge Harry even if he did beat up an innocent child.
That would have no effect on protecting Harry's soul from Lasciel, I'd argue the opposite..
I don't think Michael objected for form sake, if he did, he'd be rejected really quick as a Holy Knight..
It would be nice if it were all black and white, but it isn't, and as Michael would say, "the Lord works in mysterious ways.." In other words because of his personal beliefs and the rules governing his role as a Holy Knight, Michael cannot do more than he did, fight Cassius until he was either killed, got away, or surrendered his coin. Cassius chose the last, under the rules of being a Holy Knight Michael did his job, enabled Cassius to seek or not seek redemption with what is left of his life... At the same time Michael is very aware of the mockery of the surrender, that Cassius was trying to survive not seek redemption... He was also very aware that Cassius had knowledge that could save thousands... But he could do nothing about it but walk away, not because he was okay with Harry wacking Cassius in any way, and he voiced that... However as Harry pointed out to the then smug Cassius, he isn't under any of the constraints that Michael and Sanya were, so he proceeded.. Which
Michael was okay with because it isn't his place to judge Harry, because Harry doesn't have to play under the same rules that he does, and the information he got could save lives... When he and Sanya walked away they left it in the hands of the Almighty and Harry in this case was His tool... If they saw some humor in the bit about the quarter has nothing to do with it.
I feel like you think that I'm saying that Michael is an awful person and are defending him by saying that the evidence I'm citing is because he's human, when what I'm trying to say is that Michael is human, he's not an angel, and TWG does not expect him to be. As such he can at least slightly compromise his morals to account for circumstances, where an angel cannot do so without Falling. Uriel could not lie to Harry no matter what his reasoning--Michael can.
Can you please explain this? Suggested reasons for Michael to lie to Harry is that he thought his proposal would do some good but not as much as stated and that he was initially mistaken and did not correct his statement later because doing so risked encouraging Harry to take up Lasciel's coin. Both of those reasons essentially boil down to Michael trying to protect Harry's soul.
That doesn't make any sense. The whole point of the circle is to cut it off from everything else. And the whole point of the coin is to keep the Fallen from affecting anything outside the coin.
How can it cut off the Fallen from Harry, but not cut off the Fallen from the Shadow which is inside Harry? How can the Fallen be connected to the Shadow when it's incapable of affecting anything outside its coin?
And Lash herself makes it clear that she isn't connected to Lasciel anymore; if she was connected to Lasciel, she'd be reabsorbed.
It's not "draining" energy on that scale because it's just plain not something that big. The Shadow is, well, a Shadow -- it explicitly does not have access to the Fallen's power, just its knowledge and allows access to Hellfire. The most the Shadow does is stuff that's internal to Harry along those lines. The point of the Shadow is to be a tiny taste of the Fallen to tempt the coin holder into taking the whole thing.
Lash doesn't use Harry's energy to "go against the Fallen," she uses it to change herself. The Fallen isn't there; it can't be there, it's doubly trapped, in the coin and in the circle.
As such he can at least slightly compromise his morals to account for circumstances, where an angel cannot do so without Falling.
What you are calling a lie, isn't...
What you are calling a lie, isn't...
Yes, if Michael believed his proposal would help Harry rid himself of the shadow is not a lie...
Simply because Michael sincerely believed it, he wasn't blowing smoke... He was simply wrong about that or mistaken about that, that is quite different from telling a lie.. It is like if you have a bad cold, I drink a lot of tea and sincerely believe that if you drank a lot of ginger tea it could cure it and suggest it to you... It soothes but it isn't a cure. Did I lie to you or am I just mistaken?
I'd say he can compromise his morals because he is human. Like Murphy. I wouldn't say TWG is okay with it when Michael engages in situational ethics.
I also don't think Michael wanted to go up against his best friend, Harry, so he was grasping at straws that Harry could pull it off, but at the same time not believing it was possible.
On some level, as of PG, he probably also wasn't all that keen on the supervisor of his daughter's life-saving parole walking away from being a wizard.
I mean, he's good, but he's still human.
Define "help." Because I've proposed a theory in which Michael absolutely believed that his proposal would help Harry rid himself of the shadow that also had him lying to Harry.
Which statement of Michael's do you think he sincerely believed, then? Because he made two contradictory statements. Even if he sincerely believed the first statement and later found out that he was wrong, I find the assumption that telling this to Harry just slipped his mind to be utterly untenable--in which case it was a deliberate omission intended to leave Harry with misinformation. That's not technically a lie, granted (it's something the fae could do) but I think it's equivalent.
think TWG objects to the Knights engaging in situational ethics that lead to actions. I don't think He objects necessarily to situational ethics that lead to non-actions (ie Michael is not allowed to torture non-repentant former Denarians. He is allowed to stand by while they get tortured).Not unlike angels... The question of ethics here isn't a simple one, you leave out the part about how the lives of thousands were in the balance if Harry hadn't gotten an answer out of Cassius.. Is that ethical?
It was either a lie or a deliberate omission severe enough that I would consider it equivalent to a lie.
That doesn't make any sense. The whole point of the circle is to cut it off from everything else. And the whole point of the coin is to keep the Fallen from affecting anything outside the coin.
How can it cut off the Fallen from Harry, but not cut off the Fallen from the Shadow which is inside Harry? How can the Fallen be connected to the Shadow when it's incapable of affecting anything outside its coin?
And Lash herself makes it clear that she isn't connected to Lasciel anymore; if she was connected to Lasciel, she'd be reabsorbed.
"I can't"she replied, her voice anguished. "She would never forgive that. Never accept me back into her. . . just take the coin. Harry, just take the coin. P-lease."
Thank you for making my point, I think the problem here is we see what constitutes a "lie" differently.
What Michael told Harry may have been untrue, but only because Michael was mistaken, not because he deliberately told Harry this knowing it wasn't true, which would be a lie. Huge difference.. Also who knows? Since Harry didn't try Michael's suggestion, no one knows if it would actually have worked. To me a lie is something knowingly told as true when the teller knows perfectly well that it isn't..
Personally, I think that the issue is that at the end of Proven Guilty, Michael still believes that magic is a dubious/corrupting power, and that if Harry gets rid of it it will reduce the shadow's hold on him. He lies via exaggeration and omission to Harry (saying that it will get rid of the shadow and not mentioning why he believes Harry giving up his magic will help) because he knows that if he explains things truthfully Harry will turn him down, and he genuinely wants to save Harry from Lasciel. He tells Harry that he believes Harry can find another way to get rid of the shadow because he knows how important hope is against the Fallen.
By Small Favor, however, Michael has had a chance to watch Molly being trained in magic, and to understand that magic is not an inherently corruptive force. Due to this, he no longer believes that giving up magic would help against the Fallen, and tells Harry that there is no way to be rid of a shadow short of picking up the coin.
Welcome to the real world.... Frankly you've lost me here... When Michael first told Harry, he wasn't lying, he was mistaken... Actually he may not have been mistaken because that theory was never tested by Harry.. It was an unrealistic suggestion, understood by the time Small Favor rolls around..
Not unlike angels... The question of ethics here isn't a simple one, you leave out the part about how the lives of thousands were in the balance if Harry hadn't gotten an answer out of Cassius.. Is that ethical?
What was it exactly that he omitted?
Also who knows? Since Harry didn't try Michael's suggestion, no one knows if it would actually have worked. To me a lie is something knowingly told as true when the teller knows perfectly well that it isn't..
If I was going to use a spell targeting you with some blood, hair, fingernail clippings, etc., I would do it from within the circle. A shadow is a piece of its corresponding fallen. That's how they're connected. Does the fallen allow access to hellfire, or does it provide the hellfire itself? If we knew the answer, and the answer is as you say, I'd agree with you.To actually cast the spell, you have to break the circle. That's what Harry does every time we see him cast from within a circle -- the spell energies can't escape until the circle is broken. A circle is a closed thing, a trap.
On top of that, the coin itself is a similarly closed trap. The whole point of the coins is to make it so the Fallen can't affect the outside world without the willing cooperation of a host that's holding the coin at the time.
The idea that the Fallen itself -- while in the coin, not on Harry's person, and trapped behind a circle -- is actively, directly powering his magic runs contrary to every concept involved here.
The whole point of the coins is to make it so the Fallen can't affect the outside world without the willing cooperation of a host that's holding the coin at the time.The coins kick off the game when picked up by putting a shadow in the mind of the one who picked it up. Clearly the Fallen don't need consent to operate at some level.
The coins kick off the game when picked up by putting a shadow in the mind of the one who picked it up. Clearly the Fallen don't need consent to operate at some level.
Maybe. On the other hand, sufficiently powerful beings are not contained by normal circles--Harry mentions it when he's discussing the super-circle in Fool Moon.It's a solid steel ring, and the whispers Harry is hearing cut off when he empowers it. That seems to me to make it clear that Harry was able to cut it off.
The coins kick off the game when picked up by putting a shadow in the mind of the one who picked it up. Clearly the Fallen don't need consent to operate at some level.Sure it does. Harry picked up the coin willingly, right? And WOJ is that Harry didn't just put his booted foot down over it because on some level, he did want the power it offered.
It's a solid steel ring, and the whispers Harry is hearing cut off when he empowers it. That seems to me to make it clear that Harry was able to cut it off.
It's a solid steel ring, and the whispers Harry is hearing cut off when he empowers it. That seems to me to make it clear that Harry was able to cut it off.
Besides, again, the coin itself is a prison meant to keep the Fallen from affecting the outside world.
Sure it does. Harry picked up the coin willingly, right? And WOJ is that Harry didn't just put his booted foot down over it because on some level, he did want the power it offered.Just because I answer the door when you knock, doesn't mean you can set up housekeeping in my basement. Obviously the child that Harry was trying to protect didn't have the capacity to understand what the coin represented. He couldn't have made any type of decision other than, "Look,shiney, let me put it in my mouth." Which belies the idea that you have to let them in by knowing what the coin represents when you pick it up.
And note that Lash keeps urging Harry to willingly take up the coin properly. Harry has to actively make a decision to use the coin's power.
Why do you think they needed to torture Marcone and Ivy to get them to take a coin? Because they have to willingly pick it up. You apparently can't force it on someone.
Just because I answer the door when you knock, doesn't mean you can set up housekeeping in my basement. Obviously the child that Harry was trying to protect didn't have the capacity to understand what the coin represented. He couldn't have made any type of decision other than, "Look,shiney, let me put it in my mouth." Which belies the idea that you have to let them in by knowing what the coin represents when you pick it up.I never said or implied that "knowing what the coin represents when you pick it up" is at all necessary to pick up the coin. Having the capacity to know what the coin was is irrelevant.
I never said or implied that "knowing what the coin represents when you pick it up" is at all necessary to pick up the coin. Having the capacity to know what the coin was is irrelevant.
What's relevant is willingly picking it up. That's it. You chose to pick it up -- it doesn't matter in the slightest whether you knew all the consequences of that action. Just like getting hit by a car doesn't mean you made the choice to get hit -- it means you made the choice to step off the curb at that point in time.
After that, there's the choice to accept the Fallen and use its power fully. That might be a more informed decision, but still does not require that the Fallen lay out every single term and consequence.
What's relevant is willingly picking it up. That's it. You chose to pick it up -- it doesn't matter in the slightest whether you knew all the consequences of that action. Just like getting hit by a car doesn't mean you made the choice to get hit -- it means you made the choice to step off the curb at that point in time.
On top of that, the coin itself is a similarly closed trap. The whole point of the coins is to make it so the Fallen can't affect the outside world without the willing cooperation of a host that's holding the coin at the time.I'm trying to reconcile two seemly different points of view. If what you assert here is true then it would be impossible for the coin to pass the Shadow to a host. Since to put the Shadow in, the Fallen must act outside the coin. While Harry could be accused of willingly cooperating the child can't.
I'm trying to reconcile two seemly different points of view. If what you assert here is true then it would be impossible for the coin to pass the Shadow to a host. Since to put the Shadow in, the Fallen must act outside the coin. While Harry could be accused of willingly cooperating the child can't.
The word cooperated is getting in the way of his interpretation. However I suspect he is right in terms of the book, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
I'm trying to reconcile two seemly different points of view. If what you assert here is true then it would be impossible for the coin to pass the Shadow to a host. Since to put the Shadow in, the Fallen must act outside the coin. While Harry could be accused of willingly cooperating the child can't.It's easy.
1. Person picks up coin; by picking it up, they're effecting clicking "Agree" on the EULA they didn't read, which allows the Fallen to implant the Shadow, like an evil widget on your browser.
2. Person accepts the Fallen; by actually agreeing to use the Fallen's power, they haven't just clicked "Agree," they now actively using the program and letting it affect stuff on their harddrive.
So picking up the coin wasn't accidental or unwitting
To actually cast the spell, you have to break the circle. That's what Harry does every time we see him cast from within a circle -- the spell energies can't escape until the circle is broken. A circle is a closed thing, a trap.
On top of that, the coin itself is a similarly closed trap. The whole point of the coins is to make it so the Fallen can't affect the outside world without the willing cooperation of a host that's holding the coin at the time.
The idea that the Fallen itself -- while in the coin, not on Harry's person, and trapped behind a circle -- is actively, directly powering his magic runs contrary to every concept involved here.
It's a solid steel ring, and the whispers Harry is hearing cut off when he empowers it. That seems to me to make it clear that Harry was able to cut it off.
It occurred to me that Lasciel could have not been effected at all by the circle, but was letting Harry think he had the upper hand. I'm not saying I believe it; it's just a thought I had.
I've been rereading Grave Peril. I will say this. Michael could have been mistaken but he is totally against lying. He gets after Harry for it repeatedly. Michael wouldn't do it on purpose.
I've been rereading Grave Peril. I will say this. Michael could have been mistaken but he is totally against lying. He gets after Harry for it repeatedly. Michael wouldn't do it on purpose.
That's my position.
No, Michael didn't fully trust Harry though Small Favor until he was positive the shadow was gone, mainly because no one before Harry had ever rid themselves of the shadow without taking up the coin and rejecting it.. He also says he never lied to him, his fear was that Harry was lying to him. Michael may have been mistaken or not about if Harry gave up his magic the shadow would leave, but he did not deliberately lie to him about that.
So why did Michael believe that Harry giving up magic would get rid of the shadow, what changed his mind, and why didn't he tell Harry? (And please don't say "because God said so"--I'm well aware of the possibility, it just annoys me so I'm disregarding it.)Reread the explanations we've been giving for the last several pages, then. I don't see any reason to keep asking a question that several people have plausibly and competently answered already.
Reread the explanations we've been giving for the last several pages, then. I don't see any reason to keep asking a question that several people have plausibly and competently answered already.
Fair enough. There have been answers for the first two questions posted. However, I've never seen an answer to the question of why Michael didn't tell Harry, and until I see a good one I'm going to continue claiming that it's a lie of omission. (The other questions were posted purely because I though the answers might change based on what explanations people thought of for the last question.)Michael doesn't have to explain every individual step of his thought process -- most people don't, after all -- and Harry never asks. There's no reason for Michael to stop and go through all his thoughts.
Michael doesn't have to explain every individual step of his thought process -- most people don't, after all -- and Harry never asks. There's no reason for Michael to stop and go through all his thoughts.
Not walking through every step of his thought process is definitely not a "lie of omission," otherwise Harry is guilty of that to literally everbody he's ever interacted with.
QuotePeople can change their mind.(about Michael contradicting himself)
True, but... you'd think he'd say something to Harry before Harry forced the situation. I mean, it is his job to make sure people know the truth about the Fallen, after all.
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...
Suggested reasons for Michael to lie to Harry is ... that he was initially mistaken and did not correct his statement later because doing so risked encouraging Harry to take up Lasciel's coin.
Even if he sincerely believed the first statement and later found out that he was wrong, I find the assumption that telling this to Harry just slipped his mind to be utterly untenable--in which case it was a deliberate omission intended to leave Harry with misinformation. That's not technically a lie, granted (it's something the fae could do) but I think it's equivalent.
He never bothered to tell Harry that he was mistaken, even though, as I pointed out earlier, the consequences of Harry following through on it if it were false are potentially disastrous.
The only basis for this "lie" that I can see is the unsupported assertion that Michael must have -- factually and accurately -- learned that giving up magic cannot in fact get rid of the Shadow.
There is, frankly, no reason to make this assertion. You're really making this more complicated than it needs to be.
In the first, Michael tells Harry that the only way he knows to get rid of the Shadow is to give up his magic.
Harry doesn't give up his magic. Ergo, the one way that Michael knows of to get rid of the Shadow is obviously not in play. They both know this.
So later, when Michael says nobody's ever gotten rid of the Shadow, he says that including, by implication, the thing he said before because he knows it is pointless to bring up.
Harry hasn't given up his magic and isn't going to give up his magic, so Michael has no reason to retread a thing that he knows is not on the table.
There's no lie of omission. There's just Michael not bringing up something that is pointless to bring up.
So later, when Michael says nobody's ever gotten rid of the Shadow, he says that including, by implication, the thing he said before because he knows it is pointless to bring up.
I think it is a stretch to say that the set aside your power way is in the conversation by implication. Michael said "no one." (Emphasis original). He stressed the point. That's why I think the statements are contradictory.
And one thing no one has mentioned, Michael could have told Harry over the intervening two years between Proven Guilty and Small Favor, Michael and Harry are probably spending a lot of time together since Harry is training Molly. Michael could have easily told Harry that he was wrong about how to get rid of the Shadow.
In Proven Guilty, Michael never says there's a documented case of someone getting rid of the shadow by walking away from their power. He only says that's the only way he knows how.
It's entirely possible that this is a theory that someone in the Church came up with based on what they know of the Shadow and how they work.
It's also entirely possible -- probable, even -- that the average magic user who gets a Shadow into their head has the exact same reaction as Harry to the suggestion.
Ergo, even if your interpretation of Michael's line is correct, there's not necessarily a contradiction.
After all, Michael and half the villains know how to unmake one of the Swords; but it's apparently something that's never happened. Knowing how to do something doesn't mean that something has actually happened before.
In the meantime, I'd like to see something that indicates that Michael definitively learned that he was wrong. Where did he do the research (of records that Nicodemus regularly destroys)? Did he find another magic user in the intervening two years that -- again, in that time frame -- gave up the power and still had the Shadow?
Where are we positing that Michael learned this?
"Captain. If I were you, I would quit while I was ahead. Back on Minbar, there was a saying among the other rangers. Only way to get a straight answer from Ranger One was to look every reply in a mirror while hanging upside-down from the ceiling."
"Did it work?"
"Oddly enough, yes. Or, after a while you passed out and had a vision. Either one, the result was pretty much the same."
-- Marcus and Sheridan in Babylon 5:"War Without End #1"
In Proven Guilty, Michael never says there's a documented case of someone getting rid of the shadow by walking away from their power. He only says that's the only way he knows how.
It's entirely possible that this is a theory that someone in the Church came up with based on what they know of the Shadow and how they work.
It's also entirely possible -- probable, even -- that the average magic user who gets a Shadow into their head has the exact same reaction as Harry to the suggestion.
Ergo, even if your interpretation of Michael's line is correct, there's not necessarily a contradiction.
After all, Michael and half the villains know how to unmake one of the Swords; but it's apparently something that's never happened. Knowing how to do something doesn't mean that something has actually happened before.
In the meantime, I'd like to see something that indicates that Michael definitively learned that he was wrong. Where did he do the research (of records that Nicodemus regularly destroys)? Did he find another magic user in the intervening two years that -- again, in that time frame -- gave up the power and still had the Shadow?
Where are we positing that Michael learned this?
My problem is that his statement in Small Favor is so absolute.
Honestly, I just think it is a continuity error that can be explained away in a manner that reminds me of a Babylon 5 quote.
I don't think anyone is proposing that Michael was lying in Small Favor.
This is actually extremely close to something I suggested earlier, that Michael was exaggerating his certainty in order to be more effective at convincing Harry. This is actually my preferred interpretation, one that I consider to be Michael lying (lack of any evidence whatsoever and complete certainty really should not be combined in any truthful statement (I'm not talking about faith here, so please don't bring it up)), and one which I have pointed out is extremely dangerous--similar to telling someone that you can cure cancer by changing your diet.How is that a lie at all? Michael believes it. He says what he says because he believes it to be true.
How is that a lie at all? Michael believes it. He says what he says because he believes it to be true.
Are you expecting him to only assert something if he has, personally, completely verified it beyond a shadow of a doubt?
That is simply not a reasonable standard to hold anyone to.
I expect him to tell Harry if he has no evidence whatsoever to back up his position, because this is not a reasonable claim to make without any evidence whatsoever. Like I said, it is like telling someone that cancer can be cured through diet--you may well believe it, but if the person has no knowledge of cancer beyond their experience and what you tell them, then it is your responsibility to make sure they also know that no one has actually been cured of cancer through diet. Otherwise, they might not go to a doctor about the cancer, and when/if your diet thing doesn't work they'll die.That's just ... not how people work or talk to each other.
In the context of the world Harry lives in, people will die if Harry gives up his magic, and there's a big difference between saying "if you let these people die, it will definitely save your soul and prevent you from murdering more people than will die from this," and saying "if you let these people die, there is an indeterminate chance that it will save your soul and prevent you from murdering more people than will die from this--it could be 90% or it could be 5%, but I believe that it will all work out." If the second statement is true but you tell someone the first statement, then I believe that is a lie.
That's just ... not how people work or talk to each other.
If they believe something to be true, they say it as truth. It would be nice if they offered evidence, but, this might surprise you, two friends talking to each other do not operate as if they were making a legal case or a pitch to a board room full of people demanding evidence. And it is absolutely not a lie if they don't back up their own beliefs by pointing out that their own beliefs are unfounded.
That is, again, just not how people work or should be expected to work.
If Michael goes, "You can get rid of the Shadow by giving up your magic. Oh, by the way, there's no evidence of this and it's never happened," then he might as well have never said anything in the first place.
Michael isn't thinking about the whole world -- he's thinking about Harry and trusting his God that, if Harry does give up his magic, the world won't end. Michael has no responsibility to foresee the outcome of the choice Harry makes. Likewise, despite his protestations to the contrary, it is not Harry's responsibility to stop every bad thing from happening to everybody.
You're holding Michael to an unreasonable standard.
I feel compelled to ask at this point, why is it so important for this to be spun as Michael "lying"? The conversation happened years ago, and everything in it is moot at this point. Hell, the whole point of the conversation is that Michael doesn't know everything about the coins and their history and can't know everything about the coins and their history, so I really don't see the point in posing, "Michael lied, because he must have -- in both cases -- knew everything as a completely verified fact. And he also lied if he believed he was telling the truth, but didn't include a full presentation of evidence contradicting his beliefs."
Maybe I have different expectations than you do--my family and I frequently do present evidence to back up our positions in casual conversation. Even without that, however, I don't feel that it is an unreasonable expectation for someone not to present a statement with no evidence behind it as if they have evidence when it comes to life-altering decisions. People might not always share evidence in conversation, but I've always understood the assumption to be that they have evidence if they're making a statement of fact, even if they're not coming out and saying so.And I think the assumption here should, likewise, be that Michael has some reason to believe what he does. Do you think he made it up himself?
So, what you're saying is that Michael doesn't care if innocent people get killed, and further doesn't care that this will hurt Harry and risks him being more likely to take up Lasciel's coin? (If this isn't what you're saying, I apologize. Could you please clarify?) Whether he has a responsibility or not, he ought to care about that stuff. I don't feel like that's an unreasonable standard.No, that is not what I'm saying. Obviously Michael cares.
First, I'm not claiming that he must have known everything. I just can't see an interpretation that doesn't involve him lying/concealing information based on what he does know, and I want to know if other people have/can come up with one that fits the facts.You keep arguing as if Michael must somehow know, with certainty, that his earlier statement is false. And that he must somehow know that if Harry goes through with it, it won't work, and Harry will be more likely to take up the coin.
And I think the assumption here should, likewise, be that Michael has some reason to believe what he does. Do you think he made it up himself?
You keep arguing as if Michael must somehow know, with certainty, that his earlier statement is false. And that he must somehow know that if Harry goes through with it, it won't work, and Harry will be more likely to take up the coin.
That's the heart of it. You seem to be operating on the assumption that Michael found out -- factually and accurately -- that giving up magic definitely does not get rid of the Shadow, when the whole point of the conversation in Small Favor is that Michael doesn't have all the facts, he just thinks he does. The whole idea that he's "lying" is premised on an idea that's contradicted by the scene itself.
No, that is not what I'm saying. Obviously Michael cares.
But the conversation is not, "What are all the possible implications of doing this?" They're not having an in-depth discussion of the pros and cons of Harry's decision. The conversation is, "You should get rid of the Shadow," "Sure, how?" "Give up your magic." "No."
The conversation is about Harry; and before either of them could possibly get into all the implications, Harry outright rejects the premise entirely and cuts off any discussion of it. If anything, Harry should be the one pointing out that he needs his power to help people, but he doesn't -- does that make Harry a liar?
Again, Michael has Faith. Largely, he has Faith that things will work out OK.
He has Faith in the world and his God that, if Harry gets rid of his magic, things will work out for the better. He has Faith that, if Harry doesn't get rid of his magic, things will also work out, one way or another.
Michael doesn't work on the big scale. He works on a personal scale, because that's what a literally-one-dude-with-a-sword is about.
Okay, it seems like the premise of my argument has been lost. Here is what I'm saying:OK, that clears things up. I do not see them as contradictory, however.
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.
To resolve them, I see seven possible explanations.I see this as unlikely; with how Nicodemus regularly destroys records and only two years passing between the two conversations, I find it very hard to believe Michael found new evidence on that front while he was also busy being a Paladin.
1) Michael genuinely believed his statement in Proven Guilty, then later found evidence proving it wrong, but did not tell Harry.
This is possible, and is what I am calling a lie of omission.
2) Michael had some reason to believe his statement in Proven Guilty, but was in some way exaggerating/misrepresenting the chances of it working such that his statement in Small Favor is also true.No exaggeration or misrepresentation necessary for both to be true, as above.
This is possible, and is what I am calling a lie of commission.
3) Michael has some evidence for his statement in Proven Guilty such that he knows that it is true, even though no one has ever done it.This, as I say above, is the simplest and most likely scenario. Remember that Michael and his whole group have a fairly direct line to up above; and, as stated, somehow the bad guys know how to unmake Michael's sword, even though that's never happened before.
This is technically possible, but given that I cannot think of any evidence that would fulfill these requirements, I personally do not accept it.
4) Michael was lying in Proven Guilty to give Harry hope.I see no reason for him to lie like this. It's at best counterproductive.
This is possible, but I like it less than explanations 1 and 2.
5) Michael was lying to himself in Proven Guilty so that he would not have to face the fact that Harry would inevitably take up the coin.Simply not in Michael's character, considering the conversation ends with Michael all but outright saying, "And if you do pick up the coin, I'll be there to take your head off."
This is possible, but once again I like it less than explanations 1 and 2.
6) Michael was lying in Proven Guilty for nefarious purposes of his own.Agreed.
I do not think this is possible.
7) Michael was lying in Small Favor for nefarious purposes of his own.
I do not think this is possible.
The issue here is that my concern is what would happen if Harry says yes later. I think it is Michael's responsibility to take that into account, and you don't. Since I doubt either of us are going to change our minds, how about for this specific point we agree to disagree. (I'm perfectly happy to debate every other point, however :) .)How is Harry saying yes later any different from Harry saying yes now?
OK, that clears things up. I do not see them as contradictory, however.
Say, for instance, it's 1960. Someone at NASA asks, "How do we go to the moon?" and some other rocket scientist replies, "Well, we can get there by strapping three lads to a rocket and giving them a pod wrapped in gold foil to land with."
This is true. He knows that it's possible, because he -- and others -- have worked out the physics of it.
But until 1969, the statement, "No human has ever stepped foot on the moon in the last 2000 years," was also, 100% true.
Point is, people can know for sure that something is possible without that thing having actually happened before.
Everyone knows that the Swords can be unmade -- a bunch of people even appear to know the exact mechanism. But to our knowledge, the statement, "In 2000 years, no one has unmade one of the Swords of the Cross," is true.
I see this as unlikely; with how Nicodemus regularly destroys records and only two years passing between the two conversations, I find it very hard to believe Michael found new evidence on that front while he was also busy being a Paladin.
No exaggeration or misrepresentation necessary for both to be true, as above.
This, as I say above, is the simplest and most likely scenario. Remember that Michael and his whole group have a fairly direct line to up above; and, as stated, somehow the bad guys know how to unmake Michael's sword, even though that's never happened before.
Is Michael also a liar for telling Harry in Grave Peril that his Sword could be unmade by killing an innocent, even though that, too, clearly has never happened before?
I see no reason for him to lie like this. It's at best counterproductive.
Simply not in Michael's character, considering the conversation ends with Michael all but outright saying, "And if you do pick up the coin, I'll be there to take your head off."
So if I'm understanding you correctly, if Michael's line in Small Favor had been, "“Because in two thousand years, no one has rid themselves of the shadow of one of the Fallen—except by accepting the demon into them entirely, taking up the coin, and living to feel remorse and discarding it [or by giving up their magic entirely]," there'd be no problem?
How is Harry saying yes later any different from Harry saying yes now?
Michael says, “If you should change your mind about the coin, Harry, if you want to get rid of it, I promise that I’ll be there for you," so clearly he is, in fact, considering Harry changing his mind and saying, "Yes" in the future.
So you're a believer in explanation 3.Yes.
One possibility that's been suggested for this is that he got black magic corruption mixed up with the corruption of the shadow--in which case, it would have been simple to clear up.Very unlikely; Michael is not a magic dude. He's just plain not well-versed in how magic works.
This is possible, but given the information restrictions Michael was operating under, it's difficult for me to accept. For one thing, do you really think Nicodemus wouldn't do his best to erase any information that might let someone rid themselves of a shadow?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?
Very likely the case. On the other hand, it's been pointed out that he was probably in denial about the fact that if Harry did give up his magic it would mean that Molly would be executed.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.
Yes.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?
There's no difference whatsoever. I brought it up in response to your claim that the reason Michael had no reason to consider the negative consequences or tell Harry what evidence (if any) he had was because Harry said "no." My claim is that if he would have considered those consequences and shared that information if Harry had said "yes," then he should have done so regardless of Harry's initial "no" because Harry could have changed his mind at a time when Michael was not around.That is not my claim.
Michael is not a magic dude. He's just plain not well-versed in how magic works.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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...
Which is why he might reasonably get mixed up.More likely that he just wouldn't be aware of it enough that it'd be in the forefront of his mind. But eh.
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.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?
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.True.
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.)"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.
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: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.
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?
"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.
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.
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 ;DSo, like I said, trying to have your cake and eat it too.
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.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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, he doesn't make that claim.. The exact quote from Proven Guilty is page 459 paper back
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
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.
You are absolutely and completely correct. Which makes me wonder where Michael got the idea, since all of this is extremely good evidence that it wouldn't work.What? It is not evidence at all that it wouldn't work. The only thing it's "evidence" of is that Nicodemus isn't accounting for the possibility, which is only evidence against your supposition that he's specifically propagating the idea.
This is your claim. It is not a piece of evidence. I absolutely believe that Michael would lie given the right reasons. To use a more extreme example, if Nicodemus was torturing Michael to extract the location of his family, do you think that Michael would tell him the truth or lie to protect them.It's how the character acts and has always acted. Michael hates lying -- he always has. He's urged others not to lie. He has conspicuously avoided lying himself. When Harry lies, Michael is visibly uncomfortable.
Um...yes. To take a personal example: I have a learning disability. Despite this, my aunt thinks that I can get through college, even getting a PhD if I want. She absolutely and totally believes this. She has still admitted that she could be wrong, and helped me come up with contingency plans that would still let me get a job that would support me.You and your aunt are both aware of that learning disability as a tangible, factual, objectively observable factor in the discussion.
What I'm saying is that I see no reason whatsoever why Michael would fully believe this with no doubts whatsoever (unless he got it mixed up with black magic corruption or some such, or had been fed false information by someone) and there are several reasons for him to doubt this information.Except the fact that he says it with certainty, without doubt, and without hesitation. Because he clearly, obviously believes he's telling the truth. That Michael is saying it at all is evidence that Michael believes it to be true. What "evidence" he's basing it on doesn't have to pass your test, because what we're talking about is whether Michael was telling the truth as he saw it, not whether he could convince a jury of his peers that it was absolutely true beyond a shadow of a doubt.
What? It is not evidence at all that it wouldn't work. The only thing it's "evidence" of is that Nicodemus isn't accounting for the possibility, which is only evidence against your supposition that he's specifically propagating the idea.
And where did Michael get the idea? It's not relevant.
What's relevant is that Michael believes it to be true, and is sure enough of it to -- again, without the slightest hesitation or hint of doubt, and absolutely no tells that he's lying -- advise Harry that it's the right thing to do.
It's how the character acts and has always acted. Michael hates lying -- he always has. He's urged others not to lie. He has conspicuously avoided lying himself. When Harry lies, Michael is visibly uncomfortable.
Lying is just not something Michael does.
You're completely rejecting one of his central character traits here.
And Michael just plain wouldn't tell Nicodemus anything in that situation.
You and your aunt are both aware of that learning disability as a tangible, factual, objectively observable factor in the discussion.
The supposition that giving up Harry's magic won't work is not. It has been made up, in this thread, by someone who is not a participant of their conversation and it is clearly and obviously not something that either Michael or Harry have considered as a possibility.
Except the fact that he says it with certainty, without doubt, and without hesitation. Because he clearly, obviously believes he's telling the truth.
That Michael is saying it at all is evidence that Michael believes it to be true. What "evidence" he's basing it on doesn't have to pass your test, because what we're talking about is whether Michael was telling the truth as he saw it, not whether he could convince a jury of his peers that it was absolutely true beyond a shadow of a doubt.
What you haven't explained is why Michael wouldn't believe it to be true, or why he would say it if he didn't believe it was true.
"He could possibly be wrong," is not evidence that he's wrong, nor is it an argument that he has to doubt everything he ever says and argue against his own statements and beliefs.
Michael is a man whose life is based around Faith, not doubt. When he speaks, he says what he believes to be true. He is not someone who's going to hem and haw and contradict himself based on the remote possibility that everything he's saying is completely wrong.
You seem to be expecting Michael to speak and behave like someone who is not Michael, based on a supposition that did not exist until it was made up in this thread, and was obviously not a factor in his thinking years ago when this conversation took place, nor could anyone reasonably have expected it to factor into his thinking.
This doesn't make him a liar in any way, shape or form.
Except the fact that he says it with certainty, without doubt, and without hesitation. Because he clearly, obviously believes he's telling the truth. That Michael is saying it at all is evidence that Michael believes it to be true. What "evidence" he's basing it on doesn't have to pass your test, because what we're talking about is whether Michael was telling the truth as he saw it, not whether he could convince a jury of his peers that it was absolutely true beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Michael's evidence is his faith
...What? I said "you'd think if Nicodemus knew that the Church knew of a way to destroy a shadow, he'd try to get rid of the information"; you said "Nicodemus seems completely unaware of any possibility that a shadow could be gotten rid of, and furthermore Lash agrees with him"; then I said "You're right. And given that both Nicodemus and Lash should have far more information on how shadows work, this is evidence that either getting rid of one's magic does not rid oneself of the shadow or that no one has ever done so successfully." This is the equivalent of saying "Mab says that she has the ability to change Harry as her Knight. But Uriel says she doesn't. Because Uriel can be supposed to know more about the subject than Mab does, this is evidence that Mab is wrong."It really works the other way.
It's relevant because Michael's source(s) has an effect on the validity of this information. There's a distinct difference between him believing the information because it's a long-held church theory, believing it because he personally disapproves of magic, believing it because it's something Tessa mentioned in a fight, and believing it because the archangel Gabriel came down and told him. And if Harry knew Michael's sources, it has a good chance of affecting whether he believed the information.None of that speaks to whether Michael believes what he is saying is true. That's the measure of whether Michael's a liar, isn't it? Whether he believes what the thing he's saying is true?
...You don't understand how lying works, do you?Yes. And I understand that it's not a thing Michael does. It's one of the central tenets of his character.
Michael also carries a concealed weapon on a regular basis. He may be uncomfortable when called on it, but he is willing to conceal information in service to a higher good.Betcha a dollar that he doesn't lie about it when he's asked. Hell, when he's literally about to be arrested at the start of Grave Peril, his reaction is to keep his Sword where it can be seen and tell the truth.
The tangible, objective factor here is that Harry has the shadow--they're talking about what to do about that.You're moving the goalposts. Yes, they're talking about the Shadow. The non-factor is that getting rid of Harry's magic won't work. That is the thing that neither of them have reason to think about.
The possibility that Harry giving up his magic would not work is supported by evidence in the text. Michael claims it will. Nicodemus, as you pointed out, has clearly never heard of the possibility. Michael also says that no one has gotten rid of a shadow without taking up the coin. That is all the evidence for and against the position.Show me where in the books anybody positively says, "it won't work." Show me where that position is addressed in that manner.
I disagree with this.Why? What, in any of Michael's characterization throughout the whole series, makes you think he's a liar?
This, so far as I can tell, is a circular argument: Michael didn't lie in this instance because he doesn't lie ever, and we know he doesn't lie ever because there is no instance in which he lies.Well, yes? That's how "not being a liar" works, because if you're not a liar, there aren't instances where you lie.
YES I HAVE.[/u] Repeatedly.[/I] This keeps happening. Before you claim that I haven't said something, please re-read the thread, because you keep getting it wrong.You've said why you don't believe it's true.
I'm saying that there is no evidence that he is right apart from the claim he himself is making.And there's no evidence that he's wrong. There is, again, a possible inference that he might be wrong, but no evidence.
He "hems and haws" about trusting Harry. He doubts Harry. You can't claim that he's not capable of doubting and concealing information when we see him do so in the books.Yeah, I didn't say he was not capable of doubting; I said he's ruled by faith, not doubt. I said that when he says something, it's because he believes it to be true.
I am expecting Michael to speak accurately and behave like the character that I believe we have been shown (not the one that you believe we have been shown, clearly) based on clear concerns that he himself brought up, and possibilities that absolutely could reasonably be expected to factor into his thinking.Show me another place in the series where Michael gives advice to someone, then immediately backtracks and says why his own advice that he just gave is bad.
You apparently think that Michael has some intellectus for truth and to be inhumanly perfect, while at the same time gratuitously leaving information out of his statements such that they are inaccurate.No, that's not what I think at all. Hell, that's closer to what you seem to think -- that Michael knew for a fact that his own information was wrong, knew exactly what information he didn't have, and gave advice he knew to be wrong.
"Mab says that she has the ability to change Harry as her Knight." == Nicodemus and Lash think you can't get rid of a Shadow
"But Uriel says she doesn't." == Michael says he knows a way for Harry to get rid of the Shadow.
Because, you know, Michael is allowed to have information that Nicodemus and Lash do not. He is literally someone to talks to a direct agent of an omniscient source of information, after all. Plus? Michael and his people have incentive to figure out ways to get rid of a Shadow, while Nicodemus and Lash do not.
None of that speaks to whether Michael believes what he is saying is true. That's the measure of whether Michael's a liar, isn't it? Whether he believes what the thing he's saying is true?
Someone who's a Flat Earther might be hilariously wrong about the nature of the world, but if he or she believes what they're saying is true, that means they're not a liar -- stupid, misguided and misinformed, yes, but not a liar.
Yes. And I understand that it's not a thing Michael does. It's one of the central tenets of his character.
Betcha a dollar that he doesn't lie about it when he's asked. Hell, when he's literally about to be arrested at the start of Grave Peril, his reaction is to keep his Sword where it can be seen and tell the truth.
And here's a question: What is the "higher good" served by this supposed lie? As you have pointed out, at length, if Michael is wrong, if getting rid of Harry's magic doesn't get rid of the Shadow, then it's nothing but bad news for everybody involved.
So, again, why on Earth would Michael lie about it?
You're moving the goalposts. Yes, they're talking about the Shadow. The non-factor is that getting rid of Harry's magic won't work. That is the thing that neither of them have reason to think about.
Show me where in the books anybody positively says, "it won't work." Show me where that position is addressed in that manner.
The only data point we have on, "Will giving up Harry's magic get rid of the Shadow?" is Michael's assertion that it would work.
We do not have any data points on someone trying it and it not working.
We do not have any data points of someone saying that it doesn't work, anecdotally or otherwise.
Why? What, in any of Michael's characterization throughout the whole series, makes you think he's a liar?
Well, yes? That's how "not being a liar" works, because if you're not a liar, there aren't instances where you lie.
We've Michael him in situations where he's been asked to lie and he explicitly refused to; we've seen him in situations where others have lied on his behalf and he's been uncomfortable about it. We've seen him presented with lies from various sources and his response has always been some variation on, "Lying is wrong, I don't do it and you shouldn't either."
So, Michael doesn't lie. When he says something as if he believes it to be true, then he believes it to be true. So far, the only thing pointing to Michael being dishonest is your insistence that he must be lying.
You haven't presented any proof that Michael has evidence it's not true when he speaks in Proven Guilty. There's a possible inference that he learned he was wrong by the time of Small Favor, but that is by no means evidence that he was wrong and knew he was wrong in Proven Guilty.
You haven't presented anyone having told Michael it's not true at any point.
You haven't presented any compelling reason for Michael to say this thing to Harry if he believed it wasn't true -- in fact, you've presented a lot of reasons why Michael wouldn't say it if it wasn't true.
So, again, what is the "good reason" for Michael to take an action that you yourself have argued is going to end badly for everyone involved?
Show me another place in the series where Michael gives advice to someone, then immediately backtracks and says why his own advice that he just gave is bad.
Because that's what you're suggesting Michael should have done. It doesn't sound like anything Michael's done that I can recall.
As I have said, repeatedly, I think that when Michael says something as if it's a fact, he believes that to be a fact.
But why does Michael have faith that giving up his magic will save Harry from the shadow? (As opposed to, say, having faith that Harry's good works will save him, or having faith that Harry converting to Christianity will save him, or having faith that if Harry falls in love that it will save him, or... He has to have a reason, is my point.)
For one thing it would be a real sacrifice on Harry's part,
as I said it saved Charity from being a warlock.
It really doesn't matter, it is a sincere belief on Michael's part, and he sincerely wants to help his friend. Faith isn't logical, it is what it is and Michael has more of it than almost anyone.
Yes, Michael is allowed to have information that Nicodemus does not. (I have significant doubts that he could have information on this topic that Lash does not, considering what she is, but she doesn't say that it's impossible to be rid of the shadow in such a way--only that no one has ever held out against a shadow for as long as Harry.) Yes, Michael is allowed to be told things by TWG and their agents. I have explicitly brought up the possibility and stated that I was, for purely personal and subjective reasons, I was disregarding it. Since no one said anything about it, I had assumed that others were doing the same for the purposes of this discussion. If your claim is that I am wrong to disregard it, please say so and I will stop arguing the point.Given it's a source we know Michael has gotten information from before, yes, I think it's wrong to disregard. It'd be like saying, "How does Harry know this? And don't say Bob told him."
Absent the above point, however, Nicodemus has far more reason to know anything about the shadows than Michael, based on the information he has access to. And I would argue that he does have an incentive to keep track of other people's theories about what could get rid of the shadow in order to either make sure they don't work or see that they are forgotten/discredited.If getting rid of a Shadow is a possibility, it is exceedingly rare. I mean, it's probably super rare that a wizard gets a coin in the first place -- most of the wielders we've seen don't appear to have been wizards or sorcerers before they got the coin. My point is not, "Nicodemus doesn't know about it, so it's impossible," the point is, "Nicodemus doesn't consider it a factor because it almost never happens, so he doesn't care enough to bother looking into it. Michael and his ilk, on the other hand really really want a way to remove the Shadow, therefore they'd have looked for it actively."
It speaks to whether a reasonable person would believe it utterly, believe it's probably true, believe it might be true, or disbelieve it. I do not believe that Michael is stupid; I do believe that he is reasonable. I do also believe that Michael is capable of lying to himself about how high the chances are because he genuinely cares about Harry and doesn't want him to give in to the Fallen.Michael believes it. Harry trusts Michael implicitly -- so to Harry, Michael believing it means that it's trustworthy, because Michael is trustworthy, and to Harry's knowledge -- and ours -- Michael would not tell Harry something that Michael believed would bring Harry to harm.
And Michael forgives people--it's a central tenet of his character. That does not mean that he wouldn't have chosen vengeance against that priest guy who kidnapped his daughter without Harry's help--we have that from Uriel. The fact that Michael generally does not lie does not mean that he would not do so under extraordinary circumstances, and I am arguing that these circumstances are extraordinary.How? Who's putting the gun to Michael's children's heads and forcing him to lie?
By this measure, he did tell Harry that there was no way to get rid of the shadow without taking up the coin when asked (this is support for the "lie of omission" theory, not any of the others).No. When asked, Michael told Harry that to get rid of the shadow, he needs to get rid of his magic.
Because Michael believes that it will help, just not as much as he says,If what Michael is saying is a lie and Michael knows it, then Michael telling Harry does not help at all. As you have argued, if Harry tries to get rid of his magic and doesn't get rid of the Shadow, then it will only make things worse.
because Michael believes that Harry never will take him up on it and believes that it is important that Harry have hope that there is some way of getting rid of the shadow,Michael's reaction is clearly disappointed that Harry won't take him up on the offer; there are a number of ways Michael could have given Harry hope without lying if that was the case. There is no indication in the scene that Michael was trying to offer false hope.
because Michael is lying to himself instead of Harry and doesn't emotionally face the real probability that Harry will be corrupted until he talks to Sanya about it in Small Favor,Not true, because Michael ends the conversation by explicitly and directly confronting Harry with what he will do if Harry succumbs to the coin.
or because he hasn't quite gotten over the issues he had with magic in Small Favor and believes that Harry's magic is inherently corruptive/leaves him more vulnerable to corruption (if this last is true, then I believe that he got over it after watching Molly's training).Also not true, because the event they're driving home from is Harry volunteering to train Molly and Michael clearly approving of such an arrangement.
There are plenty of reasons.And none of them work.
Can you explain this? I genuinely don't understand either how I'm moving the goalposts or (inclusive or)Putting this in spoilers just to save room.
why Michael has no reason to consider that it might not work (or why Harry would not have had reason to consider it if he'd thought about it for more that two seconds).See below.
We have Michael claiming that it would work. We have Nicodemus having no knowledge that it is possible at all for someone to get rid of a shadow, which I have said is another data point (since if it could be done, there's a good chance that Nicodemus would know about it. We have no evidence of it failing or succeeding. I personally consider the odds of it working to be 60-40 against, but you probably calculate them differently.Nicodemus having no knowledge is not a data point -- it's a lack of one. If Nicodemus had positively claimed Michael was full of crap, that would be one thing -- though I would probably still doubt it, because Nicodemus is a liar who has incentive to lie here.
The part where Michael prioritizes saving souls above all else. My argument is, and always has been, that Michael would be willing to lie only for the purpose of saving a soul.And how does Harry giving up his magic, retaining the Shadow, resenting Michael for it, and possibly taking up the coin again save Harry's soul?
The problem is that I'm saying "well here is a place where he might have lied" and you are saying "he didn't lie there because he doesn't lie ever" when if I'm correct and he did lie there it would invalidate the claim that he doesn't lie ever. That is why I am calling it a circular argument.I'm saying we have a whole lot of evidence that Michael doesn't lie; and someone who doesn't lie often, has an aversion to lying, and has been shown as visibly uncomfortable when other people lie? They don't lie very well. Michael presents no tells that he's lying. He doesn't hesitate, he doesn't stop to think, he doesn't look away, he just straight up, instantly, tells Harry that there's a way to get rid of a Shadow.
We have never seen Michael in a position where he must lie in order to save a soul, and instead tells the truth. We have seen him do things which he is uncomfortable with to serve a higher good. We have seen him deliberately omit facts when telling Harry things. This is circumstantial evidence, yes, but while it exists it provides support for the possibility that Michael might have lied.I think Michael would posit that lying doesn't save souls; in fact, that lying taints the soul. Lying is, among other things, one of the problems he has with the Denarians in general. I mean, hell, isn't Satan referred to as things like the "lord of lies"? With all that in mind, I do not for a second believe Michael is the kind of person who would make that compromise based on what we've seen in the books.
I have presented reasons why Michael wouldn't have evidence that it is true. I have also stated that one of my preferred theories is that Michael did not know he was wrong during Proven Guilty, and only found out later. I have presented evidence that Michael has said that the Fallen have deceived the Church about information before--are you claiming that he was lying then? :)I am claiming that, he makes his own judgments of whether the information he finds is true or not, with the knowledge that sometimes the Church's information is not accurate.
See above.As said, I am as unconvinced that any of those are compelling reasons.
Michael tells Harry that it was wrong to torture Cassius only to laugh about the subject a moment later. It's not explicitly backtracking, but it certainly undermines his point.Michael still doesn't think it's right, and even afterward Harry has to continue justifying the action. You can see where Michael makes a sort of "clean break," where he goes from, "That was wrong and I don't approve," to, "Well, what's done is done. He's an asshole anyway."
And what is your response to my claim that he might have believed it at the time, and found out later that he was wrongIt's possible, but unlikely; and even if this is the case, his failure to mention it in Small Favor is inconsequential. Whether or not giving up the power removes the Shadow is a moot point because Harry has clearly not given up his power and shows no intention of ever giving up his power.
or that Michael was lying to himself?I don't see any reason to believe he was, as I said above.
Given it's a source we know Michael has gotten information from before, yes, I think it's wrong to disregard. It'd be like saying, "How does Harry know this? And don't say Bob told him."
If getting rid of a Shadow is a possibility, it is exceedingly rare. I mean, it's probably super rare that a wizard gets a coin in the first place -- most of the wielders we've seen don't appear to have been wizards or sorcerers before they got the coin. My point is not, "Nicodemus doesn't know about it, so it's impossible," the point is, "Nicodemus doesn't consider it a factor because it almost never happens, so he doesn't care enough to bother looking into it. Michael and his ilk, on the other hand really really want a way to remove the Shadow, therefore they'd have looked for it actively."
Michael believes it. Harry trusts Michael implicitly -- so to Harry, Michael believing it means that it's trustworthy, because Michael is trustworthy, and to Harry's knowledge -- and ours -- Michael would not tell Harry something that Michael believed would bring Harry to harm.
How? Who's putting the gun to Michael's children's heads and forcing him to lie?
No. When asked, Michael told Harry that to get rid of the shadow, he needs to get rid of his magic.
In the later conversation, Michael is not answering a question, he is making a point about why he thinks Harry still has the Shadow -- because, to Michael's knowledge, Harry has not done the things he knows of to get rid of a Shadow.
If what Michael is saying is a lie and Michael knows it, then Michael telling Harry does not help at all. As you have argued, if Harry tries to get rid of his magic and doesn't get rid of the Shadow, then it will only make things worse.
Michael's reaction is clearly disappointed that Harry won't take him up on the offer; there are a number of ways Michael could have given Harry hope without lying if that was the case. There is no indication in the scene that Michael was trying to offer false hope.
If Michael truly did not know a way to get rid of the Shadow, he would have straight up told Harry, "I don't know how. But that doesn't mean there isn't a way, and I will be right there with you helping you through this."
Not true, because Michael ends the conversation by explicitly and directly confronting Harry with what he will do if Harry succumbs to the coin.
Also not true, because the event they're driving home from is Harry volunteering to train Molly and Michael clearly approving of such an arrangement.
And I don't see anything to indicate Michael considers Harry putting aside his magic to be a higher priority than the risks you say exist if putting aside magic doesn't get rid of the Shadow.
In this analogy (and I do not intend this as any judgment or statement on disabilities), you going to and finishing college is analogous to Harry getting rid of the coin. Your learning disability is, if anything, analogous to Lash; the obstacle to doing the thing you want, a thing that you/Harry are well aware of as an obstacle.
Saying the disability is the equivalent of Michael's idea not working is disingenuous, because Michael's idea not working is just not a factor that Michael or Harry are aware about or would be, except in the sense that all plans that anyone ever makes have the unspoken rider of, 'If this works.'
Nicodemus having no knowledge is not a data point -- it's a lack of one. If Nicodemus had positively claimed Michael was full of crap, that would be one thing -- though I would probably still doubt it, because Nicodemus is a liar who has incentive to lie here.
And how does Harry giving up his magic, retaining the Shadow, resenting Michael for it, and possibly taking up the coin again save Harry's soul?
I'm saying we have a whole lot of evidence that Michael doesn't lie; and someone who doesn't lie often, has an aversion to lying, and has been shown as visibly uncomfortable when other people lie? They don't lie very well. Michael presents no tells that he's lying. He doesn't hesitate, he doesn't stop to think, he doesn't look away, he just straight up, instantly, tells Harry that there's a way to get rid of a Shadow.
How does he know? In the same scene, he admits that he's known for years that Harry picked up the coin. It only makes sense that -- knowing his friend has a Shadow in his head -- he would look into some way to help him.
I think Michael would posit that lying doesn't save souls; in fact, that lying taints the soul. Lying is, among other things, one of the problems he has with the Denarians in general. I mean, hell, isn't Satan referred to as things like the "lord of lies"? With all that in mind, I do not for a second believe Michael is the kind of person who would make that compromise based on what we've seen in the books.
I am claiming that, he makes his own judgments of whether the information he finds is true or not, with the knowledge that sometimes the Church's information is not accurate.
He is, again, a smart man. If there's a possibility that his information was wrong, do you believe he would not have even tried to verify it? If he found some old book that claimed you could get rid of a Shadow by giving up magic, do you think he wouldn't have looked into it? Prayed for guidance? Straight up gone, "Hey, Big Guy, we both know you owe me a solid -- will this help Harry? One lightning bolt for yes, two for no."
Michael still doesn't think it's right, and even afterward Harry has to continue justifying the action. You can see where Michael makes a sort of "clean break," where he goes from, "That was wrong and I don't approve," to, "Well, what's done is done. He's an asshole anyway."
You're right in that it is a contradiction -- but it's not on the scale of him questioning and undermining his own beliefs and advice. He still doesn't think it's right, just that it's funny. There's lots of things that are hilarious but still wrong.
ADDENDUM: Michael doesn't know Charity had any magical power. So whether or not it prevents warlockness is not a factor in his thinking, at least not because of anything Charity's done. I honestly just don't think the two are linked in his mind.
If getting rid of a Shadow is a possibility, it is exceedingly rare. I mean, it's probably super rare that a wizard gets a coin in the first place -- most of the wielders we've seen don't appear to have been wizards or sorcerers before they got the coin. My point is not, "Nicodemus doesn't know about it, so it's impossible," the point is, "Nicodemus doesn't consider it a factor because it almost never happens, so he doesn't care enough to bother looking into it. Michael and his ilk, on the other hand really really want a way to remove the Shadow, therefore they'd have looked for it actively."
He understands, thus the depth of the sacrifice would bring the reward, the end of the shadow..
I believe that if Michael thought that Harry would ever willingly give up his magic, then that implies that he didn't understand how important magic is to Harry and how much damage it would do for him to give it up. As such, either Michael did not expect Harry to give up his magic, in which case he wouldn't have any reason to consider the consequences if Harry did so; or Michael was missing information that would have told him how dire the consequences might be, and as such could not make an accurate assessment of the risks.
As I've said before, there is no evidence apart from Michael's word that Harry giving up his magic would destroy the shadow. There is, however, evidence that Harry giving up his magic would weaken the shadow's hold on him--the way hellfire ties into the shadow's influence. Hellfire is clearly a vector for the shadow to influence Harry. In the same book we see Harry using hellfire, we see the first negative effects the shadow has on Harry's mood. Further, the shadow can only interact with Harry's conscious mind once Harry has used hellfire consciously. Just as Mab prevented Harry from using fire magic because summer fire was entwined with it and would let Summer find him, Michael might believe that Harry needs to stop using magic in order to weaken/eliminate the shadow's influence on him, even if it doesn't destroy the shadow.
He understands, thus the depth of the sacrifice would bring the reward, the end of the shadow..
Key word here, evidence... Michael is a man of faith, he doesn't work on evidence, he works on his faith in the Almighty... His sincere belief is that if Harry sacrificed his magic with the help of the Almighty, he be rid of the shadow... For him it isn't about logic or evidence, it is about faith.. You can go on and on about this and that, but for Michael it is a very simple truth...
Yes, but even faith has some basis. This is why Michael believes in TWG, but not in fire breathing pink elephants.
I refuse to believe this on the basis that if TWG genuinely demanded that Harry destroy an essential part of himself and also much of his capacity for helping people purely because it would be a sacrifice in order to rid Harry of the shadow, then He would definitely not be a good guy, and I'm confident that Jim is writing TWG as the good guy.
It would be different if Harry was giving up his magic to save someone's life/soul or something, but he clearly wouldn't be in this scenario.
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....
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.
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.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.
I agree. This is why I said Michael would be willing to exaggerate in this case.
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.
...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.
...What? I'm talking about in Proven Guilty. Michael says that giving up his magic would get rid of the shadow completelyFull stop. That isn't what he says. He says that...
“Give up the coin of your own will. And set aside your power. If you do, Lasciel’s shadow will dwindle with it and waste away.”The context as regards Small Favor is that Harry asserts that the Shadow is gone, while Michael asserts that no one has rid themselves of the Shadow without first taking up the coin and then repenting, which Harry says he didn't do.
“Because in two thousand years, no one has rid themselves of the shadow of one of the Fallen—except by accepting the demon into them entirely, taking up the coin, and living to feel remorse and discarding it. And you claim that you never took up the coin.”Since Harry didn't give up his magic then Michael's assertion makes perfect sense. {dwindle with it and waste away} does not equal {gone}. And this is what I said.
“That’s right,” I said.
“Then either the shadow is still there,” Michael said, “still twisting your thoughts. Still whispering to you. Or you’re lying to me about taking up the coin. Those are the only options.”
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.
Full stop. That isn't what he says. He says that...Quote“Give up the coin of your own will. And set aside your power. If you do, Lasciel’s shadow will dwindle with it and waste away.”
The context as regards Small Favor is that Harry asserts that the Shadow is gone, while Michael asserts that no one has rid themselves of the Shadow without first taking up the coin and then repenting, which Harry says he didn't do.
Since Harry didn't give up his magic then Michael's assertion makes perfect sense. {dwindle with it and waste away} does not equal {gone}. And this is what I said.
And my point is not "Nicodemus would look into it on his own" it is "Nicodemus would keep track of what the Church believes about the subject, and attempt to prove/disprove their theories, because as a spymaster that's what he does."This is still assuming a level of micromanagement that's probably completely unnecessary for an edge case that probably never, or almost never, comes up in any kind of practical sense. If it hasn't happened in 2,000 years, Nicodemus isn't going to give a damn about the possibility.
That is an absolutely accurate assessment of why Harry wouldn't question it (even though I like to believe that if he thought about it he would ask how giving up the one thing he has faith in is supposed to help him against the Fallen--but that's beside the point).It's also just a reflection of how Michael acts and believes -- if he says something with certainty, it's because he's certain of it. He's not the kind of person who's going to lay out statistical probabilities of something working; he believes it will work, so he says it will work.
To play devil's advocate: The White Council, (well, technically a sword rather than a gun). Or what do you think would happen to Molly if Harry took up the coin? Whether she stays with him or leaves, that's not going to be good for her.As you say, it's at best remote; and I doubt Michael would be swayed, anyway.
In all seriousness, I think this is a fairly remote possibility--I'm more inclined to believe that Michael exaggerated rather than just lied.
If what Michael is saying is an exaggeration (which I have been calling a lie, but am realizing now that that's not a clear way to talk about it) then giving up his magic would help Harry. If Michael doesn't believe that Harry would give up his magic, then he doesn't need to factor the consequences of Harry doing so into the equation.Given how well he knows Harry, I'd be inclined to believe Michael doesn't expect Harry to give up his magic (which is probably why Michael doesn't press the point much). I wouldn't call it an exaggeration, per se, but as I said, Michael tends to speak with conviction and sureness; he believes it will work, so he speaks as if it's a sure thing.
Michael acknowledged the possibility intellectually, and knew what his duty was. He didn't necessarily accept it emotionally. If he had, I would think he would have had a stronger emotional reaction to Harry turning down flat the only way he knows to get rid of the shadow. (Of course, he could have just gone home and dealt with his emotions where they wouldn't undermine Harry--we don't know).He literally looks Harry in the eye and says that if Harry takes up the coin, he absolutely will be there, and says so while his hand is on his sword. I don't know what more you could possibly want on this -- Michael makes it absolutely clear that he is fully prepared to take his best friend's head off if need be.
Ah. I understand the problem now. The disability is not the equivalent of Michael's idea not working. The equivalent to Michael's idea is my aunt's belief that I can get through college, and the possibility of it not working is why we discussed contingency plans.Michael definitely expects that, since he outright says if Harry decides to change his mind, Michael will be there for him.
On the other hand, thinking it over again, Michael probably would have expected Harry to contact him if he changed his mind about giving up his magic, so he might have saved discussing "what if it goes wrong" for then.
Nicodemus not knowing that it is possible to get rid of a shadow is a data point. Here's why:I kinda don't think formal logic comes into play; we're not talking about randomized statistical samples here. We're talking about people with biases and prejudices and motivations. Nicodemus is arrogant as hell, and after a couple hundred years of nobody to his knowledge removing a Shadow, he probably just thinks it's impossible and stops worrying, if he ever worried at all.
If there was a known method to get rid of a shadow, there is a good chance that Nicodemus would know it. As such, the chance of Nicodemus not knowing it is significantly less than 100%.
If there is no known method to get rid of a shadow, then the chance that Nicodemus did not know of one is 100%.
According to my understanding of formal logic, this works out to mean that Nicodemus not knowing the information means that it is more likely that there is no known way to get rid of a shadow than that there is one, based on the information given.
I think he does try to verify his information. How successful he is and when he is successful are different questions.True. I won't posit that he can go to The Man Upstairs for confirmation on everything, but given what we see in the books, I'd suggest that his intuition and "gut feeling" is probably more accurate than most when he's trying to suss out the truth.
I don't mean that he should undermine what he has said. I mean that he could say "I'm 95% certain of this" rather than "I'm 100% certain of this."That's just not how Michael works. If he's saying, "Do this and it will work," that indicates he's certain of it.
Explanations:Fair on the first bit. On the second, again, I have to insist that Michael has no reason to be aware of these risks, and that the "missing information" didn't exist until it was posited in this thread. It's just not a reasonable concern he would have or should have had, and it's unfair to expect him to account for it.
Why Michael would tell Harry to give up his magic if he were uncertain it would work, given the consequences:
I believe that if Michael thought that Harry would ever willingly give up his magic, then that implies that he didn't understand how important magic is to Harry and how much damage it would do for him to give it up. As such, either Michael did not expect Harry to give up his magic, in which case he wouldn't have any reason to consider the consequences if Harry did so; or Michael was missing information that would have told him how dire the consequences might be, and as such could not make an accurate assessment of the risks.
On Michael exaggerating:I agree with this in the sense that, if there is no documented evidence of someone giving up their magic to weaken/get rid of a Shadow, this is almost certainly the chain of logic that led to the conclusion that getting rid of one's magic would get rid of a Shadow.
As I've said before, there is no evidence apart from Michael's word that Harry giving up his magic would destroy the shadow. There is, however, evidence that Harry giving up his magic would weaken the shadow's hold on him--the way hellfire ties into the shadow's influence. Hellfire is clearly a vector for the shadow to influence Harry. In the same book we see Harry using hellfire, we see the first negative effects the shadow has on Harry's mood. Further, the shadow can only interact with Harry's conscious mind once Harry has used hellfire consciously. Just as Mab prevented Harry from using fire magic because summer fire was entwined with it and would let Summer find him, Michael might believe that Harry needs to stop using magic in order to weaken/eliminate the shadow's influence on him, even if it doesn't destroy the shadow.
This is still assuming a level of micromanagement that's probably completely unnecessary for an edge case that probably never, or almost never, comes up in any kind of practical sense. If it hasn't happened in 2,000 years, Nicodemus isn't going to give a damn about the possibility.
"Shadow, if you would, disable Dresden. We'll talk some sense into him later, in a quieter setting."
He was talking to Lasciel's shadow.
"Lasciel's shadow," I told him, "doesn't live here anymore. The Fallen have no power
over me. And neither do you."
It's also just a reflection of how Michael acts and believes -- if he says something with certainty, it's because he's certain of it. He's not the kind of person who's going to lay out statistical probabilities of something working; he believes it will work, so he says it will work.
Look, for instance, at Grave Peril -- while they're surrounded by vampires and Michael is shouting that they can win the fight. At best they're in a position to go down swinging, but Michael believes he can win, so he says so -- he doesn't say, "On your feet, Harry, we have a 65.4% chance of winning this fight!"
Given how well he knows Harry, I'd be inclined to believe Michael doesn't expect Harry to give up his magic (which is probably why Michael doesn't press the point much). I wouldn't call it an exaggeration, per se, but as I said, Michael tends to speak with conviction and sureness; he believes it will work, so he speaks as if it's a sure thing.
I agree with this in the sense that, if there is no documented evidence of someone giving up their magic to weaken/get rid of a Shadow, this is almost certainly the chain of logic that led to the conclusion that getting rid of one's magic would get rid of a Shadow.
This is still assuming a level of micromanagement that's probably completely unnecessary for an edge case that probably never, or almost never, comes up in any kind of practical sense. If it hasn't happened in 2,000 years, Nicodemus isn't going to give a damn about the possibility.
As you say, it's at best remote; and I doubt Michael would be swayed, anyway.
He literally looks Harry in the eye and says that if Harry takes up the coin, he absolutely will be there, and says so while his hand is on his sword. I don't know what more you could possibly want on this -- Michael makes it absolutely clear that he is fully prepared to take his best friend's head off if need be.
I kinda don't think formal logic comes into play; we're not talking about randomized statistical samples here.
Nicodemus is arrogant as hell, and after a couple hundred years of nobody to his knowledge removing a Shadow, he probably just thinks it's impossible and stops worrying, if he ever worried at all.
He's as vulnerable to confirmation bias as anyone, so if he doesn't want there to be a way to get rid of a Shadow, and in a couple hundred years, nobody does, that's good enough for him to conclude that it's simply a non-issue.
True. I won't posit that he can go to The Man Upstairs for confirmation on everything, but given what we see in the books, I'd suggest that his intuition and "gut feeling" is probably more accurate than most when he's trying to suss out the truth.
Fair on the first bit. On the second, again, I have to insist that Michael has no reason to be aware of these risks, and that the "missing information" didn't exist until it was posited in this thread. It's just not a reasonable concern he would have or should have had, and it's unfair to expect him to account for it.
I wouldn't call it an exaggeration, per se, but as I said, Michael tends to speak with conviction and sureness; he believes it will work, so he speaks as if it's a sure thing.
Isn't kind of like believing in the afterlife? Some believe in it even though there is no documented evidence proving it and will argue hard that there is one... Others believe just as hard that dead is dead, and there is actually good evidence for that belief.. But those who believe in the afterlife will continue to cling to the belief despite the evidence... So who is lying?
"Don't be ridiculous," Michael said. "Remember that the Knights of the Cross were not founded to destroy the Denarians. We were founded to save them from the Fallen. It is therefore my duty to help you in whatever way I can. I can help you discard the coin if that is what you wish to do. It's best if you choose to do it yourself."(All emphasis added).
"I don't need to discard it, actually," I said. "I haven't really taken the coin up. I buried it. Never used it."
Michael looked surprised. "No? That is good news, then. Though it means that the Fallen's Shadow is still attempting to persuade you, I take it?"
If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna.
You know, I think some are forgetting that prior to Harry telling him, Michael had thought Harry had actually taken up the Coin.
So, I think it's perfectly possible that Michael was not prepared to fully answer Harry's question, and instead fell back on the old standbys: through an act of free will, reject the power you are tempted with.
Further keep in mind that Michael is generally uncomfortable with magic. It's brought up much more frequently in the earlier books (and he doesn't trust Bob at all), but Michael seems (or seemed) to think that magic is power that causes temptation. I bet Michael had Matthew 5:29 on his mind:
Fundamentally, I think Michael believes that an act of free will that rejects offers of corruptive power and influence should reduce or eliminate the presence of the Shadow.
I'm not going to be responding to everything stated here, because some of these posts are getting really long. I'll try to cover every point brought up, but no promises.He keeps track of things that matter. Getting rid of a Shadow is, at best, extremely rare, rare enough to be a non-issue for whatever Nicodemus has been up to for the previous 2,000 years. Nicodemus has more important things to worry about than something that may well have never happened. He has no reason to go out of his way to suppress a bit of obscure minutiae that he may well not even know exists in the first place.
Nicodemus is a spymaster. Keeping track of what his enemies know/believe is what he does.
I'm not saying it's his first priority, but between Anduriel and the fact that we know that there is enough corruption in the Church for the Denarians to keep getting their coins back, it wouldn't be that difficult for him to keep track of.
I'll accept this as provisionally true, on the basis that the only argument I can think of making against it is personal and I don't want to discuss it; and I'm not going to claim you're wrong without providing an explanation of why I think so.Fair enough.
Formal logic only comes into play because you were claiming that this wasn't evidence; formal logic allows me to establish that it absolutely is evidence.Yeah, that's the sticking point, I think -- you might consider it evidence that could point to it not being a thing, but I'm saying it's not evidence that shows that it's not a thing.
How much weight to give that evidence, on the other hand...
Maybe, but I seriously doubt that Nicodemus is going to decide "well, I've been spying on the Church for 2000 years, I'll just stop now."Yeah, that's not what I said or implied. What I said was, after a few centuries of nobody getting rid of a Shadow, Nicodemus would not bother to continue worrying about people getting rid of a Shadow. "Spying on the church" doesn't mean he gets every single minor fact and detail every time he looks.
I'd argue that the missing information was in the books, but absolutely Michael would not know it. That was the point I was trying to make--Michael does not and should not be expected to have access to this information.The "missing information" I refer to is the idea summed up as "Harry getting rid of his magic will not get rid of the Shadow." There's no statement or suggestion to that effect in the books. There's only a sort of negative evidence, in that Michael didn't bring it up in the Small Favor conversation, long after the whole idea of Harry giving up his magic is moot and clearly not in play, which has any number of other explanations besides that.
Fair enough. At this point I'm convinced that Michael absolutely had reason to believe that his suggestion would help and would be the right thing to do (I just think it might not have done quite as much as he implied it would--but as you pointed out, that could just be a result of Michael's certainty, rather than any attempt to deliberately mislead Harry).OK then.
Yeah, that's not what I said or implied. What I said was, after a few centuries of nobody getting rid of a Shadow, Nicodemus would not bother to continue worrying about people getting rid of a Shadow. "Spying on the church" doesn't mean he gets every single minor fact and detail every time he looks.
Getting rid of a Shadow is, at best, extremely rare, rare enough to be a non-issue for whatever Nicodemus has been up to for the previous 2,000 years. Nicodemus has more important things to worry about than something that may well have never happened. He has no reason to go out of his way to suppress a bit of obscure minutiae that he may well not even know exists in the first place.
Yeah, that's not what I said or implied. What I said was, after a few centuries of nobody getting rid of a Shadow, Nicodemus would not bother to continue worrying about people getting rid of a Shadow. "Spying on the church" doesn't mean he gets every single minor fact and detail every time he looks.
The "missing information" I refer to is the idea summed up as "Harry getting rid of his magic will not get rid of the Shadow." There's no statement or suggestion to that effect in the books. There's only a sort of negative evidence, in that Michael didn't bring it up in the Small Favor conversation, long after the whole idea of Harry giving up his magic is moot and clearly not in play, which has any number of other explanations besides that.
My issue with the idea that Harry giving up his magic would get rid of the shadow has always been the lack of evidence for it--and if this is true in-universe as well, then Michael would be aware of it.
Again, this is where faith comes in.... Michael has been right about things in the past because he
believes it will come to pass because he believes the Almighty has his back.. He doesn't need evidence, he just knows it is so.
Look, even faith doesn't mean believing things for no reason whatsoever.
Michael is not going to suddenly start believing in flying polka-dotted elephants because he's a person of faith and as such doesn't need such silly things as facts and logic--that isn't how it works.
I may believe in global warming because scientists say it's real, and I consider scientists a generally trustworthy source of information.Yes, so do I, however there is as many people who don't believe in it because people in power tell them it isn't true in spite of the evidence.. They consider the people in positions of power telling them this just as trust worthy... So who is telling the truth? Who is deliberately lying? Or is one side just totally mistaken?
A devout catholic may believe that God wants us to protect the environment because the Pope says so, and he/she considers the Pope a source of trustworthy information.Yes, but he may also come out and say we don't have to worry about the environment because God
Yes, it does, faith isn't logical nor is it a rational thing.
There is a whole group of people for example that still believe the Earth is flat in spite of all the evidence and facts to the contrary..
Yes, so do I, however there is as many people who don't believe in it because people in power tell them it isn't true in spite of the evidence.. They consider the people in positions of power telling them this just as trust worthy... So who is telling the truth? Who is deliberately lying? Or is one side just totally mistaken?
Yes, but he may also come out and say we don't have to worry about the environment because God
will protect His creation no matter what... Should a good Catholic still believe him? He is still considered a trustworthy source of information, the Faithful or a lot of them still believe the Pope to be infallible..
he point I am trying to make here is it is a lot more complicated when you add religious faith to the mix. It is too simplistic to claim that Michael deliberately lied to Harry about a solution to his problem with the shadow.
You are agreeing with me. People believe things because they have reasons to, generally, even if others disagree with those reasons.
Pay attention. Not only have we moved past this, but I have never claimed that Michael lying to Harry deliberately was anything more than one possibility of many.
This claim is too simplistic because you are oversimplifying what I said.
There is a difference between being delusional/in denial and having faith. I seriously doubt that people's belief that the world is flat can ward off vampires.
There is a difference between saying that faith means believing things for reasons that others don't consider logical and rational and saying that faith means believing in things for no reason.Why? People do that every day, whole movements have been based on indoctrination, Jones Town being a good example of that... The Hale Boop suicides are another, there was no logical reason for these people to believe they way they did, yet they did and they died for it.
So what is your point then? Michael had very good reasons to tell Harry what he did...
Oh? How? The original question was did Michael lie to Harry? The answer is no, he didn't..
No, there is no difference, one person's delusional/in denial is another person's profession of faith.. You may doubt that people's belief that the world is flat can ward off vampires, but try to tell that to someone who sincerely believes it... Whether it is really true or not is immaterial to them..
Why? People do that every day, whole movements have been based on indoctrination, Jones Town being a good example of that... The Hale Boop suicides are another, there was no logical reason for these people to believe they way they did, yet they did and they died for it.
It's just as well that any talk of faith, in terms of the Dresden Files, be left on the floor. Michael has tangible proof of the the existence of the white god. In particular, his interaction with an Archangel. Not to mention glowing swords, an in with the Papal authorities and the occasional takeover for godly announcements. His knowledge of the nature of the Shadow could be revealed knowledge given to him off the text by some angelic source.
Well, given that he's already suppressing a bunch of information, I don't see why he wouldn't add it to the list. Honestly, I just don't think that it would take much effort.I think we have different ideas of what "Nicodemus destroys the records every once in a while" entails.
I figure that he probably tries to keep track of everything the Church thinks about Denarians, just on general principle.
My issue with the idea that Harry giving up his magic would get rid of the shadow has always been the lack of evidence for it--and if this is true in-universe as well, then Michael would be aware of it.Fair enough.
On the other hand, at this point I've found some evidence that Harry giving up his magic would reduce the shadow's influence if nothing else, so I'm happy with that.
I think we have different ideas of what "Nicodemus destroys the records every once in a while" entails.
I don't think he picks and chooses what he destroys with that kind of granularity. If anything, that would only give away his intentions -- if you go out of your way to, for example, specifically destroy someone's theorizing on get rid of the Shadow, but leave other things right next to it intact, the logical conclusion there is, "He's afraid someone can get rid of a Shadow," which will only encourage the Church to look into that specific thing even more.
But if you just torch the whole building, the survivors won't know what he wanted destroyed, whether there was anything specific in there or whether he was just in a mood that day and happened to be passing by your library.
That seems more Nicodemus's style, to me.
Fair enough.
The title of the thread is, Did Michael Lie?
it worked for his wife, she was well on her way to becoming a warlock and that faded when she gave up her magic...
What is constantly repeated is there has to be a reason etc for this faith... No, there doesn't..
It has also been suggested that when Michael realized that Harry did indeed rid himself of the shadow he should have admitted that he was wrong, since he didn't,somehow he was dishonest with Harry..
I think we have different ideas of what "Nicodemus destroys the records every once in a while" entails.
I don't think he picks and chooses what he destroys with that kind of granularity. If anything, that would only give away his intentions -- if you go out of your way to, for example, specifically destroy someone's theorizing on get rid of the Shadow, but leave other things right next to it intact, the logical conclusion there is, "He's afraid someone can get rid of a Shadow," which will only encourage the Church to look into that specific thing even more.
But if you just torch the whole building, the survivors won't know what he wanted destroyed, whether there was anything specific in there or whether he was just in a mood that day and happened to be passing by your library.
That seems more Nicodemus's style, to me.