Did Michael lie?

[Talby16]

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:

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..

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.

[Mira]

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.

I totally agree, and since he never was inside Harry's head and privy to the conversations between Harry and Lash nor was he a witness to her sacrifice, he would have no way to judge except on what had happened in the past.   This was unprecedented, that is what got Heaven's attention on Harry.

[nadia.skylark]

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.

Quite possibly, although if this is the case then I wish he had been clearer.

The shadow is tied to the magical power a wizard possesses.

Do we have any evidence of this whatsoever? Lasciel's shadow may have been providing Harry with hellfire, but unless there is evidence that the Fallen can only place shadows in magic users' heads, then I don't see how this works.

Also facts that Michael knows, no one has ever rid themselves of the shadow of a Fallen.

Then why on Earth would he claim that Harry giving up his magic would be enough to rid him of the shadow? If Michael has evidence that no one has managed to rid themselves of a shadow (as flawed as that evidence turned out to be) then this claim is pretty insupportable.

Point of fact, Michael does not say he has faith Harry will find another way to get rid of the Shadow.

Thanks! I retract any point I made based on Michael claiming that he had faith that Harry would rid himself of the shadow. That said, this still contradicts his emphatic claim in Small Favor that there is no way to be 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.

I agree that it is out of character for Michael to lie. However, the problem is not the incompleteness of his information--it's the contradiction in his own statements.

[Bad Alias]

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.

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).

Do we have any evidence of this whatsoever?

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."

[nadia.skylark]

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).

This.

Michael's quote from Proven Guilty telling Harry to set aside his power.

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.

Their is also some evidence that the Shadow was using only Harry to survive in White Night, but that it wasn't "healthy."

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.

[Mira]

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).

  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.

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..

[exartiem]

Talby16 and Mira touched on my points. 

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.

[nadia.skylark]

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.

What? You appear to be talking about what the difference is between taking up the coin and having the shadow inside your head, but I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

The issue under discussion is reconciling the two statements:

1) Giving up your magic will get rid of the shadow.

2) The only way anyone has gotten rid of a shadow is by taking up the coin and then setting it aside.

[morriswalters]

@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.

In terms of Harry's power in some fashion keeping the Shadow alive, think more in terms of what Harry does.  Because Harry is constantly punching out of his range, he constantly ends up relying on the Shadow.  And every time he uses her he reinforces that part where she resides.

[groinkick]

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).

Does Sonja have a shadow in his mind?  He used to have a Coin.  He's never mentioned it I don't think.  What I gather is that if a vanilla mortal denies a Coin, they are free of it completely.  The wizard on the other hand is not because their magic grants a conduit for the Coin to create the Shadow.  So Michael's point was that Harry needed to set aside his power so that it would eventually, over time fade away until Harry was vanilla, granting him freedom from the Shadow.

[nadia.skylark]

Harry didn't rid himself of the Shadow.  So Micheal was right.

The issue is not whether Michael is right. The issue is that Michael contradicted himself.

Does Sonja have a shadow in his mind?  He used to have a Coin.  He's never mentioned it I don't think.

Michael says in Small Favor that you lose the shadow if you take up the coin and then reject it, so Sanya wouldn't have a shadow regardless of whether he had magic.

Of course...Michael could be lying .

[Bad Alias]

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.

Not really as to your first paragraph. 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. I don't buy it, but it's something.

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.

Maybe a Knight found his weakness? Didn't Michael say that Nicodemus destroys the Church's records of Nicodemus?

Also, Lash confirms that no one has ever resisted the shadow of a fallen for as long as Harry. Of course, she could be lying. It's what she does.

Your number three.Harry didn't rid himself of the Shadow.  So Micheal was right.

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. Why did Michael say the first thing if the second thing was true? Now the two statements are not mutually exclusive, but what caused Michael to say something he had no historical evidence for?

One could say Harry got rid of the shadow by resisting it and by shaping and convincing it to do the right thing.

Perhaps Michael was confounding black magic taint with shadow taint. Then he hit the books and realized his mistake.

The statement that Harry could set his power aside and be free of the shadow and that the only way to rid yourself of a shadow is by taking up a coin and then giving it up don't sit well together. They're about as close to being mutually exclusive as anything can get without actually being mutually exclusive.

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.

I still think Michael was wrong in Proven Guilty and then wrong again in Small Favor. I don't think he was lying.

[morriswalters]

@nadia.skylark
Both statements are true and not contradictory.  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. 

@Bad Alias

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.

[Bad Alias]

Your reading waste away as gone.

Yes. I am.

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.

[nadia.skylark]

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.

This is true: if the shadow could survive on a wizard's power, it would provide support for Michael's claim in Proven Guilty. However, Bob said that Lash was drawing power from Harry's soul, and I'm pretty sure all humans have one of those, whether they have magic or not.

Perhaps Michael was confounding black magic taint with shadow taint. Then he hit the books and realized his mistake.

Possibly. Though I still think that in this case Michael should have told Harry when he discovered it.

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.

I like this explanation! It makes a lot of sense.

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. 

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.

Your reading waste away as gone.

Yes. I am.

Me too.