In This, The End of All Things, I Come Out of Lurking

[groinkick]

Simon is NOT Cowl!  There is NO evidence - yes, I've heard all the arguments, and all of it is grasping at straws.  Maybe Cowl is someone we know, maybe Cowl is Cowl, but he is not not NOT Simon, and those of you who cling to this outrageous belief will feel quite silly indeed when Cowl's identity is revealed (in, like, fifty years).

What is the evidence that Cowl is NOT Simon?  If our belief is outrageous, could you please show what evidence he is not Cowl? 

[jonas]

What is the evidence that Cowl is NOT Simon?  If our belief is outrageous, could you please show what evidence he is not Cowl?

That's not really how the burden of proof works... Disproving things is an impracticality.

[groinkick]

That's not really how the burden of proof works... Disproving things is an impracticality.

Disagree, and here is why. 

#1.  I did not ask poster to disprove that Simon was Cowl.  I asked what evidence they had to Simon not being Cowl.  There is a difference, even if a subtle one.   

#2.  The strong language used by poster

Maybe Cowl is someone we know, maybe Cowl is Cowl, but he is not not NOT Simon, and those of you who cling to this outrageous belief will feel quite silly indeed when Cowl's identity is revealed

Poster is not simply stating that they disagree, or that they see no evidence.  They are making a statement that the theory is 100% completely wrong.  To claim that a theory is 100% wrong, there is always a strong reason, or evidence to believe it is wrong. 

#3.  "That's not really how the burden of proof works... Disproving things is an impracticality."  This is usually the case for religious, philosophical, or mythological debate, not in the real world.  For example in a police investigation: 

Detective: We think you killed that girl
Suspect:  you will have to prove it
Detective: Where were you Thursday night between 6:00 pm and 8 pm

The burden of proof is now on the suspect to disprove the detective by citing evidence that they were somewhere that was not the crime scene.  The detective does not have to prove that the suspect was at the crime scene, the suspect must now prove they were not.  The suspect could make the claim "It's up to you to prove I was there", but in front of a jury if the suspect cannot disprove the theory that they were at the crime scene, the jury has a good chance of convicting.  In real world scenario's people often must disprove a claim. 

Cowl is a real character who's identity is hidden. 
Simon is a real character within the stories

Claim: Simon is Cowl, but admits there isn't evidence to prove it.
Poster claim:  Theory is 100% wrong.

Burden is now on poster to prove WHY it is 100% wrong, or admit that they don't have evidence, and simply disagree with claim.  Poster cannot possibly know if Simon is not Cowl without out of book information (Jim saying so), Foreknowledge (a beta reader who knows the identity), or strong in book evidence (which I requested because I want to know what it is).  If Jim didn't say so, if they don't have foreknowledge, and they have no evidence to deny the theory then they have no basis to claim that the belief Simon is Cowl is outrageous, and completely wrong.

[wardenferry419]

While I believe in the theory that Simon is Cowl; I am guessing the proof against the theory involves Simon being dead and Cowl being alive. Absent an on-page death and a body, I am chalking this up to an assumption.

[jonas]

1 they actually said there is no proof simon is cowl, effectively chanllenging others for evidence. Not saying they have proof of the contrary, I saw no alternate theory?
2 I don't disagree but that's not the point.
3 ...... LMAO no, actually that's why it's innocent until proven guilty. The suspect would never say such a flimsy thing because no court would proceed to prosecute on the idea... also, why pleading the fifth is a thing, they don't have to make any claims at all, doing so looks bad, but by itself proves nothing.
Not saying your inherently wrong, but your example is too narrow into a law unto itself... shoulda went with scientific theorums(which by the way are hard to disprove too)
They are saying there is no proof for simon as cowl, which doesn't prove anything in and of itself either, but if your saying simon IS cowl surely the proof exists...

Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that doesn't fit into a currently accepted scientific theory. In other words, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

Tanner further explained that a scientific theory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don't change. Tanner likens theories to a basket in which scientists keep facts and observations that they find. The shape of that basket may change as the scientists learn more and include more facts. "For example, we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact but the overarching theories about evolution, the way that we think all of the facts go together might change as new observations of evolution are made," Tanner told Live Science.

and now see.. the thing here is I could point at facts that seem to be left out of the simon is cowl theorum's basket.(my favorite being, Elaine showing up in the next chapter of SK, a fellow Dumorne apprentice who directly unworks Harry's wards as he was just accused of doing to Archangel... and yet, Simon becomes explicit when then?

[groinkick]

but your example is too narrow into a law unto itself... shoulda went with scientific theorums

In a mystery of identities the evidence will be much more closely related to a police investigation over scientific theory.  When Cowl was here, where were other characters as evidence to remove them as suspects for example.

I do have reasons to believe what I do, but it's not solid evidence like in a crime.  It's more about how stories are constructed, and my experience in decades of movies, tv shows, and books combined with reading a lot about creating stories.  So it's more about my instincts.

#1.  In stories where a villain has a hidden identity, they are almost always in the story under an unassuming persona.  For example Senator Palpatine in Star Wars being the Sith Lord.  So Cowl is probably a character we have seen, or at least a name being dropped.  That leads to a lot of possibilities, and Simon is a known character.

#2. One way that characters are eliminated as suspects is the belief they are dead.  They then pop up later, and it's explained why they aren't dead.  In a book of magic, body swapping, and necromancy it's not too far of a stretch to believe his death wasn't real.

#3.  Simon was Justin's teacher, giving him a direct connection to nefarious wizards, and everything Justin was involved in, including a Starborn being created, and Elaine (Kumori?)

#4.  As a personal friend of Eb it will make the betrayal that much more dramatic (story reason).

LMAO no, actually that's why it's innocent until proven guilty. The suspect would never say such a flimsy thing because no court would proceed to prosecute on the idea.

If you are someone with a motive, and cannot explain your whereabouts at the time of a murder you are in a lot of trouble.  It's on YOU to prove you weren't there.  A lot of people have went to prison because they could not disprove the prosecutions theory even if the prosecution couldn't prove they were there (dna, video, eye witness),  just proved you had a means, motive, and opportunity (you cannot explain where you were at the time of the crime).  They don't need DNA, video, or an eye witness.

Perfect example:

John had an altercation with victim the day before the murder, witnessed by 9 people.
John owns a colt 45, the same kind of gun that the victim was killed by, but has lost it.
John refuses to provide an alibi for the time of the murder.

If John wants to avoid prison he better prove that he didn't commit the crime.  The burden is now on John because his ass is going to prison if he doesn't prove the prosecution wrong.  Prosecution doesn't need to prove John was at the crime scene, or that his gun was the weapon.  John needs to prove it wasn't his gun, and or prove he wasn't there.

[wardenferry419]

All of legal understanding is fiction-based, TV, movies, and books. But, it seems to me, that a jury goes with the side that weaves the most convincing story.
My belief in the Simon is Cowl theory comes from many of the ideas that groinkick posted.
I am expecting a scene where Cowl is unmasked and telling Harry "I taught your teacher, boy, you don't have anything that is going to surprise me."

[jonas]

I do have reasons to believe what I do, but it's not solid evidence like in a crime.  It's more about how stories are constructed, and my experience in decades of movies, tv shows, and books combined with reading a lot about creating stories.  So it's more about my instincts.

Here, here!

But, it seems to me, that a jury goes with the side that weaves the most convincing story.

I wonder... does that mean if I weave a convincing story on why alternate Harry is responsible it would actually become more popular?
.... somehow, I do doubt it, though I might make a few people look twice.

[wardenferry419]

Here, here!I wonder... does that mean if I weave a convincing story on why alternate Harry is responsible it would actually become more popular?
.... somehow, I do doubt it, though I might make a few people look twice.

That is one of the goals of any theory.

[Rasins]

And alt-Harry has been proposed.  Evidence in the descriptions of Cowl suggest that it's not though.

I'm firmly in the Simon=Cowl camp.

Mostly because it makes sense.

Simon was the Council's vampire expert.  No reason to believe he couldn't have gone over (helping at Bianca's ball), then deciding he needed to be "free-er" to act so faked his own death.

The only thing that hangs me up a bit is the tenuous thought of him being a disciple of Kemmler.  I'm not sure how that worked, with him being an SC member.

[jonas]

And alt-Harry has been proposed.  Evidence in the descriptions of Cowl suggest that it's not though.

not really, that's where I can find a lot of the evidence. Like in WN, the fiery bird Cowl summons is the Harry version of Lasciel manifest. each version of Cowl is from a current split, so finding the opposing actions/thematics isn't hard. in WN Harry is overcoming Lash and the Fallen, in opposition the cowl version has not. I could others... probably after we migrate so I know it won't get lost... though may also wait on PT too.

*cowls indirectly helping Harry's fate by effecting events around him and beings without will... think what the direct result of the Atheme was, Lea directly used the knife to save Harry, Harry under Mab's thumb instead, Lea rising up, Molly being saved, ect. It's a reverse domino effect. the results grow bigger.

[Kindler]

Good thread. I mostly agree, especially about Molly and Murphy. Molly/Harry is a pairing that I'm not a fan of. It's like hooking up with your high school chemistry teacher. Super weird, even after you graduated.

As for Cowl/Simon, I think there is some evidence pointing to him, but all of it is circumstantial. I'm honestly not even sure it would make sense narratively at this point, without putting in some more work. There is some meta stuff here, so bear with me. First, Simon is never seen on page—which is a point against him narratively, as he's not really a character, just a piece of background information—but he's mentioned way, way, way back in Summer Knight. Archangel is brought up at the end of Blood Rites, when Eb takes down Casse Verde, but I don't think Simon is even mentioned. Archangel and Simon's death IS mentioned in Turn Coat, because of the evidence for both being inside jobs.

Basically what I'm saying is that Simon isn't a character in this series as it stands right now; he's ancillary motivation for Ebenezer to actually take a spot on the Senior Council (that and saving Harry). He's brought up in two or three books out of fourteen.

Now, if Grave Peril goes down differently in Mirror, Mirror, I believe Simon may still be alive, and we can find out for certain, and actually give the guy some characterization before a reveal. Even if he's not alive, Peabody might be; Harry could interrogate that version to find out what happened at Archangel, and thus provide some answers. Hell, you might find out that Peabody was actually a fine thrall of Simon's the whole time...

Anyway, the point I'm making is that I'd be kind of disappointed if the next book just sort of dropped Cowl's identity reveal as Simon into its plot without making him a real character first, and Mirror, Mirror is a good opportunity to do that.

[WereElephant]

Truth 1
Simon is NOT Cowl!  There is NO evidence - yes, I've heard all the arguments, and all of it is grasping at straws.  Maybe Cowl is someone we know, maybe Cowl is Cowl, but he is not not NOT Simon, and those of you who cling to this outrageous belief will feel quite silly indeed when Cowl's identity is revealed (in, like, fifty years).

I concur. In Dead Beat, Cowl's magic has a residual necromantic taint to it that Harry easily sensed, even when doing non-necromantic actions such as opening a Way if I recall correctly. Harry is far from the most sensitive to these auras. If Simon were really Cowl, the Senior Council would have sniffed him out, so to speak, ages ago.

That being said, I could see a convoluted plot wherein Simon becomes Cowl. Red Court attack Simon's tower, he uses Death Curse and dies. Brought back by necromancy. Goes back in time/to other dimension to learn from Kemmler. Becomes the Ringwraith we know and love.

Normally, I would dismiss that idea completely, except for there being a Law of Magic against time travel (laws are made to be broken, nicht wahr?), and the fact that Cowl used "Dorosh" as an incantation, an Eastern European name according to my googling and wikipedia'ing. Pietrovich was also Russian. It's not a great link, but it's something, and "Dorosh" has been driving me nuts trying to fathom why that was used.

Honestly, though, I'm hoping Cowl isn't Pietrovich. I'd like to be more surprised than that.

[groinkick]

And alt-Harry has been proposed.  Evidence in the descriptions of Cowl suggest that it's not though.

I'm firmly in the Simon=Cowl camp.

Mostly because it makes sense.

Simon was the Council's vampire expert.  No reason to believe he couldn't have gone over (helping at Bianca's ball), then deciding he needed to be "free-er" to act so faked his own death.

The only thing that hangs me up a bit is the tenuous thought of him being a disciple of Kemmler.  I'm not sure how that worked, with him being an SC member.

He may not have been a disciple of Kemmler.  He may have hated Kemmler but feels that the Council has tied the hands of it's members with their laws.  He might even have felt that Kemmler would have been defeated more easily if the Council had not limited their own members from certain forms of magic. 

[raidem]

I think I had an epiphany in a dream about kumori desire to defeat death that it means something different than what we've talked about before but I forgot the epiphany lol.

Oh, now I remember, they wanted to capture mantels of immortals like they later try to do with cowl capturing godhood via darkhallow.  I think Maggie Sr, kumori, etc tried to defeat death by capturing mantels of immortality. That was their long term plans. They weren't trying to defeat mother winter or death personified etc.

It was ltw who said he knew some of those that wanted to live forever.  I wonder if there are some wizards that are aiming to capture some mantels to get the immortality that comes with it.