Peace talks excerpt indications

[Bad Alias]

He wanted her to calm down and think... It is like telling someone going into danger that everything is going to be okay when both of you know damn well it won't be.  Now you can call that lying if you want to, but it is not done out of malice like you are implying.

I now understand your position and can make sense of "Harry's not lying." I don't agree with it because I don't think he was trying to calm her down, but his precise motivation in that line has to be interpreted by the reader.

Not at that moment but apparently he did not feel guilty about it when he took that decision either. And there was the decision to take his sensitive young pupil to that place.

I'd say he felt guilty about both at the time, so I don't see how it's so apparent. He felt "like an utter bastard for asking" Molly to do it. I can't think of a quote precise enough to easily search, but I'm pretty sure he felt guilty for bringing all his friends with him, Molly most specifically, at the time.

Concentrating on that lie is acting like Harry.

The only reason I was focusing on the lie is that Mira disputes that it was a lie. Lying is wrong, but it's wrong like killing people is wrong. Sometimes, it's actually the right thing to do because we live in an imperfect world. (Obviously killing is on a very different end of the moral gravity spectrum).

While it is shocking that both Harry and Susan's attitude was to let the world burn

I don't find it surprising, much less shocking.

[Mira]

I'd say he felt guilty about both at the time, so I don't see how it's so apparent. He felt "like an utter bastard for asking" Molly to do it. I can't think of a quote precise enough to easily search, but I'm pretty sure he felt guilty for bringing all his friends with him, Molly most specifically, at the time.

   He did feel guilty, he always has, that is why he tries to keep so much from his friends, but they volunteer anyway.  Actually I believe he tried to talk Molly out of
coming with them, she insisted.  Again, she was young, but not a child by any means and under no illusions that it would be a cake walk.

The only reason I was focusing on the lie is that Mira disputes that it was a lie. Lying is wrong, but it's wrong like killing people is wrong. Sometimes, it's actually the right thing to do because we live in an imperfect world. (Obviously killing is on a very different end of the moral gravity spectrum).

Yes, it is an imperfect world, and like what Mab says about death, there is a spectrum to it, not black and white.  What I objected to is the idea and perhaps I misunderstood you, that because Harry had told Susan that the knife wouldn't hurt her to get her to attack, he murdered her.  I'm saying it isn't that simple, nor how it went down. Go back to when they started their journey it was Lea that made a show about Susan's cloak and skin protecting her, that was the original lie, but then the Fae supposedly cannot lie.  Harry should have objected then, and he did actually, by saying he'd rather wear Kevlar, then Lea shot a bullet at Susan and it bounced off.  That complicates things, Harry was repeating basically what Lea had said and demonstrated, though he didn't believe it himself, outright lie or something he couldn't prove?  Why did he say it?  My belief is he was trying to calm her so she'd think, for that brief time if she believed what Lea had said she'd be less afraid..  When she calmed down, thought back, then she could ask the questions of Martin that needed to be asked, that is when the truth came out. That is when she decided to attack, not the Red King who had the knife and was headed for the alter to cut their daughter's throat, but Martin.  Once Susan attacked Martin and began to turn, that is when it all hit the fan.  Actually that had been Martin's plan all along, sacrifice himself and Susan so that Harry could bring the Red Court down..  So who was the real manipulator here?  It wasn't about Susan being afraid or not that the knife could hurt her, she never attacked the one who had it and was actually moving towards their daughter in that moment to cut her throat.   So nasty black lie told deliberately to get Susan to attack ergo getting her murdered?  Not exactly.

 If Harry had told Susan that Lea was wrong about a steel knife not hurting her, would that have changed things for the better?  If he had said nothing about the knife, would it have been a lie by omission?  Nano seconds count, Harry needed Susan's brain to focus to save them all.. If it was a lie it was the whitest of lies told for the best of reasons.. Yes, even when it comes to morality, there is a spectrum to it, it isn't always black and white.

[Arjan]

Morality becomes difficult when you make it difficult. Ultimately it is about loyalties. Harry's loyalties are to his daughter, Susan (and so primarily to his daughter again) the rest of his friends that came with him, and humanity in general.

So Harry had to choose how to stay loyal to these people and that dictated the choices he made. And at that point he only had one choice left. The vampires forced that choice upon him in a way.

[morriswalters]

If you assume that Harry knows right from wrong then the text is explicit.  He lied to her and he manipulated her, knowing it when he did it.

One day I hope God will forgive me for giving birth to the idea that came next.
Because I never will.
I knew how angry she was. I knew how afraid she was. Her child was about to die only inches beyond her reach, and what I did to her was as good as murder.
I focused my thoughts and sent them to Susan. Susan! Think! Who knew who the baby’s father was? Who could have told them?
Her lips peeled away from her teeth.
His knife can’t hurt you, I thought, though I knew damned well that no faerie magic could blithely ignore the touch of steel.

There isn't really anything to say about that.  It achieved the goal that Harry had stated, free his daughter at any cost.  Would Susan have went along with it?  Probably as written.  But in the book Harry needed her in a beserker rage.   Because she had already been subdued.  With a knife against her throat the only way out was to be prepared to get your throat cut or to be so enraged that you wouldn't think about it.

The prevailing notion here seems to be that good people can't do bad things.  Sure they can.  And sometimes they do them for noble reasons.  But you can't make those decisions other than what they are. And I wouldn't trust a man that could do that and not feel guilt and remorse.

[Mira]

If you assume that Harry knows right from wrong then the text is explicit.  He lied to her and he manipulated her, knowing it when he did it.There isn't really anything to say about that.  It achieved the goal that Harry had stated, free his daughter at any cost.  Would Susan have went along with it?  Probably as written.  But in the book Harry needed her in a beserker rage.   Because she had already been subdued.  With a knife against her throat the only way out was to be prepared to get your throat cut or to be so enraged that you wouldn't think about it.

The prevailing notion here seems to be that good people can't do bad things.  Sure they can.  And sometimes they do them for noble reasons.  But you can't make those decisions other than what they are. And I wouldn't trust a man that could do that and not feel guilt and remorse.

  Again,  Harry is putting way too much upon himself, and in fact isn't very rational.  I doubt he liked someone else acting in his stead..  The only one left who could was Susan.  He may have thought it was as good as murder to tell her the knife wouldn't hurt her, but she didn't go after the Red King, who had the knife and who was actually going to cut her daughter's throat.  She went after Martin..
Back to the question, what would have changed had he said that she wasn't protected?  You think she would have done nothing as her daughter's throat was being slit and Harry and Eb dying almost at the same moment?  Either way, she wouldn't have remained Susan, it is doubtful that she would have survived.

In Skin Game Harry is a bit more rational about it.. 

"That son of a bitch, Martin," I said.  "He. . .set her up.  Sold out the family that had had Maggie.  I think he did it to set me on a collision course with the Red King, maybe hoping to focus the White Council on the war effort a little harder."

Then he says further down that Martin provoked Susan by his confession and she lost it..  Harry
states that maybe he could have stopped it, but could he have really?  At any rate she killed Martin and began to turn and Harry finished the ritual by killing her, thatis what he feels guilt about.
Michael then points out that Susan allowed Harry to sacrifice her,  that Harry is only human..

[morriswalters]

If you want to know what it would have changed had he not lied to her you would need to ask Jim.  He wrote it the way he wrote it.  Jim makes a point of the lie, in my mind that means he wants you to see it as a morally ambiguous act. YMMV.  Certainly it's for the greater good, if you aren't a vampire.  And Susan probably would have been good with it. But since he didn't ask there is no way to know.

Notably in the text he asks her as she changes, but  she isn't human by that point else the ritual wouldn't have worked.  It seems kinda pointless.  Had she wanted to be a vampire she would have already been one.  And she had been working against them since she was bitten.  I've never really understood why Jim plotted it this way.  I suppose he wanted Harry to have a child, for whatever reason.

[Arjan]

If you want to know what it would have changed had he not lied to her you would need to ask Jim.  He wrote it the way he wrote it.  Jim makes a point of the lie, in my mind that means he wants you to see it as a morally ambiguous act. YMMV.  Certainly it's for the greater good, if you aren't a vampire.  And Susan probably would have been good with it. But since he didn't ask there is no way to know.

Notably in the text he asks her as she changes, but  she isn't human by that point else the ritual wouldn't have worked.  It seems kinda pointless.  Had she wanted to be a vampire she would have already been one.  And she had been working against them since she was bitten.  I've never really understood why Jim plotted it this way.  I suppose he wanted Harry to have a child, for whatever reason.

Jim wants to wreck our emotions and your child as a ritual sacrifice to kill you calls up a lot of strong emotions.

[Mira]

Jim wants to wreck our emotions and your child as a ritual sacrifice to kill you calls up a lot of strong emotions.

  Indeed it does,  and a hell of a lot of stuff was also going on in that moment.  As Michael says in
Skin Game, nobody is perfect, Harry is human, not God.  He and everyone else was being manipulated by Martin to wipe out the vamps, it was years in the making going back to Death Masks
when he encouraged Susan to go with a wounded Harry back to his place.  Martin knew their history, he also knew what the smell of blood would do to Susan, he got the outcome he wanted. 

Notably in the text he asks her as she changes, but  she isn't human by that point else the ritual wouldn't have worked.  It seems kinda pointless.  Had she wanted to be a vampire she would have already been one.  And she had been working against them since she was bitten.  I've never really understood why Jim plotted it this way.  I suppose he wanted Harry to have a child, for whatever reason.

It isn't about what she wanted, no, she didn't want to be a vampire.  Martin knew that, that is why he plotted it they way he did.  He most likely encouraged Susan to keep the child in the area, he plotted with the Red King to murder the innocent family she stayed with and kidnap the child.  He left Harry with no further options than to get Susan to ask him some critical questions, which he was more than happy to answer knowing when she got the answers she'd lose it and rip his throat out.  Killing him and turning her, then he knew full well what Harry would have to do, and that Susan in her last human breath would agree, setting off the chain reaction..   

[AClone]

  He most likely encouraged Susan to keep the child in the area, he plotted with the Red King to murder the innocent family she stayed with and kidnap the child.   

I find myself curious where this steady assumption of Susan keeping Maggie "in the area" has arisen from. The text specifically says that Maggie was with placed with a family "away from the fighting". The only indication of where that family may have actually been would be assumptions based on their surname.

Which reminds me of how, in one book signing, someone put their foot in it by suggesting that Injun Joe might have been a suspect as being responsible for the naagloshi--because, after all, he's a Native American.

Jim...well, I'll politely say that he refuted that one emphatically. Canon said long ago that Injun Joe was an Illinois medicine man, and Jim pointed out just how far removed the tribes of the Southwest are from those of the Midwest. Matter of fact, he made a point of making a parallel of just how distant that relationship would be if we were talking in terms of European nations. I believe his reference was something like from Italy to Norway.

Saying that Maggie was "in the area" simply because the family she was with had a Hispanic surname is nothing but more of the same. And it didn't really matter where she was, because even if Maggie was in Alaska, after Martin tells them where she was, the exact same thing would have happened.

I've seen a number of misapprehensions about Susan Rodriguez in this thread. Please pardon me of I get back on topic next post post.

[AClone]

  He most likely encouraged Susan to keep the child in the area, he plotted with the Red King to murder the innocent family she stayed with and kidnap the child.   

I find myself curious where this steady assumption of Susan keeping Maggie "in the area" has arisen from. The text specifically says that Maggie was with placed with a family "away from the fighting". The only indication of where that family may have actually been located would be assumptions based solely on their surname.

Which reminds me of how, in one book signing, someone put their foot in it by suggesting that Injun Joe might have been a suspect as being responsible for the naagloshi--because, after all, he's a Native American.

Jim...well, I'll politely say that he refuted that one emphatically. Canon said long ago that Injun Joe was an Illinois medicine man, and Jim pointed out just how far removed the tribes of the Southwest are from those of the Midwest. Matter of fact, he made a point of making a parallel of just how distant that relationship would be if we were talking in terms of European nations. I believe his reference was something like from Italy to Norway.

Saying that Maggie was "in the area" simply because the family she was with had a Hispanic surname is nothing but more of the same. And it didn't really matter where she was, because even if Maggie was in Alaska, after Martin tells them where she was, the exact same thing would have happened.

I've seen a number of misapprehensions about Susan Rodriguez in this thread. Please pardon me of I get back on topic my next post.

[AClone]

  He most likely encouraged Susan to keep the child in the area, he plotted with the Red King to murder the innocent family she stayed with and kidnap the child.   

I find myself curious where this steady assumption of Susan keeping Maggie "in the area" has arisen from. The text specifically says that Maggie was with placed with a family "away from the fighting". The only indication of where that family may have actually been located would be assumptions based solely on their surname.

Which reminds me of how, in one book signing, someone put their foot in it by suggesting that Injun Joe might have been a suspect as being responsible for the naagloshi--because, after all, he's a Native American.

Jim...well, I'll politely say that he refuted that one emphatically. Canon said long ago that Injun Joe was an Illinois medicine man, and Jim pointed out just how far removed the tribes of the Southwest are from those of the Midwest. Matter of fact, he made a point of making a parallel of just how distant that relationship would be if we were talking in terms of European nations. I believe his reference was something like from Italy to Norway.

Saying that Maggie was "in the area" simply because the family she was with had a Hispanic surname is nothing but more of the same. And it didn't really matter where she was, because even if Maggie was in Alaska, after Martin tells them where she was, the exact same thing would have happened.

I've seen what appears to be a number of misapprehensions about Susan Rodriguez in this thread. Please pardon me as I get back on topic my next post.

[AClone]

Back on topic...

I think that the reason Eb is nervous is because he's faced Cornerhounds before, and his magic hasn't worked very effectively against them. One of their attacks may well have haunted him as well.

The thing that gets me is how Jim chose to end the except with:

The old man lifted his hand with a single sharp word, and a wall of pure arcane power blazed into light between us...

Um...in the space between Ebenezar and Harry and the corner the Cornerhounds had appeared on? Or between Ebenezar and Harry? As if he's trying to protect Harry, leave him out of the fight?

The thing is, I've yet to see any indication that any of the good guys knows that Harry is a Starborn.

Martha Liberty mentions what Harry is destined for way back in...Summer Knight? In that case, I think she was referring to DuMorne's intention to shape him as an enforcer, something that Morgan echoes in his final note. 

Rashid seems to know that Harry is destined to do something, but it's not certain that it's directly related to Harry being Starborn. Please feel free to remind me of any other references by good guys. Aside from Lash, I mean.

And yet all of the bad guys, down to irresponsible Maeve, seem to have gotten that memo. Quite emphatically.

So, it wouldn't surprise me to see Ebenezar struggle against the Cornerhounds--then be shocked when Harry deals with them. Jim using the encounter to bring the whispering "Starborn" thread out of the background and to the fore.

Just a thought.

[Arjan]

The problem with wizards is that they don’t share information. So even if Marta or Rashid know about Harry being a star born that does not mean anybody else knows.

[Mira]

I find myself curious where this steady assumption of Susan keeping Maggie "in the area" has arisen from. The text specifically says that Maggie was with placed with a family "away from the fighting". The only indication of where that family may have actually been located would be assumptions based solely on their surname.

No, Maggie also spoke only Spanish when Susan died.  Also Susan went to see her from time to time, so little Maggie's location was no secret.  You are right that it doesn't matter because Susan didn't do a "blind" adoption, meaning she'd have no clue where the child was.  But she didn't do that
she kept in contact, and as far as that goes, what does "far from the fighting" mean to the Red Court, as we know, they are all over the world.  So little Maggie was never safe, though to be fair, Susan wouldn't have any clue about the generational curse, but at the same time, naming little Maggie after her grandmother and visiting the child was a neon sign to Harry's enemies as well as her own.

[morriswalters]

Please feel free to remind me of any other references by good guys. Aside from Lash, I mean.

Eb might know what Margret intended.  The argument that tips off Arianna as to Harry's linage was probably related to that. Almost certainly Lea.