Did Michael lie?

[nadia.skylark]

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.

Very possible.

Personally, I believe that the circle had nothing to do with how restricted Lasciel was from interacting with Harry--I think what caused that was Harry's choice to attempt to lock her away, and it would have had the same result no matter what method of containment he chose to use.

[groinkick]

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.

[Bad Alias]

That's my position.

[Mira]

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.

   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.

[nadia.skylark]

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.)

[Mr. Death]

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.

And a quick check of the thread, I'm not finding anyone who said "because God said so," so I don't see a reason you have to gripe about that, either.

[nadia.skylark]

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.)

[Mr. Death]

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.

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.

[nadia.skylark]

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.

To quote some of my posts upthread:

People 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.

This is why I believe Michael not telling Harry before Harry forced the situation was a lie of omission. It has nothing to do with "explaining every individual step of his thought process"--it is because the consequences of Michael not explaining to Harry were potentially disastrous, and were specifically disastrous such that it was Michael's job as a KotC to try to prevent them, and that due to this I can't believe that it simply didn't occur to Michael to tell Harry: thus, by definition, he was deliberately not sharing that information.

I can't think of another explanation. If you can, however, please say so.

[Mr. Death]

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.

[nadia.skylark]

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.

I guess we just interpret what Michael said differently. You appear to interpret "no one has ever gotten rid of a shadow" as "you can't have gotten rid of Lasciel's shadow because you obviously haven't used the method I know to do so," which would, indeed, mean that Michael has not lied. I interpret "no one has ever gotten rid of a shadow" to mean "no one has ever gotten rid of a shadow," which would mean that something is wonky to the point where the only viable explanations that I can see involve either a lie of commission or a lie of omission on Michael's part.

[Bad Alias]

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.

Or Jim made a mistake, and it's just a continuity error.

[nadia.skylark]

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.

This is the lie of omission I keep talking about.

[Mr. Death]

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?

[Bad Alias]

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.

"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"

What are the explanations? Here are the one's I remember in no particular order.

1: The Proven Guilty statement is implicit in the Small Favor conversation.
2: Michael changed his mind
    2a: and didn't tell Harry.
    2b: and told Harry off page.
3: Michael lied because [reasons], but those reasons are no longer there or are superseded in Small Favor.
4: The Proven Guilty statement was a theory that hasn't been tested.
5: It's a continuity error.
6: The statements are in no way contradictory.

I don't think anyone is proposing that Michael was lying in Small Favor.