Morgan Micro Fiction

[Snark Knight]

Considering that Malcolm is said to be a vanilla mortal, how would that work in terms of a hookup?

She might have spent part of the time between getting pregnant and dying in childbirth away from Malcolm. IIRC Malcolm missed Harry's birth and only arrived a few hours after Maggie had died.

She probably would have been been trying to convince her enemies that Malcolm wasn't important so he wouldn't be a target too after she was gone. And if she had to do much fighting while running and hiding, shielding the squishy powerless mortal would have been a potentially fatal distraction.

[morriswalters]

 

[Bad Alias]

What concerns me with her story is why should I care that Maggie died?

I don't really understand where the question is coming from, but the only reasons I can see are consequential. One is how it informs Harry's character (and maybe Eb's). Another is that the details of her life after disassociating with the bad guys and death are probably pretty informative of what's going on. Now if there is ever a story featuring her, there might be more emotional reasons to care that she dies.

Also, you seem to be assuming that she was a mustache twirling villain. She could have been a slight twist on a tragic hero who, instead of a completely tragic ending, gets a mostly tragic ending.

Sixteen year old Harry wasn't too different than the description of Margaret. Harry violated the 1st Law. He had "unsavory associations with various entities of dubious reputation." He would have been brought before the Council and executed if not for Eb's intervention.

[Mira]

I do not think the mere fact that the romans crucified someone proves that he was a bad man.

  He was a criminal though because the man who defended Jesus say that the two of them deserved to die because they guilty of what they were accused of where as Jesus wasn't.

[morriswalters]

@Bad Alias
Nobody is a villain in their own book. And Margaret wasn't sixteen, she was close to two hundred when she got religion so to speak. And Margaret did what she did with the knowledge that it was morally suspect.  But that isn't my point.  Jim's building to some type of reveal about her.  As a reader, for that to have impact I need to be involved emotionally with the character.   And I'm not.  Right now I'm at the, she bought it and she had to pay for it,  and good riddance, stage.

Margaret was a d**k. And that is a charitable look at her. Goodman Grey describes her as a piece of work.  She abandoned  one child and had another because she was wanting to use him as a weapon. She did mind magic on her fetus and implanted  a working which she used to take revenge on Raith, effectively using her sons like batteries.  That she did it on Thomas first means that she planned to do it on Harry a year before he was conceived.  And Malcolm died because he was associated with Maggie and had her son. So I'm effectively asking Jim, what's the payoff?

[Arjan]

  He was a criminal though because the man who defended Jesus say that the two of them deserved to die because they guilty of what they were accused of where as Jesus wasn't.

If they were guilty of rebelling against the roman state then I see nothing wrong with that.

[morriswalters]

Penitent thief

39 Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us." 40 The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? 41 And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal." 42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." 43 He replied to him, "Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise." 23:39–43

[Arjan]

Penitent thief

One of the reasons I do not trust the biblical text. Judea at that moment was almost continuously in armed uprising against rome only the intensity varied somewhat. You hear nothing about that in the scriptures. It is far more likely that he hung there because of that and the later pro roman redaction made a thief out of him. Just as it is more likely that jesus was crucified because the romans saw a threat in him. It was a roman punishment.

As history the whole thing is a mess. The whole narrative is shaped by its message. 

[Bad Alias]

I'm just saying that what we know of Margaret is pretty limited. It's probably how a lot of the older warden's would still describe Harry, who also abandoned his child. The official timeline is fuzzy enough that Margaret may have accidentally conceived Harry with Malcolm and that is how she escaped Raith.

Supposition: Margaret was only involved with "grey" magic. She had legal, but unsavory associates. Raith was one of them. Raith got his hooks into her. Raith twisted her until she was capable of violating the Laws. Raith had been preparing Margaret to conceive a starborn child. She meets Malcolm somewhere, somehow. She falls in love with him. They conceive Harry. She becomes immune to Raith's control. She makes a quick deal with Lea to protect Harry before Lord Raith realizes what's going on. This keeps her safe until Harry is born. In the meantime, she sets up the soulgaze we see in Blood Rites (I have a feeling it isn't a mind magic situation). She gets word to Morgan, and they agree to meet under a flag of truce. She explains what's going on and that she's almost certainly going to die as soon as the child is born. Morgan promises to protect the child because it makes sense from a practical stand point and because protecting children fits his character anyway.

My point is we don't really know what was going on, and Margaret could easily be much more sympathetic than she appears.

Jim's building to some type of reveal about her.  As a reader, for that to have impact I need to be involved emotionally with the character.   And I'm not.  Right now I'm at the, she bought it and she had to pay for it,  and good riddance, stage.

Me too. I'm just saying Jim has room to change what we think about Margaret without contradicting the story in ways that an audience can't accept. Without adding anything so that we perceive Margaret more favorably, the reveal about Margaret, if it does happen, could have impact because of what it means to Harry.

[morriswalters]

@Arjan
Not being particularly religious I treat the Bible as lore.
@Bad Alias

My point is we don't really know what was going on, and Margaret could easily be much more sympathetic than she appears.

Jim's kept it so vague that she could be a closet nun.  I'm just wore out with it.  But I guess he will get to the point.  Maybe.

[Arjan]

@Arjan
Not being particularly religious I treat the Bible as lore.
@Bad AliasJim's kept it so vague that she could be a closet nun.  I'm just wore out with it.  But I guess he will get to the point.  Maybe.

Always been interested in history and the history of the origins of Christianity is interesting stuff though too much has been lost. There is actually an interesting discussion about the meaning of the Greek word for these robbers. I read about it in a book originally but it is explained here:

https://sundaymorninggreekblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/thieves-robbers-or-rebels/amp/

It can mean robber or rebel but thief is actually a wrong translation, there is always violence involved.

Simple thieves were not executed on the cross. That was reserved for serious cases. It was not meant to satisfy the sense of justice of the population but to terrify an unruly population.

[Dina]

What we have directly seen of Maggie (her message to Harry, his dream or something, when he felt that her hand is guiding him, showed her as a good woman. And people seemed to like her, so I am ready to believe she was reckless, dangerous, rebel but good at heart and perhaps many of the things she did where because of the White vampires influence.

By the way, I don't think Raith was involved in the Starborn plan, simply because he was not searching for Maggie child.

[Mira]

Simple thieves were not executed on the cross. That was reserved for serious cases. It was not meant to satisfy the sense of justice of the population but to terrify an unruly population.

 I think the point is the "thief" said that they deserved their punishment, harsh as it was and that Jesus did not.  So whatever it was that they did to get themselves crucified, he wasn't arguing the point.   The whole point of that story, or the lesson it was trying to teach, is yes, no matter how bad you are, one good act can bring about redemption.   That is what the Holy Knights are about in their fight with the Denarians, to give up their coins and get on the path towards redemption.  That is what Uriel risked his Grace for in Skin Game, redemption.   So given all of that, Margaret met Malcolm, a man pure of heart, truly a good man, she fell in love..  Never underestimate the power of love to change things, it can be for good or in some cases for evil.  In Margaret's case it was for good, to make herself worthy of Malcolm's love she began to reevaluate what her life had been.  To make herself worthy of Malcolm's love with the help of the Winter Court and others she came up with a plan not just for her own redemption but to save the world as we know it, the star child.   It cost her her life, but it also brought about her redemption.

[Mr. Death]

What we have directly seen of Maggie (her message to Harry, his dream or something, when he felt that her hand is guiding him, showed her as a good woman. And people seemed to like her, so I am ready to believe she was reckless, dangerous, rebel but good at heart and perhaps many of the things she did where because of the White vampires influence.

I'd attribute them more to arrogance and naivete, myself. She seems to me like a woman who dove into things with the mindset of, "I know what I'm doing, screw those old fogies, nobody can stop me!" then eventually realized she was in way over her head and made a lot of her last moves out of fear, regret and desperation.

[Mira]

I'd attribute them more to arrogance and naivete, myself. She seems to me like a woman who dove into things with the mindset of, "I know what I'm doing, screw those old fogies, nobody can stop me!" then eventually realized she was in way over her head and made a lot of her last moves out of fear, regret and desperation.

   I don't think that so much as she saw a system that did need changing .  And like a lot of young protestors she found out that change is difficult and can backfire on you.  She already was nursing a bit of a grudge because her father made the mistake of thinking he could train her.  It is like a mistake that some parents make teaching their kids to drive, they are too emotionally involved. This created a degree of anger in her to begin with, between that and the reception she got for her ideas before the Council she did what many protesters of the sixties and seventies did, she went rouge and underground..  She was so vulnerable to falling in with stronger types, not always on the right side of the law, as in the leader of the White Vamp Court.