There’s one other hole in the “Nicodemus was trying to kill them after Butters moved into the yard” theory that I can’t internally reconcile. I know you’ve addressed this, but I’ve both re-read the passage and re-listened to Marsters several times. And I just don’t see it. This exchange just doesn’t make sense to me under the assumption that Nicodemus was really trying to kill them all. Mr. Death, Jimmy – I know I’m asking a lot, but if you could address my concerns on this passage, then I think that I can patch the holes I see in the “Kill Dresden” theory.
It comes down to this passage. The surrounding bits, of course, too – but mostly this bit.
By Mab’s reckoning, I was pretty sure, Nicodemus and I had played this one out evenly. My actions in protecting Butters could be explained as bad luck and sincere incompetence. Nicodemus’s attempt to kill me could be explained as a ploy to destroy the Sword.
So Uriel tells Harry to get him a bit of time, and so the first words Harry utters after being released from the Genoskwa’s grip is an accusation to Nicodemus that he broke Mab’s truce agreement. Nick responds by essentially saying that he didn’t
actually break the contract, because Harry was never really in danger.
I really don’t get this. It just doesn’t make sense to me. If the truce was already broken due to Dresden's actions, why wouldn’t Nicodemus state
that? Instead of defending his just actions by saying that he wasn't doing them in the first place?
That’s where I come to hunangjimmy’s “quid pro quo” argument, and the passage that I quoted. Because if the answer here is that Nick
is in the right to kill Harry because Harry was took actions to protect Butters, then there is no quid pro quo. Harry broke the agreement. End of story. Nicodemus doesn’t
need to respond saying “it was all just a ploy to destroy the sword” because no defense is necessary. He doesn’t even need it as a logical argument in order to continue with the heist as if nothing had happened, because he essentially agreed to release Karrin and Harry from retribution in Michael’s offer.
In this example, the plain-text reading that I see is that Dresden is cursing Nicodemus for his cleverness. Nicodemus avoids being accused of breaking the truce claiming that Harry wasn’t in danger, and Harry avoids being accused of breaking the truce because his actions can be chalked up to incompetence and bad luck. Thus Nicodemus avoids the accusation of betrayal.
Again, the only way that I can figure this logic chain makes sense is if
both Harry aiding Waldo to escape
and Nicodemus killing Harry would be breaches of contract
if they occurred. And the only way for that to be the case is if Harry had not yet broken the agreement when Nicodemus tried to kill him. If Harry helping Waldo escape
did give Nicodemus the excuse he needed to kill Harry, then there’s no need for him to defend himself. It only makes sense if there’s at least some ambiguity.
I know that it can be argued that in this passage, Harry is only thinking about the pursuit through the city, and not about the final
forzare. Nicodemus, after all, refers to this action as “your pursuit.” However, a plain reading of this would prove the same thing: if Harry had broken the truce already, Nicodemus' actions were not treacherous. They would be the calculated act of removing a traitor from the job.
And there’s one last thing. This, I want to really request that you answer thoroughly. Your argument had convinced me mostly due to your argument about how Mab wouldn’t admit that her knight was behaving incompetently in this situation. If that was the case, then why does Harry still believe that Mab would reckon that Harry’s actions could be explained as incompetence? If Mab just couldn’t admit that her chosen Knight had trouble with one-hit killing a puny mortal, then why is this any sort of defense at all? Harry
knows Mab and what she would consider a breach of contract. He knows her probably better than any mortal alive.
I’m not trying to argue one side over the other. But I see the holes on both sides, and it is
this exchange and the Genoskwa’s lack of action that still tell me that there’s more to the situation than meets the eye.
Oh – I just saw your earlier response. I hear what you say about being shocked about the sword breaking. But being five minutes’ worth of shocked? The frozen turkey meteor only caused every single combatant to freeze, stunned, then resume fighting. At the very least, I think that it’s likely that Nicodemus gave some prior instruction for no one to kill Dresden but him, just so that he had complete control over the situation and wouldn’t suddenly lose an asset that he couldn’t make up.
Which, of course, doesn’t mean that Nick couldn’t just turn around and stab Harry after killing Murphy, which he almost did. But it would mean that if the Genoskwa was under such orders, that Murphy might have had a chance if she chose to act like a knight.
Last, Mira - also just saw
your post. A few things:
1. Butters is unconscious until Uriel shakes him awake. Presumably, Nicodemus is going about killing Murphy first. Maybe the reason Harry's still alive here is in order to tell Dresden to shoot Butters, so that when he refuses Nick can kill him without ambiguity once and for all.
Oh, drat, did I just answer my question to Mr. Death on the Genoskwa? Maybe. But if true, that would imply that this IS still somewhat of a ploy. Anyways...
2. Gen didn't release Harry until after the deal was made with Michael.
3. Again, Butters *is* a threat to the heist. Nick doesn't know that Marcone doesn't know about the heist, so it's presumed that
if Butters squeals then the deal is off.
I agree with you (mostly) on the inconsistencies with Gen's refusal to really do much other than hold Harry when Nick is beating the snot out of Karrin. But it's clear that when the sword is broken, that's not the end of it. Because the sword alone isn't Nick's only goal - he
will take out Dresden and Murphy, if he can.
