Did Michael lie?

[nadia.skylark]

They didn't watch him being beaten up.

Watching or not, they were laughing (among other things) at his face:

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.

I think I may have been unclear. I am not saying that Michael would normally be all right with torture. I am not saying that he was not uncomfortable with it. I am saying that in this particular circumstance he acknowledged tacitly that it was both justified and necessary, even though he objected for form's sake.

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.

[Mr. Death]

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.

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 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.

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.

[Mira]

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.

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.   

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.

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.

[nadia.skylark]

He wouldn't stand by, but Cassius isn't an innocent child

Exactly.

and he did try to talk Harry out of further action and he and Sanya walked away before what went down, went down...

Can someone please quote the scene before Michael walks away from Cassius? Because my copies of all the books are in storage at the moment, but from what I remember, Michael explains why he and Sanya can't do anything but doesn't say anything about what Harry should do. I may be misremembering, though.

Michael still would not presume to judge Harry even if he did beat up an innocent child.

No, but he would try to stop him.

That would have no effect on protecting Harry's soul from Lasciel, I'd argue the opposite..

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.

I don't think Michael objected for form sake, if he did, he'd be rejected really quick as a Holy Knight..

Why? He didn't do anything wrong.

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.

This is what I am saying.

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.

[Mira]

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.

   What you are calling a lie, isn't...

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.

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? 

[Bad Alias]

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.

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.

As such he can at least slightly compromise his morals to account for circumstances, where an angel cannot do so without Falling.

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.

   What you are calling a lie, isn't...

We don't know if he was just wrong or knew what he was saying wasn't true. I think he was wrong (or it was a continuity error) and not lying, but I don't know that. We can only guess.

[nadia.skylark]

What you are calling a lie, isn't...

It was either a lie or a deliberate omission severe enough that I would consider it equivalent to a lie.

Yes, if Michael believed his proposal would help Harry rid himself of the shadow is not a lie...

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.

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?

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.

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 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).

[Snark Knight]

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.

[nadia.skylark]

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.

Definitely . I always assumed that he was in denial in that scene about the actual consequences of Harry abandoning his magic.

[Mira]

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.

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..   

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.

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.. And actually it was Michael who thought Harry was doing the lying because in 2,000 years no one has ever rid themselves of the shadow of the Fallen before Harry, but they do work it out.

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.

What was it exactly that he omitted? 

[Mira]

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.

Not exactly true, because in White Night just before she sacrifices herself to save Harry she still tries to get him to summon the coin with her help.

page 362

"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."

Harry still refuses and that is when she truly becomes Lash, an independent being separate from Lasciel and of her own free will sacrifices herself for Harry.

[nadia.skylark]

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..   

We may well see what constitutes a lie differently. The argument I was referring to, however, had Michael deliberately exaggerate, thus knowingly saying something he knew wasn't strictly true.

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..

I have acknowledged the possibility. This is the "omission" part of my argument (see below).

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? 

I'm not leaving it out--it is a core part of my argument.

What was it exactly that he omitted?

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.

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..

Then either he was right completely by accident or he was lying to Harry when he said that no one had ever gotten rid of a shadow without accepting the coin.

(Although, to argue for the other side for a moment: a third possibility is that he knew about the magic thing because TWG/angels told him. However, I consider this to be be a deus ex machina answer (literally) so I will continue to disregard it. )

[Mr. Death]

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 characters consistently phrase it as Lash having given Harry "access" to Hellfire. Nobody attributes it to the Fallen itself, to my knowledge.

[nadia.skylark]

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.

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.

[morriswalters]

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.