ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DF Spoilers => Topic started by: SerScot on June 27, 2019, 09:32:00 PM
-
We’ve seen Dresden beat Nicodemus three times. It makes Nic and the Denarians seem somewhat less than threatening. Would anyone else be interested in reading short story where the Denarians win?
-
We’ve seen Dresden beat Nicodemus three times. It makes Nic and the Denarians seem somewhat less than threatening. Would anyone else be interested in reading short story where the Denarians win?
Well, they don't exactly lose either.....
-
Nic is foiled each time. It works to weaken him as an antagonist. I’d like to see what he’s like when he wins.
-
Nic is foiled each time. It works to weaken him as an antagonist. I’d like to see what he’s like when he wins.
Sort of, but the Denarians go on... We know what he is like when he wins... Do you not remember the scene where he wiped the frozen cement with Murphy? How he whispered sweet nothings in her ear as he did it? Stuff that long term will make her question everything she has ever stood for? How he manipulated her so skillfully into going where she and he wanted to go, resulting in a broken Holy Sword? Yeah, long term it got set right, but if you want to see how it looks when Nic wins reread those passages in Skin Game..
-
We’ve seen Dresden beat Nicodemus three times. It makes Nic and the Denarians seem somewhat less than threatening. Would anyone else be interested in reading short story where the Denarians win?
Definitely!
Well, they don't exactly lose either.....
To date, their "successes" have been:
1) killing a guy who was already dying, and who chose to let it happen;
2) giving Harry a Denarian Shadow, whom he redeemed;
3) torturing two powerful people briefly, ensuring that they would hate them and work to screw them over; and
4) breaking a holy sword which was remade even stronger not a day later.
Even without discussing their outright losses, this sure looks like losing to me.
Nic is foiled each time. It works to weaken him as an antagonist. I’d like to see what he’s like when he wins.
This.
-
Same here. It'd be cool to see Nic get a definitive win.
-
Well, they don't exactly lose either.....
We've seen a short story from Marcone's point of view so I wouldn't mind seeing one from Nic's POV. However, I think it would have to take place after the events of Skin Game. Nicodemus is on his own and fighting off whoever Marcone sends after him. We see a hunted Nicodemus turn the tables on his pursuers and decide he had become too reliant on Deirdre, and too reliant on other denarians like his unpredictable ex-wife, and in the end Harry and Michael had done him a favor; by being alone and without allies they helped Nic sharpen his wits and skills. Near the end of Skin Game, Nicodemus offered one of the coins to Goodman Grey. At the end of the short story we could see Nicodemus decide he has regained his confidence and decide now is the time to take on a new disciple and ally. We see him offer the coin which he still had with him, but we don't see who he offers it to.
-
We've seen a short story from Marcone's point of view so I wouldn't mind seeing one from Nic's POV. However, I think it would have to take place after the events of Skin Game. Nicodemus is on his own and fighting off whoever Marcone sends after him. We see a hunted Nicodemus turn the tables on his pursuers and decide he had become too reliant on Deirdre, and too reliant on other denarians like his unpredictable ex-wife, and in the end Harry and Michael had done him a favor; by being alone and without allies they helped Nic sharpen his wits and skills. Near the end of Skin Game, Nicodemus offered one of the coins to Goodman Grey. At the end of the short story we could see Nicodemus decide he has regained his confidence and decide now is the time to take on a new disciple and ally. We see him offer the coin which he still had with him, but we don't see who he offers it to.
Precisely. If Harry always beats Nic (and he has three times now) Nic loses his sense of threat. We need to see how Nic wins, without qualification.
-
We've seen a short story from Marcone's point of view so I wouldn't mind seeing one from Nic's POV. However, I think it would have to take place after the events of Skin Game. Nicodemus is on his own and fighting off whoever Marcone sends after him. We see a hunted Nicodemus turn the tables on his pursuers and decide he had become too reliant on Deirdre, and too reliant on other denarians like his unpredictable ex-wife, and in the end Harry and Michael had done him a favor; by being alone and without allies they helped Nic sharpen his wits and skills. Near the end of Skin Game, Nicodemus offered one of the coins to Goodman Grey. At the end of the short story we could see Nicodemus decide he has regained his confidence and decide now is the time to take on a new disciple and ally. We see him offer the coin which he still had with him, but we don't see who he offers it to.
Actually I think things are being set up for Nic to change sides because he is increasingly being isolated.. He is losing out as the leader of the Denarians, however for him it isn't just about giving up coin and noose, if he does those things he turns to dust..
You are not going to see a total win for Nic, because that has a huge ripple effect of the Fallen winning over Heaven... Not saying it couldn't happen, but not likely..
We have yet to see the aftermath for Murphy after her losing encounter with Nic.. Not just the physical, but the emotional as well.. If ultimately that turns her away from Harry for example, that could be a huge win for Nic... If she is more physically limited than anticipated she may be tempted to take up a coin thinking she can handle it... Unlikely, true, but then again I don't think the Murphy/Lasciel dynamic of Harry's nightmare/wet dreams was fully played out in Skin Game satisfactorily... As in Hannah/Lasciel just didn't have the same impact as ultimately a Murphy/Lasciel would verses Harry. It could be foreshadowing of things to come.
-
When Nic wins without qualification, it's things like the Black Plague.
Marcone, we're able to root for and read his short story because as bad a guy as he is, he's up against something worse.
I don't want to read a story about Nicodemus successfully murdering innocents by the truck load to fuel his own selfish agenda and -- in all likelihood -- also murdering good people like the Knights trying to stop him.
If I wanted to read that kind of thing I'd have stuck with Game of Thrones.
-
To be fair he does have one big win - he has the holy grail.
Also, he can have definitive wins that don't cause the apocalypse. The short story could be about him raiding a church facility to free up some coins and destroy/corrupt some data about himself, and successfully give a recently liberated coin to someone in the upper hierarchy of the Church or something else that would be a more subtle way of complicating Michaels life. Though that wouldn't advance the overall story line much.
It might be interesting if in addition to doing some of those things he was doing/gaining something that would help in whatever his plans are for the grail.
-
When Nic wins without qualification, it's things like the Black Plague.
Marcone, we're able to root for and read his short story because as bad a guy as he is, he's up against something worse.
I don't want to read a story about Nicodemus successfully murdering innocents by the truck load to fuel his own selfish agenda and -- in all likelihood -- also murdering good people like the Knights trying to stop him.
If I wanted to read that kind of thing I'd have stuck with Game of Thrones.
Amen...
-
When Nic wins without qualification, it's things like the Black Plague.
Marcone, we're able to root for and read his short story because as bad a guy as he is, he's up against something worse.
I don't want to read a story about Nicodemus successfully murdering innocents by the truck load to fuel his own selfish agenda and -- in all likelihood -- also murdering good people like the Knights trying to stop him.
If I wanted to read that kind of thing I'd have stuck with Game of Thrones.
I don't mind if Nicodemus' win is countered later, so long as it takes a while. Like, if it had taken a couple of books to repair Fidellachius, rather than having it happen less than a day after Nicodemus broke it.
Maybe we could see him convince one of Harry's friends to take up a coin and leave, then have a book where you see the person slowly being corrupted, then in another book something happens and Harry has to work with whoever while they still have a coin, and at the end of that book Harry has managed to convince them to surrender the coin, but they still feel awful about what they did. Something like that. I feel like that would be something that would feel like a win for Nicodemus for long enough to have an impact, without being super depressing.
My main problem with Nicodemus is that none of the bad stuff he does seems to have negative consequences past the end of the book he does it in. Even when he gets Harry to touch Lasciel's coin, the very next time we see anything to do with the Harry and Lasciel's shadow thing, it's Lasciel's shadow helping him to avert a disaster, and the worst Harry ever does because of Lasciel's shadow is damage a couple of storefronts.
To be fair he does have one big win - he has the holy grail.
I'd thought Michael indicated that there wasn't much Nicodemus could really do with that. But I might be wrong.
Also, he can have definitive wins that don't cause the apocalypse. The short story could be about him raiding a church facility to free up some coins and destroy/corrupt some data about himself, and successfully give a recently liberated coin to someone in the upper hierarchy of the Church or something else that would be a more subtle way of complicating Michaels life.
This.
-
Nah. But it might be fun to see Nicodemus win in the past. One of his successes, or the story of his infiltration of the church to remove all records talking about him. Retrieving coins. Any of that, I'd be up for.
-
I don't mind if Nicodemus' win is countered later, so long as it takes a while. Like, if it had taken a couple of books to repair Fidellachius, rather than having it happen less than a day after Nicodemus broke it.
I kinda see the point, but then you'd have people thinking that Jim "chickened out" of leaving it broken. Having it fixed in the same book it's broken makes it clear that was the plan all along.
Maybe we could see him convince one of Harry's friends to take up a coin and leave, then have a book where you see the person slowly being corrupted, then in another book something happens and Harry has to work with whoever while they still have a coin, and at the end of that book Harry has managed to convince them to surrender the coin, but they still feel awful about what they did. Something like that. I feel like that would be something that would feel like a win for Nicodemus for long enough to have an impact, without being super depressing.
We already saw all that from Harry's perspective. We don't need to see the exact same thing from the outside. And nearly all of Harry's friends have been personally injured by one of the Denarians, there's no way in -- or out of -- Hell that they'd be stupid enough to take a coin. If they were that stupid they'd already be dead.
My main problem with Nicodemus is that none of the bad stuff he does seems to have negative consequences past the end of the book he does it in. Even when he gets Harry to touch Lasciel's coin, the very next time we see anything to do with the Harry and Lasciel's shadow thing, it's Lasciel's shadow helping him to avert a disaster, and the worst Harry ever does because of Lasciel's shadow is damage a couple of storefronts.
Shiro is still dead. Michael is still crippled. Murphy is still grievously injured. At least one Splattercon!!!-goer is dead because of Lasciel's influence.
Sure, if you only measure it on the basis of "did he successfully kill or completely turn the main character to the dark side," then sure, he's harmless.
But then, so are the vast majority of villains ever written.
I'd thought Michael indicated that there wasn't much Nicodemus could really do with that. But I might be wrong.
Too early to say. Even Nicodemus just destroying it or perverting it could be a bad thing.
This.
Again, I really don't see the appeal of 30 pages of Nicodemus doing bad things to good people and getting away with it.
Plus? A story's mainly interesting if it challenges its protagonist in some way. Nicodemus isn't going to be challenged by that. He's challenged by people like Harry and Michael.
-
Again, I really don't see the appeal of 30 pages of Nicodemus doing bad things to good people and getting away with it.
Plus? A story's mainly interesting if it challenges its protagonist in some way. Nicodemus isn't going to be challenged by that. He's challenged by people like Harry and Michael.
1. Whoever goes after Nicodemus, it won't be goodguys. They will be really nasty types who are in it for money, or if they're from the supernatural side of the fence they will be in it for favors. Marcone has probably built up enough favors he can trade some to them to harass Nicodemus, even if the odds of killing him are very low.
2. I'm sure Jim could create a situation where Nicodemus is vulnerable. It might even be a way to demonstrate; if only in a small way, how the Grail can be used as a weapon.
-
2. I'm sure Jim could create a situation where Nicodemus is vulnerable. It might even be a way to demonstrate; if only in a small way, how the Grail can be used as a weapon.
He has already shown that through Tessa.. I also think sacrificing Deidre will have lasting effects, made him very vulnerable... Also unless Michael is wrong, while it is a thing of power the Grail is a force for good..
-
Just a thought. Why add something else to what is already a pretty full plate writing wise. I'd settle for getting the stories I've already bought into. The Dresden case files.
-
I kinda see the point, but then you'd have people thinking that Jim "chickened out" of leaving it broken. Having it fixed in the same book it's broken makes it clear that was the plan all along.
For me, it feels like the opposite: I always knew that the Sword would be fixed, but having it done so easily made it feel like he was "chickening out" of writing actual consequences for it breaking.
We already saw all that from Harry's perspective. We don't need to see the exact same thing from the outside.
No we didn't. First, Harry never actually took up the coin. Second, Harry never did anything actually bad because of it. Dodgy, occasionally, but not actually bad.
Shiro is still dead.
He would have been dead before the next book anyway.
Michael is still crippled.
And that's explicitly his happy ending.
Murphy is still grievously injured.
Good point, but at least until we get the next book, this still has the "consequences are only in the book they occur in" issue.
At least one Splattercon!!!-goer is dead because of Lasciel's influence.
People still care about this person?
Plus? A story's mainly interesting if it challenges its protagonist in some way. Nicodemus isn't going to be challenged by that.
1. Whoever goes after Nicodemus, it won't be goodguys.
He has already shown that through Tessa..
Maybe we could see Nicodemus going after the traitors who are N-fected/working with the Black Council! :)
-
1. Whoever goes after Nicodemus, it won't be goodguys. They will be really nasty types who are in it for money, or if they're from the supernatural side of the fence they will be in it for favors. Marcone has probably built up enough favors he can trade some to them to harass Nicodemus, even if the odds of killing him are very low.
Marcone already got pretty complete revenge, and "send a bunch of mooks to harass him" just plain is not his style.
2. I'm sure Jim could create a situation where Nicodemus is vulnerable. It might even be a way to demonstrate; if only in a small way, how the Grail can be used as a weapon.
He has. When he's up against Dresden. The whole idea is that Dresden is like the one person in centuries who's gotten Nicodemus's goat.
Nicodemus is just plain not protagonist material. He's not someone to be challenged on the way to his goals -- he is the challenge.
Plus? He's completely, irredeemably evil, an utterly horrible person in every respect. I don't see any value in a story where we're ostensibly rooting for him -- or, for that matter, a story where I'm actively rooting against the viewpoint character at every step.
For me, it feels like the opposite: I always knew that the Sword would be fixed, but having it done so easily made it feel like he was "chickening out" of writing actual consequences for it breaking.
I mean, this way it's clear that was the plan. If it got fixed two books later, that would not have been clear -- and it would have seemed, to at least some in the readership, like Jim had intended it to be broken forever, but chickened out and reversed course.
No we didn't. First, Harry never actually took up the coin. Second, Harry never did anything actually bad because of it. Dodgy, occasionally, but not actually bad.
Because -- shock and awe -- Jim is not writing a book series where the badguys win and his main protagonist turns evil.
But the point remains -- we saw the whole, "Tempted by the coin and the power it represents" through Harry. Seeing it second-hand, for characters who make no sense whatsoever picking up a coin is just redundant and pointless. Of all Harry's inner circle, he was the most susceptible to the coins' power. Everyone else is smart enough to know it's not worth it.
And that's explicitly his happy ending.
I imagine he might have been happier not being crippled for life. If it wasn't for the Denarians' plot, he wouldn't have gotten injured.
Good point, but at least until we get the next book, this still has the "consequences are only in the book they occur in" issue.
Jim has already said more or less that Murphy is spending Peace Talks still in recovery.
People still care about this person?
They were a person who died, so yes? This seems super callous. Does it only count as murder if they "mattered" as a person?
Maybe we could see Nicodemus going after the traitors who are N-fected/working with the Black Council! :)
That brings up another point. Jim has said he can't really do a story from Mouse's perspective because he knows too much.
If that's the case, Nicodemus would know way too much.
Also, again -- irredeemably evil shitbag who literally thrives on the pain and suffering of innocent people and whose idea of a second honeymoon is killing off 1/3 of Europe.
I genuinely do not understand how people would want to be in his head for a 30 page story.
-
I genuinely do not understand how people would want to be in his head for a 30 page story.
I agree, unless perhaps to hear what Andriel is whispering in his ear and what Andriel is hearing as he spies about..
-
I mean, this way it's clear that was the plan. If it got fixed two books later, that would not have been clear -- and it would have seemed, to at least some in the readership, like Jim had intended it to be broken forever, but chickened out and reversed course.
And what I'm saying is, it was clear to me from moment one, when the Sword broke, that it was Jim's plan to fix it. And that fixing it at the end of the book the way he did made it look, to me, like Jim had intended for us to see the consequences of it breaking and characters trying to fix it over a few books, but then chickened out and reversed course by fixing it right away.
Because -- shock and awe -- Jim is not writing a book series where the badguys win and his main protagonist turns evil.
Yes, obviously.
But the point remains -- we saw the whole, "Tempted by the coin and the power it represents" through Harry. Seeing it second-hand, for characters who make no sense whatsoever picking up a coin is just redundant and pointless.
That's like saying, "we've already seen the whole 'tempted by Winter's mantle and the power it represents' through Harry. Seeing it second-hand, by having Molly become the Winter Lady, is just redundant and pointless."
Of all Harry's inner circle, he was the most susceptible to the coins' power. Everyone else is smart enough to know it's not worth it.
Thomas.
I imagine he might have been happier not being crippled for life. If it wasn't for the Denarians' plot, he wouldn't have gotten injured.
Ah. I don't seem to have been clear here. When I said "that's explicitly Michael's happy ending," I didn't mean that I think that it's Michael's happy ending, I meant that we have WoJ that it is Michael's happy ending. This way he gets to spend time with his family, instead of always leaving for his job or getting killed.
Jim has already said more or less that Murphy is spending Peace Talks still in recovery.
Okay. I hadn't seen that.
They were a person who died, so yes? This seems super callous. Does it only count as murder if they "mattered" as a person?
Well, it's a book series rather than real life, so yeah.
That brings up another point. Jim has said he can't really do a story from Mouse's perspective because he knows too much.
If that's the case, Nicodemus would know way too much.
Also, again -- irredeemably evil shitbag who literally thrives on the pain and suffering of innocent people and whose idea of a second honeymoon is killing off 1/3 of Europe.
I genuinely do not understand how people would want to be in his head for a 30 page story.
I don't need to be inside his head for it. I just feel like Nicodemus doesn't feel like a threat right now, which is upsetting to me because he's my favorite villain.
And we know that Nicodemus isn't such a bad guy that he and Harry couldn't have done the frenemies thing the way Harry and Mab are, because there's WoJ that if Harry had picked up Lasciel's coin in Changes, which was a real possibility, that would have happened.
-
And what I'm saying is, it was clear to me from moment one, when the Sword broke, that it was Jim's plan to fix it. And that fixing it at the end of the book the way he did made it look, to me, like Jim had intended for us to see the consequences of it breaking and characters trying to fix it over a few books, but then chickened out and reversed course by fixing it right away.
A book is a single, coherent work. It's intended to be a single thing. He's not writing and publishing it piecemeal so that he has to be like, "Wait, shit, I don't want it to be broken, I'll have to fix it in the last chapter."
It's just less credible that he'd "chicken out" midway through writing it. If he had "chickened out" about breaking it midway through the book, then he still obviously has time to just, you know, go back and not break it.
That's like saying, "we've already seen the whole 'tempted by Winter's mantle and the power it represents' through Harry. Seeing it second-hand, by having Molly become the Winter Lady, is just redundant and pointless."
Molly's mantle is a different beast -- for a start, it works differently. It's giving her very different urges, and it got into her in a very different way.
More importantly? It was a consequence of her choices that made sense with her character.
Picking up a Denarian coin does not make a single lick of sense for anyone else Harry knows.
Thomas.
Who took all of one sentence from Harry to agree that it was a terrible idea to even consider it.
Ah. I don't seem to have been clear here. When I said "that's explicitly Michael's happy ending," I didn't mean that I think that it's Michael's happy ending, I meant that we have WoJ that it is Michael's happy ending. This way he gets to spend time with his family, instead of always leaving for his job or getting killed.
I'm aware of that. The fact remains, he needed to be permanently crippled to have a "happy ending" because of the Denarians. It's still a consequence of their actions that has lasting effect on the series and on Michael.
Well, it's a book series rather than real life, so yeah.
So, the Darkhallow succeeding and wiping out Chicago would only have mattered because Thomas and the Alphas lived there? The deaths in White Night only mattered because eventually Harry learned their names?
They matter. Harry is out to protect Chicago, not just those parts of it he knows personally. And in that case? He failed. Not even because he didn't get there in time, but because he took sadistic pleasure in punishing his opponent. An innocent person died because of his actions.
I don't need to be inside his head for it. I just feel like Nicodemus doesn't feel like a threat right now, which is upsetting to me because he's my favorite villain.
Every story in Dresden is in the first-person. If the story was about Nicodemus, he'd be the viewpoint and first-person character.
I disagree that he doesn't feel like a threat. "His plan is stopped" doesn't mean he isn't a threat; it means that his plans are threatening enough to be worth stopping.
And we know that Nicodemus isn't such a bad guy that he and Harry couldn't have done the frenemies thing the way Harry and Mab are, because there's WoJ that if Harry had picked up Lasciel's coin in Changes, which was a real possibility, that would have happened.
That's not because Nicodemus isn't that bad.
It's because picking up Lasciel's coin would have made Harry worse than he is now.
Why do you think Jim didn't go that route? He's even said that it would have ended up being a much darker series, with much worse consequences, for Molly in particular.
Seriously, Nicodemus literally gains power by torturing and murdering innocent people. His reaction to his plan failing is to kill innocent children and force their mother to watch them burn to death. He kidnapped a 12-year-old girl to torture and brainwash.
And that's just the stuff we know about.
-
A book is a single, coherent work. It's intended to be a single thing. He's not writing and publishing it piecemeal so that he has to be like, "Wait, shit, I don't want it to be broken, I'll have to fix it in the last chapter."
It's just less credible that he'd "chicken out" midway through writing it. If he had "chickened out" about breaking it midway through the book, then he still obviously has time to just, you know, go back and not break it.
You know, I'm not actually saying that I'm right and you're wrong here. I'm saying, "well, you may feel one way about it, but I feel a different way--it's not so clear-cut."
Molly's mantle is a different beast -- for a start, it works differently. It's giving her very different urges, and it got into her in a very different way.
I'm pretty sure each Fallen in its coin works differently, too. They are each individuals, after all.
More importantly? It was a consequence of her choices that made sense with her character.
Picking up a Denarian coin does not make a single lick of sense for anyone else Harry knows.
I disagree. Even apart from Thomas (who I'll talk about below) I can see Murphy getting tricked/coerced into taking up a coin. It would fit her character arc: in Small Favor, she talks about her faith in the law and how it hurts everyone to break it, in a manner reminiscent of the way Michael talks-->by Ghost Story, she's in a much darker place and disregarding the law-->at the end of Cold Days she say's she'll follow Harry down whatever dark road he chooses to take-->in Skin Game, she makes it clear that she'll do just about anything for Harry and to keep Harry safe, and gets the Sword broken as a result, and is also permanently injured-->I can easily see a situation where Murphy, worn down and feeling helpless, ends up taking up a coin because she thinks it's the only way to save Harry.
Who took all of one sentence from Harry to agree that it was a terrible idea to even consider it.
Except he didn't really mean it, because Harry had to talk him out of it later. And then there was the thing with the Skinwalker convincing him that he's a monster, which we still haven't seen too many consequences from, and his reaction to Harry's suicide (which seems really clearly to have reinforced the "monster" thing for him), and now Justine is dying because she's pregnant with his child...
And Thomas hasn't been particularly affected by any of the Denarian stuff, so he wouldn't have the same reaction to the concept that the people who have been hurt by it would.
I'm aware of that. The fact remains, he needed to be permanently crippled to have a "happy ending" because of the Denarians. It's still a consequence of their actions that has lasting effect on the series and on Michael.
But it's not a negative consequence, which is what I'm talking about.
So, the Darkhallow succeeding and wiping out Chicago would only have mattered because Thomas and the Alphas lived there? The deaths in White Night only mattered because eventually Harry learned their names?
They matter. Harry is out to protect Chicago, not just those parts of it he knows personally. And in that case? He failed. Not even because he didn't get there in time, but because he took sadistic pleasure in punishing his opponent. An innocent person died because of his actions.
She was a throw-away character that doesn't get mentioned in any scene except the one she dies in. Harry doesn't even ever reflect on "that one girl he got killed because he was using hellfire" when he's talking to Michael about Lasciel at the end of that book (or anywhere else in that book), much less in any other books.
It's like, Harry's neighbors almost certainly can't watch tv, or use computers, without them breaking because Harry lives in the same apartment building as them. And I don't even want to think about how much they probably have to spend replacing cell phones. Or about things like hot showers and light bulbs. Harry is almost certainly making their lives worse by a fair amount. But that doesn't matter, because we don't see it in the books.
Every story in Dresden is in the first-person. If the story was about Nicodemus, he'd be the viewpoint and first-person character.
The story could have Nicodemus in it without it being from his perspective.
I disagree that he doesn't feel like a threat. "His plan is stopped" doesn't mean he isn't a threat; it means that his plans are threatening enough to be worth stopping.
He's not threatening the way Mab is, or the way the Fomor are, or the way the Red Court was. Because those guys win occasionally, and Nicodemus never does. That's the kind of victory I'm talking about. I mean, if there was even some mention of "so-and-so isn't available to help right now, because Nicodemus managed to *insert something nasty here* and they're busy doing damage control," or "Sanya's in the hospital--he tried to stop Nicodemus from doing *something nasty* and got a grenade tossed through the window of his hotel room for his trouble," I'd be happier. But he can't even seem to win offscreen.
That's not because Nicodemus isn't that bad.
It's because picking up Lasciel's coin would have made Harry worse than he is now.
Why do you think Jim didn't go that route? He's even said that it would have ended up being a much darker series, with much worse consequences, for Molly in particular.
Jim has explicitly said that Harry went with Mab because she was the most reliable evil, not the lesser evil. And Molly would deal with worse consequences because of who her father is--if her father were the Summer Knight, then she would be dealing with worse consequences because Harry went with Mab.
Seriously, Nicodemus literally gains power by torturing and murdering innocent people. His reaction to his plan failing is to kill innocent children and force their mother to watch them burn to death. He kidnapped a 12-year-old girl to torture and brainwash.
And that's just the stuff we know about.
You forgot about the Black Plague (although, fun fact, my high school history class said that the Black Plague was actually one of the major factor in causing the Renaissance, which drastically improved people's lives... ;D )
And Mab and Lea have done stuff that is comparable.
Please note, I'm not saying that Nicodemus isn't evil. I'm saying that, from my perspective, he looks less like a "doing evil for fun" kind of guy, and more like what happens when you take an "ends justify the means" kind of guy and give him the ability to gain power by causing suffering, then wait 2000 years. His "ends" could be completely benevolent, irregardless of how evil his "means" make him.
-
You forgot about the Black Plague (although, fun fact, my high school history class said that the Black Plague was actually one of the major factor in causing the Renaissance, which drastically improved people's lives... ;D )
The plague hit on and off all through the Renaissance... Improvement in the weather pattern also helped, meant more food, the people got stronger and healthier, which meant they could use their minds for a bit more than mere survival, that is what brought on the Renaissance..
-
Personally, I can't see a Nicodemus short happening. POV writing would have to at least touch on his motivations, and what endgame Nic is actually playing towards is so fundamental to the main novels that I'd be really surprised if Jim revealed it in a short rather than save it for book 20 or the BAT.
Now, a short from one of the others who aren't loyal to Nic's plan - Lasciel, or maybe Tessa / Imariel (if that didn't automatically spoil which Denarian is N-fected) ... that could be interesting indeed.
-
Personally, I can't see a Nicodemus short happening. POV writing would have to at least touch on his motivations, and what endgame Nic is actually playing towards is so fundamental to the main novels that I'd be really surprised if Jim revealed it in a short rather than save it for book 20 or the BAT.
Now, a short from one of the others who aren't loyal to Nic's plan - Lasciel, or maybe Tessa / Imariel (if that didn't automatically spoil which Denarian is N-fected) ... that could be interesting indeed.
I really doubt that any of the Denarians are N-fected, I think they play for the same team.
-
I really doubt that any of the Denarians are N-fected, I think they play for the same team.
What about the thing with Thorned Namshiel then, and Nicodemus's reaction to being told that hellfire was used in the assault on Arctis Tor?
-
What about the thing with Thorned Namshiel then, and Nicodemus's reaction to being told that hellfire was used in the assault on Arctis Tor?
Who knows? It isn't like Nic isn't a liar..
-
You know, I'm not actually saying that I'm right and you're wrong here. I'm saying, "well, you may feel one way about it, but I feel a different way--it's not so clear-cut."
Fair enough.
I'm pretty sure each Fallen in its coin works differently, too. They are each individuals, after all.
And the uniqueness is what happens inside the characters' heads. Unless Jim's going to write a bunch of extra short stories, which A. he doesn't really want to do, and B. would make them required reading for the main series, we're just plain not going to see it.
I disagree. Even apart from Thomas (who I'll talk about below) I can see Murphy getting tricked/coerced into taking up a coin. It would fit her character arc: in Small Favor, she talks about her faith in the law and how it hurts everyone to break it, in a manner reminiscent of the way Michael talks-->by Ghost Story, she's in a much darker place and disregarding the law-->at the end of Cold Days she say's she'll follow Harry down whatever dark road he chooses to take-->in Skin Game, she makes it clear that she'll do just about anything for Harry and to keep Harry safe, and gets the Sword broken as a result, and is also permanently injured-->I can easily see a situation where Murphy, worn down and feeling helpless, ends up taking up a coin because she thinks it's the only way to save Harry.
Murphy has already flatly refused power from benign and outright good sources, including the one literally powered by the God of her own faith. She's seen what the coin did to Harry and recognized -- then and now -- that it was a bad thing for him. She has been personally attacked and physically near disabled by the Denarians.
Her picking up a coin would not fit with any of that or the character development that came with it. She'd have to be very stupid to ignore everything she has seen with her own eyes.
Plus, Jim's said repeatedly she's not getting any supernatural power-ups.
Except he didn't really mean it, because Harry had to talk him out of it later. And then there was the thing with the Skinwalker convincing him that he's a monster, which we still haven't seen too many consequences from, and his reaction to Harry's suicide (which seems really clearly to have reinforced the "monster" thing for him), and now Justine is dying because she's pregnant with his child...
As far as I can recall, the only time Harry has to talk him out of it is in Small Favor, right after they find Hendrix and Gard.
Accepting the "monster," which, going by the later books he really has not genuinely done, does not mean he's going to take up a coin. Justine is in trouble because of the one monster already in Thomas, he'd have to be monumentally stupid to think that another monster would help.
And Thomas hasn't been particularly affected by any of the Denarian stuff, so he wouldn't have the same reaction to the concept that the people who have been hurt by it would.
Because, frankly? It's not his plot. It's Harry's, and Harry has basically gone the whole nine yards on it. And he's seen enough of it in Harry and has enough experience fighting his own demon that he'd understand the concept.
But it's not a negative consequence, which is what I'm talking about.
He's half blind and needs a cane to walk, and I think I remember something about him losing a kidney. That seems pretty negative to me.
She was a throw-away character that doesn't get mentioned in any scene except the one she dies in. Harry doesn't even ever reflect on "that one girl he got killed because he was using hellfire" when he's talking to Michael about Lasciel at the end of that book (or anywhere else in that book), much less in any other books.
It's still something that affects him. That there were other, bigger things going on does not negate that.
If it were meaningless, it would not be pointed out so directly in the book.
It's like, Harry's neighbors almost certainly can't watch tv, or use computers, without them breaking because Harry lives in the same apartment building as them. And I don't even want to think about how much they probably have to spend replacing cell phones. Or about things like hot showers and light bulbs. Harry is almost certainly making their lives worse by a fair amount. But that doesn't matter, because we don't see it in the books.
Harry's field does not extend that far. In an early book, he's in line of sight of Murphy and she's able to safely turn off her computer while he's in the hall just outside her office.
He's in the subbasement of a boarding house and I think in Changes it's mentioned that his only neighbors are a couple elderly people two floors above him. They're fine.
The story could have Nicodemus in it without it being from his perspective.
Then it's not a story about Nicodemus. It's a story about whoever's perspective it's from.
He's not threatening the way Mab is, or the way the Fomor are, or the way the Red Court was. Because those guys win occasionally, and Nicodemus never does. That's the kind of victory I'm talking about. I mean, if there was even some mention of "so-and-so isn't available to help right now, because Nicodemus managed to *insert something nasty here* and they're busy doing damage control," or "Sanya's in the hospital--he tried to stop Nicodemus from doing *something nasty* and got a grenade tossed through the window of his hotel room for his trouble," I'd be happier. But he can't even seem to win offscreen.
So the guy who nearly killed Harry several times, crippled Harry's best friend and nearly killed Harry's daughter is less threatening than Mab, whose only action directly against Harry has been to make him stab his hand?
The Fomor are scared of wizards in general and only came into the city because Harry wasn't there. And they haven't won anything on screen. Their biggest on-screen operations have been thwarted by a short mortal woman and a half-mad, half-trained wizard. The "wins" they've had so far are kidnapping people who -- as you would have it -- don't matter.
Nicodemus doesn't win "off screen" because he's the type of baddie that whatever plot he's up to needs to be stopped by the main character. He's not going to go rob a bank. He's going to depopulate a major country by unleashing a plague at an airport.
Frankly, he's too "big" for a short story material.
Jim has explicitly said that Harry went with Mab because she was the most reliable evil, not the lesser evil. And Molly would deal with worse consequences because of who her father is--if her father were the Summer Knight, then she would be dealing with worse consequences because Harry went with Mab.
Mab is less evil than Nicodemus. Jim doesn't have to spell that out because it's frankly obvious. Mab is going to ask Harry to kill people -- but for a reason, and we learn that her reasons have to do with preserving reality.
Nicodemus is going to actively try to make Harry a worse person, someone who kills because it's convenient. Mab prefers that Harry fight back against her nastier side and wants him to do his own thing.
And you think that would be the only consequences for Molly? You don't think Miss Crazy In Love With Harry And Already Tempted AF To The Dark Side would look at Harry taking up a coin and think, "Well, if he's doing it, maybe I should to?"
You forgot about the Black Plague (although, fun fact, my high school history class said that the Black Plague was actually one of the major factor in causing the Renaissance, which drastically improved people's lives... ;D )
And Mab and Lea have done stuff that is comparable.
Such as?
Please note, I'm not saying that Nicodemus isn't evil. I'm saying that, from my perspective, he looks less like a "doing evil for fun" kind of guy, and more like what happens when you take an "ends justify the means" kind of guy and give him the ability to gain power by causing suffering, then wait 2000 years. His "ends" could be completely benevolent, irregardless of how evil his "means" make him.
At a certain point, it doesn't really matter what his ends are.
Means of "causing a new Black Plague, murdering innocent children out of spite and torturing a 12-year-old girl" are way past that point.
The kind of person who would do any of those things -- let alone all three with a smug smile on his face -- is not the kind of person who fits the protagonist role in a series like Dresden.
-
I really doubt that any of the Denarians are N-fected, I think they play for the same team.
My understanding is that "Nemesis" is an Outsider-y thing. Denarians are not. I suspect they stand to lose as much as anyone else, from the Outsiders.
Except... we know that some (apparently very-competent) folk do seem to make deals with Outsiders. Cowl, for example, seems to be in league with them, to one degree or another.
"Nemfection" may begin with something accidental; Lea seems to have thought the Athame was "safe," but it wasn't. Aurora and Maeve were probably Nemfected (possibly all 3 came from the Athame?).
Who's to say that a Denarian (or his host!) cannot also succumb to Nemfection?
Nic may have been putting on an act in the Aquarium, when he "seemed" angry/surprised to learn that Hellfire had been part of the assault on A.Tor; but maybe he wasn't faking.
So, if he wasn't faking it... why was he angry? Was it from "I do not want Mab for my enemy"? Was it from "Why was my subordinate running their own op & hiding it from me?"
Was if from, "I'm pretty sure that was a Nemfected op, WTF was Hellfire doing anywhere near Nemfection?" And if so, was it a matter of "why was that moron assisting an enemy?" or was it "I thought the Fallen were immune to (or very resistant to) Nemfection, but it looks like they got to one of us... or more??!?"
Or something else entirely???
-
I'm ready for the Peace Talks so I'm against new short stories at this point.
However Hitler and Stalin were in bed with each other, and it was just a matter time until someone back stabbed someone.
-
My understanding is that "Nemesis" is an Outsider-y thing. Denarians are not. I suspect they stand to lose as much as anyone else, from the Outsiders.
I don't think we know yet...
-
Just a thought. Why add something else to what is already a pretty full plate writing wise. I'd settle for getting the stories I've already bought into. The Dresden case files.
This story would help flesh out that world.
-
One of several problems I'd have with a Nicodemus perspective is that it might soften his character too much. Learning too much about him may have us start rooting for him in future books. I mean, if you find out that Nicodemus has been doing all of these evil things in order to stop something much worse, some might start thinking, "Well, would it really be so bad if Harry lost?"
On the other hand, if it doesn't soften his character and he remains evil throughout and doesn't offer new insight into his motivations, then it'd probably be a bad story. I don't want to read about Nic setting boxes of puppies on fire, spraying Ebola-infected aerosols across the upper atmosphere above South Carolina, and having conversations at full volume in a crowded movie theater.
In other words: if the story wouldn't give us more insight into Nic's character, then it wouldn't be worth it. But if it does, it might have a negative impact on his future appearances in the novels.
-
One of several problems I'd have with a Nicodemus perspective is that it might soften his character too much. Learning too much about him may have us start rooting for him in future books. I mean, if you find out that Nicodemus has been doing all of these evil things in order to stop something much worse, some might start thinking, "Well, would it really be so bad if Harry lost?"
On the other hand, if it doesn't soften his character and he remains evil throughout and doesn't offer new insight into his motivations, then it'd probably be a bad story. I don't want to read about Nic setting boxes of puppies on fire, spraying Ebola-infected aerosols across the upper atmosphere above South Carolina, and having conversations at full volume in a crowded movie theater.
In other words: if the story wouldn't give us more insight into Nic's character, then it wouldn't be worth it. But if it does, it might have a negative impact on his future appearances in the novels.
No one is the villain of their own story. I prefer antagonists who are more than “Snidely Whiplash” waxing their mustache. I think Jim could write this story in such a way that we don’t see all of Nic’a goals but we aee just how dangerous he really is and give us some insight into why he does what he does.
-
I disagree. Even apart from Thomas (who I'll talk about below) I can see Murphy getting tricked/coerced into taking up a coin. It would fit her character arc: in Small Favor, she talks about her faith in the law and how it hurts everyone to break it, in a manner reminiscent of the way Michael talks-->by Ghost Story, she's in a much darker place and disregarding the law-->at the end of Cold Days she say's she'll follow Harry down whatever dark road he chooses to take-->in Skin Game, she makes it clear that she'll do just about anything for Harry and to keep Harry safe, and gets the Sword broken as a result, and is also permanently injured-->I can easily see a situation where Murphy, worn down and feeling helpless, ends up taking up a coin because she thinks it's the only way to save Harry.
That was my first thought as well. I don't think it likely, though.
The plague hit on and off all through the Renaissance... Improvement in the weather pattern also helped, meant more food, the people got stronger and healthier, which meant they could use their minds for a bit more than mere survival, that is what brought on the Renaissance..
I've seen the speculation that the Black Death basically ended serfdom in Western Europe leading to the West and the modern world as we know it. The basic theory is that all the death made peasant labor valuable enough that peasants were able to break their ties with the land. It seemed convincing, but I wouldn't pretend I studied it enough to be convinced or invested one way or another. Also, I don't have Professor Farnsworth's "what if machine" that isn't worth the solid gold it's made of.
No one is the villain of their own story.
I've never agreed with that. Some people have to know they're the bad guy, at least in a particular situation. Maybe Marcone? I'd have to study Even Hand more to even think about coming to a conclusion on that one.
-
I've seen the speculation that the Black Death basically ended serfdom in Western Europe leading to the West and the modern world as we know it. The basic theory is that all the death made peasant labor valuable enough that peasants were able to break their ties with the land. It seemed convincing, but I wouldn't pretend I studied it enough to be convinced or invested one way or another. Also, I don't have Professor Farnsworth's "what if machine" that isn't worth the solid gold it's made of.
Bargaining power did indeed have a significant impact on the decline of serfdom as an institution. It was also helped along by the decline of the manorial system in favor of more centralized monarchies. Peasant revolts didn't help the system survive either.
You can pretty much see the rise and fall of most institutions and governments as gradual consolidations of power, then gradual redistribution of that power. Most cultures have gone through the centralization-->dissolution-->centralization cycle more than once. Even the US did it, though our "dissolution-->centralization" cycle is more understated and the decentralized aspect only lasted like eight years. What we've got now is an attempt at balancing those two.
-
Let me be more specific. I haven't studied the issue enough to have a strong belief that the Black Death made the world a better place by shifting economic power which in turn shifted social power.
Which eight years? Articles of Confederation?
-
... I've never agreed with that. Some people have to know they're the bad guy, at least in a particular situation. Maybe Marcone? I'd have to study Even Hand more to even think about coming to a conclusion on that one.
I think Marcone sees himself as the "least bad bad-guy" for the job; in the sense that somebody will do it, or some anarchic warring factions. So Marcone is the best option.
-
Even Hand is forced, not one of his better. Marcone is written just as he's ends up being named, Baron. I suppose Jim took some courses in European history. Whatever menace Jim intended for Marcone falls flat. Nicodemus is written like a sociopath.
-
BA,
I've never agreed with that. Some people have to know they're the bad guy, at least in a particular situation. Maybe Marcone? I'd have to study Even Hand more to even think about coming to a conclusion on that one.
It’s not that they don’t recognize their actions as “bad” it is that those folks believe that their bad actions are justified by existing exigencies. Therefore they think they are doing something “bad” to achieve a “greater good”.
-
In general, I would like to see a short story about Nic, or have something about him in book 20 (which would make sense given that it’s part of the BAT & that’s kinda Nic’s goal - remember that Denarians gain power during such times) following the series convention.
There is still some stuff left in Nic’s arc that is of interest & relates to the overall story arc.
Nic seems to believe that he should be given sainthood for his actions & I like the theory that Deidre was sacrificed due to Nfection.
Additionally there would be some revelatory stuff in a short story from Nic’s POV in terms of Anduriel - who is actually in the front seat here?
What is the relationship between Lucifer & the Fallen exactly? Including Nic in the BAT could be a way to introduce higher ranking members of Hell to the series.
I’ve always liked the character & would like to see how he ends up. I don’t think we’ve seen the last of him as of SG.
@Mira
I believe Denarians can definitely be Nfected - what we learn about the way Nemesis operates is that it gives frustrated immortals a way to ‘bend’ their nature - it allows the Fae to lie for example. I would not be surprised if there was a Fallen that was tired of the limitations put on it & wanted a way to break loose.
The argument that the Denarians have as much to lose as everyone does not hold water as seen through the actions of the Nfected Aurora & Maeve.
-
I mean, if you find out that Nicodemus has been doing all of these evil things in order to stop something much worse, some might start thinking, "Well, would it really be so bad if Harry lost?"
I'm sitting at about 90% sure they at least think they're doing it to stop something worse. Deirdre's claim about "We are saving the world" makes sense if they see Hell's victory as a lesser harm to the world than, most likely, the Outsiders'.
They can be fanatically certain that Hell winning is the only way to stop something worse and still be dead wrong about it, though - either because Hell's victory would actually be just as bad for the world, or because there's another way to stop Empty Night without destroying most of the mortal world in the process.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if disagreement about how scorched-Earth to go in fighting the Outsiders was the reason why a lot of the Fallen fell in the first place, for that matter. The WoJ about Lucifer trying to prove a point in a dispute with the Almighty could be whether humanity is really worth taking chances outcome of the Outsider war, rather than just cutting loose with everything they've got even though earth would be collateral damage. All the people like Nic and Tessa are anecdotal evidence that humanity isn't worth sparing.
-
Nic seems to believe that he should be given sainthood for his actions & I like the theory that Deidre was sacrificed due to Nfection.
I can't point to any proof that Deirdre wasn't N-fected, but it seems unlikely. She was sacrificed because she was the only one Nic trusted to open the last gate after dying. That level of trust doesn't seem like something he'd invest in someone he believed to be mentally compromised by an outsider influence. (I still don't get why he didn't throw a couple of squires at that problem and play the odds that one of his pet fanatics would stay loyal before wasting Deirdre as a last resort if they didn't, though...)
At minimum, though, someone else has to have been behind the Hellfire attack on Arctis Tor. Deirdre is among the Denarians seen fighting on page most often, and she's never shown any affinity for any spells beyond shapeshifting. So even if she is infected, probably at least one of Tessa / Rosanna / Namshiel are also.
-
It’s not that they don’t recognize their actions as “bad” it is that those folks believe that their bad actions are justified by existing exigencies. Therefore they think they are doing something “bad” to achieve a “greater good”.
I think the first half is true, and the second half is not. I think many a person realizes they are doing something wrong, but they rationalize it as:
A. Just this once (for the xth time)
B. I can't help it
C. I really need it, or I need it more (i.e. the stealing food for your child moralization)
D. I'm a good enough person, or have had enough bad stuff happen to me that I deserve something enough that it is ok for me to do something bad to get what I want
I mean, the number of people who seem to think they are good people because while they will do evil to get money now, "when they have enough" they will stop and be "good" people boggles my mind (and scares me)
-
I've never agreed with that. Some people have to know they're the bad guy, at least in a particular situation.
I think the Bard would agree with you.
I am determined to prove a villain Richard III - from the opening soliloquy
However, that doesn't mean Nicodemus doesn't believe that he is "saving the world," as Deirdre stated. It's possible that even as evil as he is, Nicodemus believes he is doing the right thing. What Nicodemus and Deirdre never own up to is their choice to inflict unnecessary harm on others. There's nothing surgical about the way they operate in the books. They both enjoyed killing; and sometimes torturing first, whenever they had the opportunity to do so. Nicodemus was just sometimes more businesslike about it than Deirdre.
-
I do wonder - why do people always assume Nemfection for anyone aligned with the Outsiders?
It seems much more likely to me that some Denarian cut a deal with Outsiders to gain power in exchange for support, and that support was attacking Arctis Tor.
I mean, I think Cowl is also in league with the Outsiders, but all for his own twisted purposes, not because Nemesis broke his mind (or maybe Black Magic broke his mind instead, one crack at a time). Lord Raith aligned with the Outsiders and got near magic-immunity for it (and wouldn't that be a great way for Cowl to have survived the collapsing Darkhallow?)
In fact, I don't think we have evidence of Nemfection for anyone but Faeries/Sidhe... and I also think for a reason; humans fundamentally can align themselves with self-destructive plots against their intended nature because they are morons, and if they are magic-users the subsequent black magic will redecorate their minds just fine. Faeries can only go against their nature when something external helps them.
/rant off
-
@Snark Knight
It’s a theory I read about a couple of months ago. The line of logic to me goes like this:
- A Denarian threw hellfire at the Black Council backed attack on Arctis Tor - Mab points at Namshiel, who is Tessa’s sorcery teacher. Namshiel could be the vector of Nfection in Tessa’s crew, with whom Deedee spends some time (she is clearly more loyal to her dad, but Tessa’s concern for her in SG shows that Deedee is somewhat close to her mother).
- Nic was unaware that a Denarian was involved in the AT assault & reacts violently when informed. No doubt after the events of SmF he did some digging to see what was going on
- By the time of SG, Nic figures out that Deedee has been Nfected so decides she must die, with her coin remaining in Hades. With Deedee dying in the Greek Underworld, she would also be spared Heaven’s wrath (from the Denarian POV).
- Nic could have sacrificed any of the young squires who consider him a Demi-god. Remember, these people are so brainwashed that they think of lopping their tongues off as a great honor. Did he really need to kill Deedee when he clearly has other options?
It’s admittedly not perfect, but there was definitely something more going on before Nic sacrificed Deedee at the blood gate. Their mysterious conversation included phrases like “the enemy cannot get to you here” & his response to when Deidre tells him that she loves him is “That is the problem”.
@Avernite
I actually had a WAG that only immortals are capable of being Nfected. From what we’ve seen with how it works with the Sidhe, it allows its’ hosts to bend their nature, something that should not be possible - it allows Maeve & Aurora to override the programming & compulsions of their mantles. It basically gives “free will” to beings that no longer have it.
This is why it wouldn’t work on mortals - Nemesis doesn’t give mortals any advantage that free will doesn’t already. Instead, I believe that the Outsiders corrupt mortals like Cowl etc by offering them immortality.
-
First point: Her coin does not remain in Hades. Nic explicitly picks it up.
Second: I've theorized that the Gate of Blood does not refer solely to needing to kill someone; it's her shade that does the opening, after all, so why not call it the "Gate of Souls"? Rather, "blood" could refer to family relation.
Remember this whole thing was set up deliberately by Mab and Marcone with specific information leaked to Nicodemus, for the express purpose of hitting him where it hurts the most. I can definitely see those two angling it so that Nicodemus believes that he has to kill his own blood to get through it.
Also, if Deirdre was Nemfected, why would Nicodemus trust her with something so important?
-
@Mr. Death
Ah yes, my mistake about leaving the coin in Hades. To be clear, I’m not 100% that this theory is true (there are problems with it), but I think it would be cool twist if it were.
I do like the theory about Mab lying to Nic that the Blood gate demands a blood relation as sacrifice, although if that were the case I could see Nic bringing along a couple of sibling squires & having one sacrifice the other - I mean having Nic sacrifice the only person in the world he loves would require extreme circumstances because Nic would literally think of every other option before he decides to go with killing his daughter.
I feel like there is more to it, especially given their mysterious conversation before he actually drives a knife into her.
-
If Immortals are the only ones capable of being able to be Nfected, then the Denarians wouldn't be part of that. They're immortal in that they don't die, but they also have Free Will, as shown by the fact that they can give up the coin and seek redemption. They don't have an inviolable nature the way Maeve and others do.
-
If Immortals are the only ones capable of being able to be Nfected, then the Denarians wouldn't be part of that. They're immortal in that they don't die, but they also have Free Will, as shown by the fact that they can give up the coin and seek redemption. They don't have an inviolable nature the way Maeve and others do.
The (human) hosts may still have free will (though I'm unclear if broken madmen like chained-to-the-cliff Rasmussen even CAN have it); but the Fallen, bound within their Denarii...? And of course, the Fallen is where the world-shaking power resides...
-
@g33k
One might even say Arctis Tor shaking power
-
@Mr. Death: Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your post. My computer has been refusing to connect to the internet since July 1st, and I only got it working today.
And the uniqueness is what happens inside the characters' heads. Unless Jim's going to write a bunch of extra short stories, which A. he doesn't really want to do, and B. would make them required reading for the main series, we're just plain not going to see it.
Weren't we explicitly talking about whether we'd like Jim to write a short story (or more)? It's been a while, so I might be wrong, but that's what I thought this thread was about.
Murphy has already flatly refused power from benign and outright good sources, including the one literally powered by the God of her own faith.
And picked up power that she knows she shouldn't to help Harry.
She's seen what the coin did to Harry and recognized -- then and now -- that it was a bad thing for him.
And I think she'd be willing to do something that she knows is a "bad thing" for her if she thought that it was the only way of saving Harry.
Her picking up a coin would not fit with any of that or the character development that came with it.
I think it would fit. But then, I've got a far more negative view of Murphy, especially in later books, than lots of people.
She'd have to be very stupid to ignore everything she has seen with her own eyes.
Or very desperate.
Plus, Jim's said repeatedly she's not getting any supernatural power-ups.
True.
On the other hand, Jim's also said that he lies.
But on the third hand, I also know that that's not a particularly good refutation of any particular thing Jim's said, since statistically he mostly tells the truth, so...
As far as I can recall, the only time Harry has to talk him out of it is in Small Favor, right after they find Hendrix and Gard.
Yes, that's what I was referring to.
Accepting the "monster," which, going by the later books he really has not genuinely done, does not mean he's going to take up a coin.
No, but it indicates that it's not totally OOC for him to do so.
Justine is in trouble because of the one monster already in Thomas, he'd have to be monumentally stupid to think that another monster would help.
The WCV thing and the Fallen are pretty different, as I understand them. Also, when did Lasciel's shadow ever try to do anything to hurt anyone Harry cared about? (Point is, I know Harry makes this argument, I'm just not sure if it's valid or if he just made it to convince Thomas.)
Because, frankly? It's not his plot. It's Harry's, and Harry has basically gone the whole nine yards on it. And he's seen enough of it in Harry and has enough experience fighting his own demon that he'd understand the concept.
He saw Harry fight--and win. Because, frankly, Harry saved a lot of lives because he had access to Lasciel's shadow that he couldn't have saved otherwise, with relatively few negative consequences.
He's half blind and needs a cane to walk, and I think I remember something about him losing a kidney. That seems pretty negative to me.
If there was a better option available to him, I would agree with you. But Jim has said explicitly that that was Michael's happy ending--which, as I understand the term, means that it was the best of all possible (or at least probable) outcomes--which doesn't seem negative to me, in that context.
It's still something that affects him. That there were other, bigger things going on does not negate that.
If it were meaningless, it would not be pointed out so directly in the book.
It's been a while, so I may be misremembering, but I believe my complaint here was that none of the negative consequences that the Denarians do manage to inflict last beyond the book they happen in.
So while I agree that it was meaningful at the time, it does not address my problem.
Harry's field does not extend that far. In an early book, he's in line of sight of Murphy and she's able to safely turn off her computer while he's in the hall just outside her office.
He's in the subbasement of a boarding house and I think in Changes it's mentioned that his only neighbors are a couple elderly people two floors above him. They're fine.
1) It's explicitly stated that the more exposure Harry has to tech, the worse and the more likely it is to break. Harry is in his home much more often than he is in Murphy's office.
2) Harry's not just present in his home--he is actively working magic. This worsens the problem dramatically, as we've seen in the books.
3) Harry also has wards, which as a constantly running magic, probably also make things worse.
4) Jim has said in one of his interviews that Harry being in the apartment building causes lots of problems--for the landlady, if no one else.
Then it's not a story about Nicodemus. It's a story about whoever's perspective it's from.
I don't care. I just want to see him win for once. Every other recurring villain gets to have victories--why not him?
So the guy who nearly killed Harry several times, crippled Harry's best friend and nearly killed Harry's daughter is less threatening than Mab, whose only action directly against Harry has been to make him stab his hand?
Yes--because every time Nicodemus has a plan, I can be sure he'll lose comprehensively, whereas every time Mab has a plan, I can be confident that she has a good chance of winning.
The Fomor are scared of wizards in general and only came into the city because Harry wasn't there. And they haven't won anything on screen. Their biggest on-screen operations have been thwarted by a short mortal woman and a half-mad, half-trained wizard. The "wins" they've had so far are kidnapping people who -- as you would have it -- don't matter.
The Fomor have caused comprehensive damage to Chicago and its defenders--and I've said that I would be fine with even an off-screen win for Nic.
Nicodemus doesn't win "off screen" because he's the type of baddie that whatever plot he's up to needs to be stopped by the main character. He's not going to go rob a bank. He's going to depopulate a major country by unleashing a plague at an airport.
His twitter feed makes reference (among other things) to him being responsible for a major hurricane. That seems like something which is both Nic's kind of win, and which can happen off-screen and only be referenced in the books.
Mab is less evil than Nicodemus. Jim doesn't have to spell that out because it's frankly obvious.
No it isn't. If it were that obvious, we wouldn't be having this debate. I think that it's obvious that Mab is either as evil as Nicodemus is, or at least close--but clearly you disagree.
Mab is going to ask Harry to kill people -- but for a reason, and we learn that her reasons have to do with preserving reality.
We don't know what Nicodemus's reason is, and there's some evidence that they might have to do with preserving reality as well.
Nicodemus is going to actively try to make Harry a worse person, someone who kills because it's convenient. Mab prefers that Harry fight back against her nastier side and wants him to do his own thing.
I interpret Mab differently. To me, it seems clear that, while Mab definitely wants Harry to be himself, she also wants him to be a fundamentally darker and less moral version of himself. Or, to put it another way, she wants him to be the Winter version of someone like Rosanna, not someone like Magog's hosts.
And you think that would be the only consequences for Molly? You don't think Miss Crazy In Love With Harry And Already Tempted AF To The Dark Side would look at Harry taking up a coin and think, "Well, if he's doing it, maybe I should to?"
Oh, this would definitely happen. We have WoJ that if Harry had picked up Lasciel's coin in Changes, then Molly would have ended up with a coin as well.
What I'm saying is that, if Michael were the Summer Knight, Molly would view becoming the Winter Lady as being just as bad as canon!Molly would view becoming a Denarian.
And becoming a Denarian has at least two undisputable advantages that I can see: it doesn't erode your soul (as in, you still have a soul, even if it might end up being condemned to Hell) and there's a known exit strategy.
Such as?
I can't list a whole lot, since, while I feel certain that the books have referenced nasty stuff that Mab has done, I haven't had access to my books for a year at this point (with the sporadic exception of Small Favor, which I don't have right now).
For what I do remember:
-She picks Knights that are serial murderers and rapists, and we have WoJ that she does so because she doesn't want to deal with training them--which says a lot about the kind of jobs she has them doing
-the RPG book Paranet Papers implies that Mab had a hand in Stalinist Russia (implies because the RPG works hard not to say anything outright so people can make up their own answers); and there is an unconfirmed WoJ (as in, I've seen someone say that there's a WoJ, but haven't seen the WoJ itself) that all the story elements in Paranet Papers are true in Dresden canon
-the Dresden Files Accelerated RPG has Ivy say that Mab is the inspiration behind the Beauty and the Beast story, and that what really happened was horribly worse.
-Mab is definitely pushing Harry to be less moral--she deliberately pushed Harry to commit cold-blooded murder as a prerequisite to becoming the Winter Knight, and was annoyed that Harry objected to murdering people in Skin Game
-according to WoJ, Lea became Mab's handmaiden because Mab was impressed that "[Lea] took these guys who were out there just seeking to create something beautiful and yet increased [her] dark and evil power"
-the Winter Knight mantle seems to be pushing Harry to be a far worse person than Lasciel's shadow ever did
At a certain point, it doesn't really matter what his ends are.
Weren't you just saying earlier in your post that Mab's ends were a mitigating factor?
And addressing a different post:
One of several problems I'd have with a Nicodemus perspective is that it might soften his character too much. Learning too much about him may have us start rooting for him in future books.
I'm already rooting for him, at least insofar as I want my favorite villain to have some wins against non-Harry people, so that when Harry wins it's more impressive.
I mean, if you find out that Nicodemus has been doing all of these evil things in order to stop something much worse
Lots of people, including me, already think this.
some might start thinking, "Well, would it really be so bad if Harry lost?"
Well, more like "would it really be so bad if Marcone lost to him?" and "would it really be so bad if Harry worked with him temporarily?"
...You know, unlike Harry, I would probably do awful at resisting a Denarian shadow. I am far too easy to convince ;D
-
BA,
It’s not that they don’t recognize their actions as “bad” it is that those folks believe that their bad actions are justified by existing exigencies. Therefore they think they are doing something “bad” to achieve a “greater good”.
A villain either is a sociopath who doesn't understand right and wrong, someone who believes they're making the hard choices, or someone who knows they are wrong and pursuing their own selfish goals. I believe the first and last are more common than the second one who "is the hero of their own story." Now, they may have rationalized everything they do, but they don't truly believe it.
I watched the panel Jim was on about villains last night. Jim said Londo Mollari from Babylon 5 was (one of) the best villains. The thing about Londo is that he knows he is the villain. Sure he thinks his actions are the only option he has left at the time he takes them, but he usually realizes pretty quickly that he only made things worse. He often knows he did them for the wrong reasons. "My shoes are too tight, but it doesn't matter because I have forgotten how to dance."
Thomas isn't the hero of his own story.
Another example of how the whole "everyone is the hero of his own story" cliche is wrong is Harry. Harry, the actual hero of the story, often blames himself for the bad that happens. He's got a lot of unearned (and plenty of earned) guilt. I think Harry and Londo's view of themselves is more common. Someone trying to do what's right, failing to one degree or another, and realizing it. There is also the weak individual who just pursues selfish ends with or without some pretext that they don't really believe.
have something about him in book 20 (which would make sense given that it’s part of the BAT
The first book of the BAT would be book 21 because it's "a 20 book series with a big apocalyptic trilogy." Note: At his recent convention appearance, he said he may have to add a book to the casefiles because things have expanded.
@nadia.skylark: Harry's wards not only keep magic out, they keep magic in. Their thresholds are almost certainly stronger than Harry's and keep a good deal out (married couple, owner). They're old, so probably have older, hardier, less complicated technology. So all the magic he is doing in his apartment shouldn't have that much impact on his neighbors.
-
I mean, I think Cowl is also in league with the Outsiders, but all for his own twisted purposes, not because Nemesis broke his mind (or maybe Black Magic broke his mind instead, one crack at a time).
We don't have evidence for N-fected humans, but we don't have anything to concretely rule out the possibility, either. Cowl's reaction to Harry questioning his sanity in Dead Beat could be either black magic madness or N-fection. Jim is probably playing whether Murphy or Thomas are vulnerable really close to his chest for now.
The only thing we have WOJ on being immune is archangels (and possibly regular angels too?) because their nature is immutable. That might not even include the Fallen since they embraced enough free will to choose disobedience.
-
@Mr. Death: Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your post. My computer has been refusing to connect to the internet since July 1st, and I only got it working today.
No worries, I know that kind of thing happens.
Weren't we explicitly talking about whether we'd like Jim to write a short story (or more)? It's been a while, so I might be wrong, but that's what I thought this thread was about.
This was in reference to the idea that Murphy or Thomas would have it. If either of them had such a huge character change like taking up a coin, it would have to come up in the main stories. To date, the shorts have been largely self-contained, and while they might be referenced in the main books, you don't have to read them to understand the main story.
Someone grabbing a Denarian coin is way too big of a plot to put into a short.
And picked up power that she knows she shouldn't to help Harry.
What she picked up was one of the most benevolent powers in the 'verse. It's literally powered by faith and goodness and love and all the qualities that Murphy stands behind and values. And it didn't work out so well for her. The idea that she's then going to turn to power that is explicitly, actively evil and exists primarily to harm innocent people assumes a level of stupidity that she just does not show.
And I think she'd be willing to do something that she knows is a "bad thing" for her if she thought that it was the only way of saving Harry.
I think it would fit. But then, I've got a far more negative view of Murphy, especially in later books, than lots of people.
It's probably better if I don't elaborate my thoughts on this point.
True.
On the other hand, Jim's also said that he lies.
He said he "lies" in the sense that he writes fiction and, as an author, he reserves the right to reverse course eventually. I see no reason for him to upturn a character whose entire point is to not have supernatural power.
But on the third hand, I also know that that's not a particularly good refutation of any particular thing Jim's said, since statistically he mostly tells the truth, so...
Exactly.
No, but it indicates that it's not totally OOC for him to do so.
It kind of is. It takes mind-breaking torture to have Thomas "accept" the demon already inside him and ... by the very next book he appears to have made a complete recovery and is acting no different whatsoever than he had before the Skinwalker ever touched him.
That does not indicate that he's going to be willing to take up a coin. Especially because, as previously established, he is not a complete moron.
The WCV thing and the Fallen are pretty different, as I understand them. Also, when did Lasciel's shadow ever try to do anything to hurt anyone Harry cared about? (Point is, I know Harry makes this argument, I'm just not sure if it's valid or if he just made it to convince Thomas.)
Lasciel was still in the 'seduction' phase. Harry never contended with the actual Lasciel. He just contended with her advertising.
What she did do was offer him power that has its uses primarily in destruction (Hellfire) and made him an angrier person in general (i.e., more likely to kill someone with his emotionally-charged magic). That he didn't go full black-hat doesn't change what she was clearly steering him toward.
He saw Harry fight--and win. Because, frankly, Harry saved a lot of lives because he had access to Lasciel's shadow that he couldn't have saved otherwise, with relatively few negative consequences.
And I see no value in a plotline about one of his friends (whose head we don't see inside) fighting and losing. It would do nothing but a cheap, retconny "shock" and Jim is a better author than to overturn a character's entire plot and personality just for that.
It's been a while, so I may be misremembering, but I believe my complaint here was that none of the negative consequences that the Denarians do manage to inflict last beyond the book they happen in.
So while I agree that it was meaningful at the time, it does not address my problem.
Frankly, they're bad guys. Among the worst bad guys. Lasting negative consequences for their plots are "city is wiped out" level things.
1) It's explicitly stated that the more exposure Harry has to tech, the worse and the more likely it is to break. Harry is in his home much more often than he is in Murphy's office.
2) Harry's not just present in his home--he is actively working magic. This worsens the problem dramatically, as we've seen in the books.
3) Harry also has wards, which as a constantly running magic, probably also make things worse.
4) Jim has said in one of his interviews that Harry being in the apartment building causes lots of problems--for the landlady, if no one else.
Fair enough, I hadn't seen those interviews.
I don't care. I just want to see him win for once. Every other recurring villain gets to have victories--why not him?
Because when Nicodemus wins, thousands of innocent people die horrible deaths.
Him winning is an objectively horrible thing. He literally has the three most powerful weapons on the planet dedicated to stopping him and his plans specifically because his plans are so bad for the world and for free will.
Nicodemus is an utterly horrible person who thrives on murder, torture and every other sin you can name. He literally gains power by taking innocent people and destroying them.
I don't know how else I can get this idea across, but Nicodemus winning is utterly abhorrent to peace, life and freedom. Him winning is a terrible thing.
Yes--because every time Nicodemus has a plan, I can be sure he'll lose comprehensively, whereas every time Mab has a plan, I can be confident that she has a good chance of winning.
Because Mab isn't really a villain in this series?
I mean, you might as well say, "Every time the Red Skull has a plan, I can be sure he'll lose." Villains lose. That's kind of a major cornerstone of fiction as a whole. That's how the plot works. The hero wins and the villains lose. Especially if the villains' goal in the first place is, "Murder millions of people across the U.S., after torturing a good man to death."
The Fomor have caused comprehensive damage to Chicago and its defenders--and I've said that I would be fine with even an off-screen win for Nic.
What damage is that? They failed to get away with Georgia and the other people Murphy rescued. The people they have gotten away with are, by your own argument, "meaningless," so I don't see how you can call that a win.
Please address that point -- how can you say that the girl Harry failed to save is meaningless despite happening on-screen, while also touting the people that the Fomor got away with offscreen as a major victory? I thought things that happened to anyone besides the named characters didn't count.
His twitter feed makes reference (among other things) to him being responsible for a major hurricane. That seems like something which is both Nic's kind of win, and which can happen off-screen and only be referenced in the books.
There you go, then. There's your win. I don't see any need to have him gleefully causing the slaughter and destruction of thousands of lives and getting away with it onscreen, and I do not understand how it would benefit the series.
No it isn't. If it were that obvious, we wouldn't be having this debate. I think that it's obvious that Mab is either as evil as Nicodemus is, or at least close--but clearly you disagree.
Let's take their active plans and actions so far:
In one corner, we have Mab:
In Summer Knight, she's trying to clear her name for a murder she didn't commit, and avert an apocalyptic war. In the end, she aids the White Council by allowing them to use the Ways. In Dead Beat, she directly aids Harry by giving him information about the Erlking. In Proven Guilty, it's murkier, but she seems to have tacitly approved Harry saving Molly if that wink is any indication. In Small Favor, she's working to stop Nicodemus from subverting the Archive. In Changes, she helps Harry rescue his daughter. Then she keeps Harry alive through Ghost Story. Then in Cold Days, her actions are to stop Nemesis. Finally, in Skin Game, she is trying to keep holy artifacts out of Nicodemus's hands and punish him for his transgressions.
Now, let's look at Nicodemus:
In Death Masks, he mercilessly slaughters the Churchmice, tortures Harry, tries to murder Harry, and does murder Shiro, one of the nicest, goodest people in the series, for the purpose of perverting a holy artifact and causing a plague that will kill thousands. In his next appearance, he kidnaps a 12-year-old girl and has his people imprison and torture -- and possibly rape -- her in order to break her will and force her into servitude to a Fallen Angel. In his last appearance so far, he fully intends to murder Harry, breaks the Sword of Faith, cripples Murphy, then tries to murder half a dozen innocent children while forcing their mother to watch.
So, going purely by what we see them do on screen, you really think Mab is as bad as Nicodemus?
We don't know what Nicodemus's reason is, and there's some evidence that they might have to do with preserving reality as well.
"Some evidence" here meaning what, besides his own word, which is about as untrustworthy as you can get?
I interpret Mab differently. To me, it seems clear that, while Mab definitely wants Harry to be himself, she also wants him to be a fundamentally darker and less moral version of himself. Or, to put it another way, she wants him to be the Winter version of someone like Rosanna, not someone like Magog's hosts.
More pragmatic and less squeamish, I think is a better descriptor. She values Harry for who Harry is -- she even praises him for pushing back against her. Point is, Nicodemus is not that nice.
Oh, this would definitely happen. We have WoJ that if Harry had picked up Lasciel's coin in Changes, then Molly would have ended up with a coin as well.
What I'm saying is that, if Michael were the Summer Knight, Molly would view becoming the Winter Lady as being just as bad as canon!Molly would view becoming a Denarian.
And becoming a Denarian has at least two undisputable advantages that I can see: it doesn't erode your soul (as in, you still have a soul, even if it might end up being condemned to Hell) and there's a known exit strategy.
We've seen it implied several times that one can get out of the Fae mantles, so there is an exit strategy there, too. As for the state of the soul, I hardly see that as an "advantage" considering what it does to your soul. Just having it doesn't matter much when it's a blackened, condemned thing that makes you enjoy slaughtering innocent people.
Because, again, that's the thing that the Denarians do. Slaughter innocent people.
For what I do remember:
-She picks Knights that are serial murderers and rapists, and we have WoJ that she does so because she doesn't want to deal with training them--which says a lot about the kind of jobs she has them doing
Given what Sarissa said, there's some ambiguity on whether the mantle does that or not. She said Lloyd Slate didn't start bad.
-the RPG book Paranet Papers implies that Mab had a hand in Stalinist Russia (implies because the RPG works hard not to say anything outright so people can make up their own answers); and there is an unconfirmed WoJ (as in, I've seen someone say that there's a WoJ, but haven't seen the WoJ itself) that all the story elements in Paranet Papers are true in Dresden canon
"Had a had" in what respect?
-the Dresden Files Accelerated RPG has Ivy say that Mab is the inspiration behind the Beauty and the Beast story, and that what really happened was horribly worse.
She's a faerie and doesn't take well to people ignoring hospitality rules. Nicodemus would have just killed everyone just to take the castle or something in it, probably.
-Mab is definitely pushing Harry to be less moral--she deliberately pushed Harry to commit cold-blooded murder as a prerequisite to becoming the Winter Knight, and was annoyed that Harry objected to murdering people in Skin Game
Because she needs him as a weapon, not because she gains power through those deaths. Also, the people she's had Harry kill are one of the aforementioned serial-rapists and an enemy agent.
-according to WoJ, Lea became Mab's handmaiden because Mab was impressed that "[Lea] took these guys who were out there just seeking to create something beautiful and yet increased [her] dark and evil power"
I'm not clear on how that makes Mab worse than Nicodemus? That she's impressed a faerie was able to increase her power? I'm going to need more details on this one to understand it.
-the Winter Knight mantle seems to be pushing Harry to be a far worse person than Lasciel's shadow ever did
Fair, though A. Mab may have no control over the mantle's effects and B. we don't know what Lasciel would have done with Harry. Remember, the Shadow's whole job is to trick Harry into thinking the coin is Not That Bad. Lasciel herself is a different story.
Weren't you just saying earlier in your post that Mab's ends were a mitigating factor?
Yes. And from what I've seen, her means have not reached the point where her ends do not matter.
Certainly, Mab is not nice. She is ruthless and wants her agents not to be squeamish about little things like killing.
But she is also capable of kindness and understanding, and has done more to help Harry and protect the world than the opposite.
Nicodemus, however, is an evil monster whose idea of a good time is wiping out a third of Europe, then kidnapping a 12-year-old girl and torturing her until she breaks. And then tries to murder six more children and force their mother to watch purely out of spite that he lost.
-
Harry's wards not only keep magic out, they keep magic in.
Do they? I don't remember that. Can you tell me where it says so (not doubting, just curious).
Their thresholds are almost certainly stronger than Harry's and keep a good deal out (married couple, owner).
Do thresholds stop the effects of hexing? (For that matter, do they stop the effects of spells a wizard throws while standing outside them?) It would make sense if they did, I suppose, but it never occurred to me before that they would do so.
They're old, so probably have older, hardier, less complicated technology.
Lightbulbs.
This was in reference to the idea that Murphy or Thomas would have it. If either of them had such a huge character change like taking up a coin, it would have to come up in the main stories. To date, the shorts have been largely self-contained, and while they might be referenced in the main books, you don't have to read them to understand the main story.
Someone grabbing a Denarian coin is way too big of a plot to put into a short.
Good point. It could be in a book, and then we could get a novella/longer short story from their perspective, then it could be resolved in another book.
What she picked up was one of the most benevolent powers in the 'verse. It's literally powered by faith and goodness and love and all the qualities that Murphy stands behind and values. And it didn't work out so well for her.
Yes. And she picked it up knowing that she was likely to break it, and proceeded to do so in short order (not saying it was her fault, just saying that she knew and accepted the risks).
At least with a denarian coin, she would be the only one getting hurt (at least in the short term).
The idea that she's then going to turn to power that is explicitly, actively evil and exists primarily to harm innocent people assumes a level of stupidity that she just does not show.
I think the main issue here is that we have a fundamental disagreement on how bad an idea it is to pick up a denarian coin.
You think that it's a stupid, awful idea, full stop.
I think that it's a relatively good idea in the short term, with the problem being that it doesn't stay short term. The denarian coins offer both power and knowledge very quickly, offer a simple exit strategy, and you get to keep the knowledge that you've gained if you use that exit strategy. If you take it up for an hour, it's probably one of the best power sources out there; for a day, it's probably one of the best power sources out there; for a week, it's still all right; for a year, it's very problematical; for a century, it's one of the worst power sources out there. And I can very easily see someone saying "because I know how awful the denarians are, I'll definitely only use the coin for an hour," even though that's not actually going to work.
It's like advertising. Talk to a surprising majority of people, and they think that they are immune, even though they acknowledge its effects on others, and even though they have the information to know better.
It's probably better if I don't elaborate my thoughts on this point.
Fair enough.
I'm well aware that my interpretation of Murphy is founded on an interpretation of the text that I know is not what Jim intended.
by the very next book he appears to have made a complete recovery and is acting no different whatsoever than he had before the Skinwalker ever touched him.
Which is odd. Maybe what we should see is a short story from Thomas's perspective, set between Turn Coat and Changes.
That does not indicate that he's going to be willing to take up a coin.
It indicates that he can be pushed to it. I believe my original suggestion regarding Thomas was that he would take up a coin because he believed it was the only way to save Justine or their child.
Lasciel was still in the 'seduction' phase. Harry never contended with the actual Lasciel. He just contended with her advertising.
What she did do was offer him power that has its uses primarily in destruction (Hellfire) and made him an angrier person in general (i.e., more likely to kill someone with his emotionally-charged magic). That he didn't go full black-hat doesn't change what she was clearly steering him toward.
Good point. That said, I still don't think she'd try to push him toward hurting those he loves for at least a few years, if not for a few decades or a century. She has to be aware that it's relatively easy for Harry to be rid of her if he objects to what she's doing.
And I see no value in a plotline about one of his friends (whose head we don't see inside) fighting and losing. It would do nothing but a cheap, retconny "shock" and Jim is a better author than to overturn a character's entire plot and personality just for that.
It would play into the whole "who can I trust" theme that's been running through the last few books, and would be way better than the thing with Butters (at least in my opinion).
Frankly, they're bad guys. Among the worst bad guys. Lasting negative consequences for their plots are "city is wiped out" level things.
They don't have to be. They could be "Harry's friend takes up a coin for a couple books" or "St Mary's gets blown up" or something.
Because when Nicodemus wins, thousands of innocent people die horrible deaths.
Him winning is an objectively horrible thing. He literally has the three most powerful weapons on the planet dedicated to stopping him and his plans specifically because his plans are so bad for the world and for free will.
Nicodemus is an utterly horrible person who thrives on murder, torture and every other sin you can name. He literally gains power by taking innocent people and destroying them.
I don't know how else I can get this idea across, but Nicodemus winning is utterly abhorrent to peace, life and freedom. Him winning is a terrible thing.
And him not winning ever makes him a bad villain.
I don't mind if he wins off-screen.
I don't mind if he only wins in a small thing.
I don't mind if his win is reversed in a couple of books.
I don't mind if his win is in a short story set before the series.
But let him win something or he's just not threatening.
Compare him to the Red Court. The Red Court are clearly evil. However, they still get:
1) to inflict permanent damage on one of Harry's allies that causes lasting consequences
2) to have several off-screen victories
3) including at least one victory that is supposed to be devastating.
Because Mab isn't really a villain in this series?
She's not set up to be a villain. But see below regarding what I think of her.
I mean, you might as well say, "Every time the Red Skull has a plan, I can be sure he'll lose." Villains lose. That's kind of a major cornerstone of fiction as a whole. That's how the plot works. The hero wins and the villains lose. Especially if the villains' goal in the first place is, "Murder millions of people across the U.S., after torturing a good man to death."
I prefer fiction where the bad guys win occasionally. Not often, but occasionally.
What damage is that? They failed to get away with Georgia and the other people Murphy rescued. The people they have gotten away with are, by your own argument, "meaningless," so I don't see how you can call that a win.
Please address that point -- how can you say that the girl Harry failed to save is meaningless despite happening on-screen, while also touting the people that the Fomor got away with offscreen as a major victory? I thought things that happened to anyone besides the named characters didn't count.
Gladly. I consider the deaths of minor characters to be meaningful for the span of time in which they impact either recurring characters or the world.
The girl who died in Proven Guilty impacted Harry for the length of a scene, and the world not at all.
The people who the Fomor have been murdering/kidnapping have impacted lots of recurring characters through the course of at least three books: Ghost Story through Skin Game, and the world for just as long.
There you go, then. There's your win. I don't see any need to have him gleefully causing the slaughter and destruction of thousands of lives and getting away with it onscreen, and I do not understand how it would benefit the series.
I'm reasonably certain that the twitter feeds aren't canon, and I've said that I would be happy with seeing something like this referenced in the books.
Let's take their active plans and actions so far:
In one corner, we have Mab:
In Summer Knight, she's trying to clear her name for a murder she didn't commit, and avert an apocalyptic war. In the end, she aids the White Council by allowing them to use the Ways. In Dead Beat, she directly aids Harry by giving him information about the Erlking. In Proven Guilty, it's murkier, but she seems to have tacitly approved Harry saving Molly if that wink is any indication. In Small Favor, she's working to stop Nicodemus from subverting the Archive. In Changes, she helps Harry rescue his daughter. Then she keeps Harry alive through Ghost Story. Then in Cold Days, her actions are to stop Nemesis. Finally, in Skin Game, she is trying to keep holy artifacts out of Nicodemus's hands and punish him for his transgressions.
Now, let's look at Nicodemus:
In Death Masks, he mercilessly slaughters the Churchmice, tortures Harry, tries to murder Harry, and does murder Shiro, one of the nicest, goodest people in the series, for the purpose of perverting a holy artifact and causing a plague that will kill thousands. In his next appearance, he kidnaps a 12-year-old girl and has his people imprison and torture -- and possibly rape -- her in order to break her will and force her into servitude to a Fallen Angel. In his last appearance so far, he fully intends to murder Harry, breaks the Sword of Faith, cripples Murphy, then tries to murder half a dozen innocent children while forcing their mother to watch.
So, going purely by what we see them do on screen, you really think Mab is as bad as Nicodemus?
Yes, I do. Mab:
1) enjoys torturing people, even people who haven't done anything to her
2) is completely fine with murdering everyone if it furthers her goals
3) thinks it is completely acceptable to take millions of children and use them as child soldiers
4) corrupts those who work for her into being worse people
That seems pretty much the same "evil" level as Nicodemus to me. The fact that we see less of it on screen than we do from Nicodemus doesn't change that.
"Some evidence" here meaning what, besides his own word, which is about as untrustworthy as you can get?
His reactions, which have several times betrayed information that is detrimental to him.
More pragmatic and less squeamish, I think is a better descriptor.
Mab would certainly agree. But then, I think Nicodemus would describe his attempts to corrupt people the same way.
We've seen it implied several times that one can get out of the Fae mantles, so there is an exit strategy there, too.
Yes, but we haven't seen it, so we don't know what it is.
As for the state of the soul, I hardly see that as an "advantage" considering what it does to your soul. Just having it doesn't matter much when it's a blackened, condemned thing that makes you enjoy slaughtering innocent people.
Because your soul can be redeemed so long as you actually still have it.
"Had a had" in what respect?
Doesn't give specifics. The RPG is really into saying the minimum possible so that people can make up their own ideas. All the RPG states outright is that the Winter Knight is actively a member of the revolution, and that the White Council thinks that Mab is involved somehow.
She's a faerie and doesn't take well to people ignoring hospitality rules. Nicodemus would have just killed everyone just to take the castle or something in it, probably.
So it's fine when Mab does awful stuff, but not when Nicodemus does so?
Because she needs him as a weapon, not because she gains power through those deaths.
??? And she doesn't gain power by having Harry as a weapon?
Also, the people she's had Harry kill are one of the aforementioned serial-rapists and an enemy agent.
Also known as "a helpless, broken man" and "a brainwashed victim." And I believe my point was that she was corrupting Harry, and Harry certainly reads as being corrupted by choosing to kill Slate, and as resisting corruption ("for now") by refusing to kill that goon.
I'm not clear on how that makes Mab worse than Nicodemus? That she's impressed a faerie was able to increase her power? I'm going to need more details on this one to understand it.
My point was the "dark and evil" bit, and that Mab was impressed that she was corrupting others' good intentions to get it.
Yes. And from what I've seen, her means have not reached the point where her ends do not matter.
So your belief is that the ends justify the means up until a certain cutoff point, and then they stop? Where is this cutoff point, exactly?
Certainly, Mab is not nice. She is ruthless and wants her agents not to be squeamish about little things like killing.
Well, that's certainly true.
But she is also capable of kindness and understanding,
I'm reasonably certain that Nicodemus is capable of kindness and understanding as well--he just doesn't choose to direct those traits in the direction of the protagonist. (Actually, when do we ever see Mab being kind and understanding? I feel like we have, but I can't remember a single incident outside of Cold Case, where I feel that it can be lumped under the same kind of manipulation that Lasciel's shadow directs towards Harry.)
and has done more to help Harry
What's that got to do with anything? She uses Harry as a tool, and helps Harry when it suits that purpose. Nicodemus would be happy to have the same relationship with Harry--Harry just chose a different path.
and protect the world than the opposite.
Nicodemus, however, is an evil monster whose idea of a good time is wiping out a third of Europe, then kidnapping a 12-year-old girl and torturing her until she breaks.
We don't actually know that Nicodemus kills people just for fun. We know that he enjoys it, but we also know that Mab enjoys such things as well.
We know that Nicodemus tortures and kills people for power, but we don't know what he wants that power for.
We know that Nicodemus kidnapped and tortured a child for the purpose of recruiting her. We know that Mab takes and hurts millions of children for the purposes of recruiting them.
We know that Harry could have been frenemies with Nicodemus in place of Mab--meaning there's some things that he could agree to work with Nicodemus on, since otherwise he and Lasciel could just go do their own thing.
We know that Nicodemus has indicated, through both words and involuntary reactions, that he is anti-Outsider.
There is a case to be made that Nicodemus is trying to stop the world from being destroyed by Outsiders, just as Mab is.
And then tries to murder six more children and force their mother to watch purely out of spite that he lost.
I'm reasonably certain that Nicodemus was actually having a mental breakdown here. Otherwise he would at least have been more sensible.
-
Well, we also know that Uriel, an agent for TWG, is willing to work with Mab. He's not willing to work with Nicodemus, and, in fact, does his best to thwart him whenever he has the opportunity.
I don't know how you feel about TWG in the Dresden Files, but I do know that TWG works to ensure that Free Will remains a possibility for certain. It's the Big Limiting Factor on TWG's agents, as a matter of fact. Opposing TWG means, to me, opposing Free Will or Choice. Just because Nicodemus may be opposed to the Outsiders doesn't mean he's doing it for good reasons. I've said it before: if Nicodemus wants to stop the Outsiders, I think it's motivated by "Nobody's allowed to break my toys except for me."
And I don't recall Mab torturing any children, nor do I recall any child soldiers. All of those Sidhe and everyone fighting at the Gates seemed to be adults. Pretty sure that would've been significant if Dresden saw otherwise.
I'd categorize Mab more as Spartan than evil.
-
Well, we also know that Uriel, an agent for TWG, is willing to work with Mab. He's not willing to work with Nicodemus, and, in fact, does his best to thwart him whenever he has the opportunity.
I don't know how you feel about TWG in the Dresden Files, but I do know that TWG works to ensure that Free Will remains a possibility for certain. It's the Big Limiting Factor on TWG's agents, as a matter of fact. Opposing TWG means, to me, opposing Free Will or Choice.
I...tend to view this as slightly more complicated. TWG is certainly in favor of Free Will and Choice. But not necessarily things like informed choice. We see this with Harry at the end of Ghost Story. To me, Uriel pretty clearly manipulates Harry's understanding such that he thinks that he is choosing to move on to the afterlife, when actually he's choosing to come back to life in Mab's lap.
Also, regarding Uriel not working with denarians but working with Mab, a couple of arguments:
1) We can't actually say that he's never worked with denarians (or, more realistically, manipulated denarians into helping him with something), just that we haven't seen him doing so. Denarians have been around a lot longer than the books
2) Just because it suits Uriel's purpose to work with Mab sometimes, it doesn't make Mab any less of a bad guy. It's similar to Harry and Marcone: it occasionally suits Harry's purpose to work with Marcone, but that doesn't change the fact that Marcone's a criminal scumbag.
And I don't recall Mab torturing any children, nor do I recall any child soldiers. All of those Sidhe and everyone fighting at the Gates seemed to be adults. Pretty sure that would've been significant if Dresden saw otherwise.
It's in a short story, Cold Case. No torturing involved, but she takes children away from their parents to endure what seems likely to be extremely brutal training, and then to be forced to fight until they're killed.
-
@nadia
Mab is not a free-willed being, & neither are most of the Fae. The reason Mab has her power is to protect reality itself - this is a fundamental & powerful truth in the DV. Therefore Mab literally transcends good & evil - like Harry says when he likens her to Maeve - Mab is like a force of nature. Almost every action Mab takes is to ultimately protect reality, but she is cold & ruthless by nature which causes some humans to view her as a sort of evil (especially if they don’t know/ understand her purpose).
Mab from Changes onwards comes off as a lot less wantonly cruel, sadistic or evil in general since Harry starts truly working with her.
Additionally she’s known to be good to her word, this cannot be said about Nic, who also seems to have an incestuous relationship with his daughter. Everything about the guy screams evil, except in his own way he thinks he is saving the world - we have no idea what this means to Nic. Where as we kinda know what it means to Mab, so I’m not really getting the comparison...
-
Mab is not a free-willed being, & neither are most of the Fae. The reason Mab has her power is to protect reality itself - this is a fundamental & powerful truth in the DV. Therefore Mab literally transcends good & evil - like Harry says when he likens her to Maeve - Mab is like a force of nature. Almost every action Mab takes is to ultimately protect reality, but she is cold & ruthless by nature which causes some humans to view her as a sort of evil (especially if they don’t know/ understand her purpose).
I'm not debating the whole free will thing. I'm saying that, in terms of their actions, Mab and Nicodemus are somewhat equivalent.
Mab from Changes onwards comes off as a lot less wantonly cruel, sadistic or evil in general since Harry starts truly working with her.
Which demonstrates that Mab has the good sense to know that she can't push Harry too far without losing him. Nicodemus also comes off as a lot less wantonly cruel, sadistic and evil when Harry is working with him.
Additionally she’s known to be good to her word, this cannot be said about Nic, who also seems to have an incestuous relationship with his daughter.
Three points here:
1) Mab may not lie or break her word, but she's capable of twisting things so much that it doesn't make much difference. In Harry's words (paraphrased) "being unable to lie has in no way inhibited her ability to deceive."
2) I don't think keeping one's word, by itself, is a particularly good marker of whether one is good or evil. To give an obvious example, if someone gives their word to burn down an orphanage full of kids, then breaking their word ends up as the good option and keeping it the evil one.
3) What does Nic's relationship with Dierdre have to do with him keeping or not keeping his word?
Everything about the guy screams evil,
From Harry's perspective. From Fix's perspective, everything about Mab screams evil.
except in his own way he thinks he is saving the world - we have no idea what this means to Nic. Where as we kinda know what it means to Mab, so I’m not really getting the comparison...
We have less evidence for Nic than Mab, but a case can be made that they're both anti-Outsider.
And also, yes, we don't have definitive evidence for what it means to Nic, which means we cannot assume that the ends he is working toward are bad.
-
[1.] Do they [wards keeping magic out]? I don't remember that. Can you tell me where it says so (not doubting, just curious).
[2.] Do thresholds stop the effects of hexing? (For that matter, do they stop the effects of spells a wizard throws while standing outside them?) It would make sense if they did, I suppose, but it never occurred to me before that they would do so.
[3.] Lightbulbs.
1. I thought it was in the books, but now I'm thinking it was either in the Paranet Papers or a WoJ. As I don't recall where I got it from, I can't point it out.
2. That's just my theory based on the premises that hexing is magic and thresholds stop (some amount of) magic.
3. Harry keeps light bulbs going in his office (with some difficulty), so I imagine they wouldn't notice any effect that does make it through if my other points are correct.
I'd categorize Mab more as Spartan than evil.
Not so sure I wouldn't categorize the Spartan's as evil, but I'm no expert on the Ancient Greeks.
-
@nadia
I'm not debating the whole free will thing. I'm saying that, in terms of their actions, Mab and Nicodemus are somewhat equivalent.
From whose perspective? Summer by its nature is supposed to oppose Mab, so I’m not sure their opinion counts too much here. Mab’s actions led to the end of the Red Court, a bane to most of the other Signatories to the Accords, what has Nic done that compares?
Mab is a fundamental force of nature - the season of Winter. Her actions literally affect every single person in the DV (mostly positively on the whole). Nic is not a force of nature - he is a rogue agent for the good guys at best, at worst he’s a delusional sociopath. The main action he’s undertaken that has affected a lot of people is the Black Plague....
Which demonstrates that Mab has the good sense to know that she can't push Harry too far without losing him. Nicodemus also comes off as a lot less wantonly cruel, sadistic and evil when Harry is working with him.
Does he? He literally has squire Jordan de-tongued in front of Harry for no other reason than to make a petty point; he forces Harry to try & manipulate Anna Valmont into helping them in SG (that’s not how it plays out, but this was Nic’s intention); he makes out with his daughter a couple of times; he betrays them at the end.
Nic also breaks his word in almost every book he’s in, like in DM when he promises to let Harry go if Shiro turns himself over without a fight. Yet he sends Deedee after Harry not a few minutes after this & tries to use an entropy curse on Harry a little later after.
Three points here:
1) Mab may not lie or break her word, but she's capable of twisting things so much that it doesn't make much difference. In Harry's words (paraphrased) "being unable to lie has in no way inhibited her ability to deceive."
2) I don't think keeping one's word, by itself, is a particularly good marker of whether one is good or evil. To give an obvious example, if someone gives their word to burn down an orphanage full of kids, then breaking their word ends up as the good option and keeping it the evil one.
Agreed on the Mab being deceptive thing, however not flat out lying to someone shows integrity. Whatever you want to say about the Fae’s deceptive abilities, they are ALWAYS good to letter of their word (not always the spirit). Nic breaks promises, truces & agreements as he sees fit. While Mab may do some of the same, she is bound to her word in a way Nic is not, & Nic abuses this ability.
Contrast this with Lara Raith who almost always keeps her word - she is a much more honorable bad guy than Nic & that’s saying something.
3) What does Nic's relationship with Dierdre have to do with him keeping or not keeping his word?
It just generally shows what an amoral scumbag he is. I mean there is a special place in Hell for parents who do this to their children. It supplements my argument that he does not think that rules are binding to him.
I don’t think Harry truly believes that Mab is evil, especially not after CD. See my point about Summer above regarding Fix.
And also, yes, we don't have definitive evidence for what it means to Nic, which means we cannot assume that the ends he is working toward are bad.
It’s like in WW2 - just because Stalin opposed Hitler, it didn’t make him a good guy or that any rational person would want to live in Stalin’s Russia. He was useful in beating the Nazis & that was it. I think this will be similar to Nic’s arc.
-
It’s like in WW2 - just because Stalin opposed Hitler, it didn’t make him a good guy or that any rational person would want to live in Stalin’s Russia. He was useful in beating the Nazis & that was it. I think this will be similar to Nic’s arc.
Very good point, if you consider the number of people he starved to death in the Ukraine for starters, the number of innocents he murdered ranks up there with Hitler.
-
... he forces Harry to try & manipulate Anna Valmont into helping them in SG (that’s not how it plays out, but this was Nic’s intention)...
FWIW ...
I think it played out EXACTLY the way Nic planned it to.
Harry tried to protect poor Anna by discouraging her. Predictable; so predictable, Nic could likely hang his whole plan on Harry's gallant-and-protective impulse.
Harry admitted to her he was in it to screw-over Nic. Predictable again. Harry usually doesn't lie, and would have no reason to. Nic knows Mab has a hate-on for him; even if Harry didn't, her orders to the WK would be, "fulfill the letter of the law, but in doing so... screw him so hard that his wife can feel it!"
Anna has a hate-on for Nic, and wants a piece of screwing him over. She has ALREADY seen Harry beat the Denarians once, during she Shroud caper; saved her life, too. So if Harry is gonna bulldog Nic, this is her golden opportunity to take a bite, too. Predictable.
The Fomor show up to get their data back (and to Disapprove With Extreme Prejudice). Predictable.
Harry escapes with Anna (noting that Hannah and Lasciel are there to make sure everything goes according the plan!), renewing that whole "bonding under fire" vibe, reinforcing that Anna can rely on Harry to keep her safe from the Bad Things.
All in all, I think that was a set-piece produced by Nic, and directed by Hannah/Lasciel, enacted by Harry&Anna & by the Fomor.
-
@Mira
Absolutely, and since our intro to Nic in DM has him trying to spread another international plague (powered by the fake Shroud), I find it hard to believe that any version of Nic’s paradise would not be horrible to normal people.
It’s also important to note that the Denarians grow in power during times of fear & unrest as Michael notes in DM.
@g33k
Definitely possible - Anna does come & join the heist squad at the end of the day, whatever her reasons - so Nic does get what he wants there.
-
I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that not winning makes Nicodemus a bad villain.
Most of your great villains don't win. The vast majority of fiction has the villains not winning. Saying the mass murdering, near-genocidal psychopath deserves a win just strikes me as misguided at best.
Especially since the very last thing we've seen him do on screen is attempt to murder six children and forcing their mother to watch them burn to death. Not to further any plan, just purely out of spite.
Yeah, that's a guy to root for.
I don't think he and Mab are comparable at all, given all we've seen. She's very clearly the lesser of two evils.
She keeps her word; Nicodemus literally gains power from lying and breaking his word, and has done so repeatedly.
Mab has offered Harry the occasional kindness, and has shown empathy. Nicodemus has offered Harry a collar, and tried to kill him out of spite repeatedly.
Mab has to make ruthless choices to preserve reality. Nicodemus attempts to have children murdered because he was outmaneuvered and is angry.
Mab wants weapons to fight Outsiders. Among Nidocemus's stated goals is destroying the Swords of the Cross, which are not only monstrously effective against Outsiders, but exist explicitly for the purpose of helping people and saving lives.
It's like comparing someone who wants a gun for home protection with someone who's regularly firebombing ambulances.
-
The Spartans weren't really evil, just brutally utilitarian; some of the stuff they were famous for (such as killing newborn babies with birth defects) are evil by any moral standard from the past several centuries, but not so much for the Iron Age. Same as Mab; if something Serves a Necessary Purpose, regardless of how unpleasant it is, then it should be done.
The point is that Mab has never been shown to be unnecessarily cruel. Even taking those Fae children in Cold Case isn't something I would label cruel. It's the fulfillment of Mab's Purpose, along with the Purpose of that Fae community. For someone in Mab's position, I kind of apply the same litmus test for cruelty as I do for tyranny: if it's the execution or application of arbitrary power, then it's cruel. For example, if Mab was taking those Fae children because she was annoyed at that community, or to make an example, or pretty much any reason other than "the literal Walls of Reality are under attack by eldritch abominations, and we need soldiers to fight against them," then it'd be arbitrary and cruel. It's not pleasant, and we're not supposed to like it, but we can understand it, at least.
Nicodemus has never been shown to do anything except pursue power. Maybe he'd use that power against the Outsiders, but I doubt that's his primary motivation. It's more like "If the Outsiders win, I lose."
-
The Spartans weren't really evil, just brutally utilitarian; some of the stuff they were famous for (such as killing newborn babies with birth defects) are evil by any moral standard from the past several centuries, but not so much for the Iron Age.
I was thinking more along the lines of how the elite warriors annually hunted slaves that stood out to keep the populous living in terror, and such.
-
... Agreed on the Mab being deceptive thing, however not flat out lying to someone shows integrity. Whatever you want to say about the Fae’s deceptive abilities, they are ALWAYS good to letter of their word (not always the spirit)...
I don't think it shows "integrity" as such. It shows ability. Mab -- like other fae -- cannot break their word.
Does a brick have "integrity" because you can rely upon it to fall when dropped? Does a piece of deliquescing fruit have integrity (it's equally reliable)?
Mab -- like other sidhe -- will twist every nuance and expectation until they have utterly misled and deceived, with identical consequence (to a mortal foolish enough to rely upon them) to an actual lie. Again, that's not a lack of "integrity"... it's a simple matter of what they ARE.
They ARE bound by promises, they ARE incapable of lying, they ARE deceptive.
-
I was thinking more along the lines of how the elite warriors annually hunted slaves that stood out to keep the populous living in terror, and such.
Oh yeah, they did that too, though, again, there's a brutal utilitarian reason for culling the Helot population: they outnumbered the Spartitates several times over. Rebellion was a constant threat, so helots were routinely mistreated and culled. Wrong, but logical, if ice freaking cold.
-
Oh yeah, they did that too, though, again, there's a brutal utilitarian reason for culling the Helot population: they outnumbered the Spartitates several times over. Rebellion was a constant threat, so helots were routinely mistreated and culled. Wrong, but logical, if ice freaking cold.
They also put young people who hadn't married yet naked in a dark room with orders to pair off. All in the name of producing future warriors for the state. Moral by their standards.
-
@Kindler: Just because something makes sense doesn't ameliorate its being evil. For example, slavery usually makes sense from the perspective of the slave owner. That's true for most acts of evil.
@Mira: But not moral (Spartan treatment of the Helots, haven't looked into how other Greeks viewed Spartan sexual practices, many of which we would find abhorrent) by the standards of most Greeks at the time.
-
@Kindler: Just because something makes sense doesn't ameliorate its being evil. For example, slavery usually makes sense from the perspective of the slave owner. That's true for most acts of evil.
@Mira: But not moral (Spartan treatment of the Helots, haven't looked into how other Greeks viewed Spartan sexual practices, many of which we would find abhorrent) by the standards of most Greeks at the time.
I meant within the Spartan State, it was accepted.
-
My point was that Mab is cruel for a reason, not evil for evil's sake. Taking fae creatures' children to fight against the Outsiders isn't nice, but it is necessary. Within their context, what both Mab does and the Spartans did served purposes; Mab is preserving Reality itself. Sparta was preserving itself. Both employed brutal efficiency.
The context of the point wasn't to say that Spartans were nice or excuse what they did, merely to point out that the horrible stuff they did throughout their (brief) history made sense in the Iron Age, and comparison to modern morality is like comparing developing nations run by dictators to Norway.
And the rest of the Grecian city-states sure were glad to have Sparta around when the Persians came a-knockin'. Just like Reality is glad that Mab's there.
-
@Mira: I was just clarifying that "their" had to be limited to the Spartans as the other Greeks of the time condemned their behavior, as political rivals so often do.
@Kindler: My point is just that the ends don't justify the means and (in my reply to Mira) that I was judging not only from my own anachronistic perspective, but also from the perspective of contemporaries.
-
I think in Mab's case the ends do justify the means.
-
Probably most of the time.
-
My point was that Mab is cruel for a reason, not evil for evil's sake. Taking fae creatures' children to fight against the Outsiders isn't nice, but it is necessary. Within their context, what both Mab does and the Spartans did served purposes; Mab is preserving Reality itself. Sparta was preserving itself. Both employed brutal efficiency.
The context of the point wasn't to say that Spartans were nice or excuse what they did, merely to point out that the horrible stuff they did throughout their (brief) history made sense in the Iron Age, and comparison to modern morality is like comparing developing nations run by dictators to Norway.
And the rest of the Grecian city-states sure were glad to have Sparta around when the Persians came a-knockin'. Just like Reality is glad that Mab's there.
I would disagree with you here, or maybe we don't disagree but I would describe it differently The Spartans thought their actions made sense, but some of their practises; like exposing infants who weren't deemed to be physically up to snuff, eventually led to their extinction. Their brutal training methods and system in general; starting at age seven, made those who went all the way through it some of the toughest soldiers on the face of the Earth, but I bet it raised the childhood mortality rate by a few percentage points. Just a tiny raise over time would have limited Sparta's potential population growth rate. Even the way the Spartans treated the Helots was unproductive in the long run. It eventually led to their rebellion, and when the Helots were freed by the military campaign of the Theban leader Epaminondas, the Spartans lost their slave workforce; or as close to being slaves that the difference doesn't really matter, forever. Sparta wasn't conquered and obliterated like Carthage was by the Romans, there were just less and less of them until there were none left at all. The Romans wrote letters to one another about visiting Sparta and watching the few Spartans who were left continuing to practise their self-destructive rituals like the aforementioned infant exposure.
So I don't see the equivalence between Mab and the Spartans. Mab is protecting all of reality from the Outsiders. The Spartans were protecting their (eventually self-destructive) way of life. It's not quite the same thing is it?