Did Michael lie?

[nadia.skylark]

No, it doesn't...  That is the whole point,  when something is taken on faith it isn't taken on any material basis at all...  It really doesn't matter whether Michael's faith is in the Almighty or pink elephants, it's the belief that counts.... 

All right, let's go with that. Even if that's how Michael's faith in general works, I believe he had to have some reason to believe what he told Harry besides some nebulous "faith." I.e. he had to have some reason why he had faith in that particular solution as opposed to others.

But Michael does see Harry as a good man, with or without his power, he'd still be a good man... As to giving up his power to save lives or souls, if Harry failed to rid himself of the shadow, how many do you think he'd kill?   He came very close to losing it and killing innocents because he thought he had a handle on the shadow as it is, he was fooling himself..  Also who is to say that if he gave up his power to rid himself of the shadow that Harry could have become an effective Holy Knight, or save people in other ways.  Michael would simply have said it was all the plan of the Almighty and not for mere mortals to question.

My objection to this has nothing to do with what Michael believed about it; the issue is what it would imply about TWG if the only reason was "sacrifice." I mean, set this a few years later: would TWG get rid of the shadow if Harry murdered Maggie? It would be an incredible sacrifice, and you could plausibly say that is was saving lives on the basis that if someone else harmed Maggie then Harry would end up killing a lot of people. But I don't think TWG would ask Harry to murder his child, because if He did then he would be a villain, and I don't believe that He is one in the books (not in real life either, but we're not discussing that).

[morriswalters]

All right, let's go with that. Even if that's how Michael's faith in general works, I believe he had to have some reason to believe what he told Harry besides some nebulous "faith." I.e. he had to have some reason why he had faith in that particular solution as opposed to others.

Your exercising a version of faith.  You do realize that don't you? 

The simplest explanation has been that Michael is talking about two separate ways of dealing with the Shadow.  Telling Harry that the Shadow will fade if he quits feeding it, but that the only way to get rid of it permanently is to take up the coin and find redemption.

If you want to find a contradiction, that right there is a beauty.  To get rid of the coin he has to do evil and then repent, but if he doesn't take up the coin and do evil then he can never be truly free.  How f**ked up is that?

Given that, the moral choice is to give up his magic and never do evil, which is what Michael suggests.

[nadia.skylark]

The simplest explanation has been that Michael is talking about two separate ways of dealing with the Shadow.  Telling Harry that the Shadow will fade if he quits feeding it, but that the only way to get rid of it permanently is to take up the coin and find redemption.

If you want to find a contradiction, that right there is a beauty.  To get rid of the coin he has to do evil and then repent, but if he doesn't take up the coin and do evil then he can never be truly free.  How f**ked up is that?

Given that, the moral choice is to give up his magic and never do evil, which is what Michael suggests.

I agree. This is why I said Michael would be willing to exaggerate in this case.

[Mira]

I agree. This is why I said Michael would be willing to exaggerate in this case.

  But he isn't,  simply because the only way the coin/Fallen/shadow has been gotten rid of before is to accept it, reject it, and redeem one's self...  Now it could be the reason no one has heard of the shadow being gotten rid of is there is no physical evidence except perhaps the change of behavior in the would be host.

[nadia.skylark]

But he isn't,  simply because the only way the coin/Fallen/shadow has been gotten rid of before is to accept it, reject it, and redeem one's self...  Now it could be the reason no one has heard of the shadow being gotten rid of is there is no physical evidence except perhaps the change of behavior in the would be host.

...What? I'm talking about in Proven Guilty. Michael says that giving up his magic would get rid of the shadow completely, and I was referring to the possibility that what Michael actually believed was that it would substantially reduce the shadow's hold, but would not actually destroy it. Morriswalters' post had a really good explanation for why Michael would say that the shadow would be destroyed completely in that situation.

[Mira]

...What? I'm talking about in Proven Guilty. Michael says that giving up his magic would get rid of the shadow completely, and I was referring to the possibility that what Michael actually believed was that it would substantially reduce the shadow's hold, but would not actually destroy it. Morriswalters' post had a really good explanation for why Michael would say that the shadow would be destroyed completely in that situation.

The shadow has no substance..  More like being mentally ill, Harry hears a voice in his head..

[morriswalters]

...What? I'm talking about in Proven Guilty. Michael says that giving up his magic would get rid of the shadow completely

Full stop.  That isn't what he says.  He says that...

“Give up the coin of your own will. And set aside your power. If you do, Lasciel’s shadow will dwindle with it and waste away.”

The context as regards Small Favor is that Harry asserts that the Shadow is gone, while Michael asserts that no one has rid themselves of the Shadow without first taking up the coin and then repenting, which Harry says he didn't do.

“Because in two thousand years, no one has rid themselves of the shadow of one of the Fallen—except by accepting the demon into them entirely, taking up the coin, and living to feel remorse and discarding it. And you claim that you never took up the coin.”
“That’s right,” I said.
“Then either the shadow is still there,” Michael said, “still twisting your thoughts. Still whispering to you. Or you’re lying to me about taking up the coin. Those are the only options.”

Since Harry didn't give up his magic then Michael's assertion makes perfect sense.  {dwindle with it and waste away} does not equal {gone}.  And this is what I said.

Telling Harry that the Shadow will fade if he quits feeding it, but that the only way to get rid of it permanently is to take up the coin and find redemption.

[nadia.skylark]

Full stop.  That isn't what he says.  He says that...

“Give up the coin of your own will. And set aside your power. If you do, Lasciel’s shadow will dwindle with it and waste away.”

The context as regards Small Favor is that Harry asserts that the Shadow is gone, while Michael asserts that no one has rid themselves of the Shadow without first taking up the coin and then repenting, which Harry says he didn't do.

Since Harry didn't give up his magic then Michael's assertion makes perfect sense.  {dwindle with it and waste away} does not equal {gone}.  And this is what I said.

I interpret "waste away" as "eventually be completely gone."

[Mr. Death]

I think we're getting somewhere.

And my point is not "Nicodemus would look into it on his own" it is "Nicodemus would keep track of what the Church believes about the subject, and attempt to prove/disprove their theories, because as a spymaster that's what he does."

This is still assuming a level of micromanagement that's probably completely unnecessary for an edge case that probably never, or almost never, comes up in any kind of practical sense. If it hasn't happened in 2,000 years, Nicodemus isn't going to give a damn about the possibility.

That is an absolutely accurate assessment of why Harry wouldn't question it (even though I like to believe that if he thought about it he would ask how giving up the one thing he has faith in is supposed to help him against the Fallen--but that's beside the point).

It's also just a reflection of how Michael acts and believes -- if he says something with certainty, it's because he's certain of it. He's not the kind of person who's going to lay out statistical probabilities of something working; he believes it will work, so he says it will work.

Look, for instance, at Grave Peril -- while they're surrounded by vampires and Michael is shouting that they can win the fight. At best they're in a position to go down swinging, but Michael believes he can win, so he says so -- he doesn't say, "On your feet, Harry, we have a 65.4% chance of winning this fight!"

To play devil's advocate: The White Council, (well, technically a sword rather than a gun). Or what do you think would happen to Molly if Harry took up the coin? Whether she stays with him or leaves, that's not going to be good for her.

In all seriousness, I think this is a fairly remote possibility--I'm more inclined to believe that Michael exaggerated rather than just lied.

As you say, it's at best remote; and I doubt Michael would be swayed, anyway.

If what Michael is saying is an exaggeration (which I have been calling a lie, but am realizing now that that's not a clear way to talk about it) then giving up his magic would help Harry. If Michael doesn't believe that Harry would give up his magic, then he doesn't need to factor the consequences of Harry doing so into the equation.

Given how well he knows Harry, I'd be inclined to believe Michael doesn't expect Harry to give up his magic (which is probably why Michael doesn't press the point much). I wouldn't call it an exaggeration, per se, but as I said, Michael tends to speak with conviction and sureness; he believes it will work, so he speaks as if it's a sure thing.

Michael acknowledged the possibility intellectually, and knew what his duty was. He didn't necessarily accept it emotionally. If he had, I would think he would have had a stronger emotional reaction to Harry turning down flat the only way he knows to get rid of the shadow. (Of course, he could have just gone home and dealt with his emotions where they wouldn't undermine Harry--we don't know).

He literally looks Harry in the eye and says that if Harry takes up the coin, he absolutely will be there, and says so while his hand is on his sword. I don't know what more you could possibly want on this -- Michael makes it absolutely clear that he is fully prepared to take his best friend's head off if need be.

Ah. I understand the problem now. The disability is not the equivalent of Michael's idea not working. The equivalent to Michael's idea is my aunt's belief that I can get through college, and the possibility of it not working is why we discussed contingency plans.

On the other hand, thinking it over again, Michael probably would have expected Harry to contact him if he changed his mind about giving up his magic, so he might have saved discussing "what if it goes wrong" for then.

Michael definitely expects that, since he outright says if Harry decides to change his mind, Michael will be there for him.

I still don't think Michael is considering "what if it goes wrong," because, as I've said, I don't think he believes it could go wrong, and we've seen no evidence it would.

Nicodemus not knowing that it is possible to get rid of a shadow is a data point. Here's why:

If there was a known method to get rid of a shadow, there is a good chance that Nicodemus would know it. As such, the chance of Nicodemus not knowing it is significantly less than 100%.

If there is no known method to get rid of a shadow, then the chance that Nicodemus did not know of one is 100%.

According to my understanding of formal logic, this works out to mean that Nicodemus not knowing the information means that it is more likely that there is no known way to get rid of a shadow than that there is one, based on the information given.

I kinda don't think formal logic comes into play; we're not talking about randomized statistical samples here. We're talking about people with biases and prejudices and motivations. Nicodemus is arrogant as hell, and after a couple hundred years of nobody to his knowledge removing a Shadow, he probably just thinks it's impossible and stops worrying, if he ever worried at all.

He's as vulnerable to confirmation bias as anyone, so if he doesn't want there to be a way to get rid of a Shadow, and in a couple hundred years, nobody does, that's good enough for him to conclude that it's simply a non-issue.

I think he does try to verify his information. How successful he is and when he is successful are different questions.

True. I won't posit that he can go to The Man Upstairs for confirmation on everything, but given what we see in the books, I'd suggest that his intuition and "gut feeling" is probably more accurate than most when he's trying to suss out the truth.

I don't mean that he should undermine what he has said. I mean that he could say "I'm 95% certain of this" rather than "I'm 100% certain of this."

That's just not how Michael works. If he's saying, "Do this and it will work," that indicates he's certain of it.

Explanations:

Why Michael would tell Harry to give up his magic if he were uncertain it would work, given the consequences:

I believe that if Michael thought that Harry would ever willingly give up his magic, then that implies that he didn't understand how important magic is to Harry and how much damage it would do for him to give it up. As such, either Michael did not expect Harry to give up his magic, in which case he wouldn't have any reason to consider the consequences if Harry did so; or Michael was missing information that would have told him how dire the consequences might be, and as such could not make an accurate assessment of the risks.

Fair on the first bit. On the second, again, I have to insist that Michael has no reason to be aware of these risks, and that the "missing information" didn't exist until it was posited in this thread. It's just not a reasonable concern he would have or should have had, and it's unfair to expect him to account for it.

On Michael exaggerating:

As I've said before, there is no evidence apart from Michael's word that Harry giving up his magic would destroy the shadow. There is, however, evidence that Harry giving up his magic would weaken the shadow's hold on him--the way hellfire ties into the shadow's influence. Hellfire is clearly a vector for the shadow to influence Harry. In the same book we see Harry using hellfire, we see the first negative effects the shadow has on Harry's mood. Further, the shadow can only interact with Harry's conscious mind once Harry has used hellfire consciously. Just as Mab prevented Harry from using fire magic because summer fire was entwined with it and would let Summer find him, Michael might believe that Harry needs to stop using magic in order to weaken/eliminate the shadow's influence on him, even if it doesn't destroy the shadow.

I agree with this in the sense that, if there is no documented evidence of someone giving up their magic to weaken/get rid of a Shadow, this is almost certainly the chain of logic that led to the conclusion that getting rid of one's magic would get rid of a Shadow.

[Mira]

This is still assuming a level of micromanagement that's probably completely unnecessary for an edge case that probably never, or almost never, comes up in any kind of practical sense. If it hasn't happened in 2,000 years, Nicodemus isn't going to give a damn about the possibility.

Exactly, also I heard something the other day that brings Michael and Harry's dilemma to mind.. "It is hard to prove a negative.."  The coin is tangible,  concrete evidence, either accepted or rejected, something that can be touched so to speak..  The shadow cannot be touched, only felt though it's influence by the would be host..  Harry can tell Michael it isn't there anymore, but there is no way to show him it isn't there anymore...  A shadow as far as Michael knows hasn't been removed in 2,000 years so he doesn't believe Harry.  Nic apparently didn't think it possible either otherwise he wouldn't have tried to call upon it to take over in Small Favor.

page 381 Small Favor hardback

"Shadow, if you would, disable Dresden.  We'll talk some sense into him later, in a quieter setting."
He was talking to Lasciel's shadow.

Harry plays along for a while then on page 382 Harry has Nic by the noose and tells him;

"Lasciel's shadow," I told him, "doesn't live here anymore.  The Fallen have no power
over me.  And neither do you."

It's also just a reflection of how Michael acts and believes -- if he says something with certainty, it's because he's certain of it. He's not the kind of person who's going to lay out statistical probabilities of something working; he believes it will work, so he says it will work.

Look, for instance, at Grave Peril -- while they're surrounded by vampires and Michael is shouting that they can win the fight. At best they're in a position to go down swinging, but Michael believes he can win, so he says so -- he doesn't say, "On your feet, Harry, we have a 65.4% chance of winning this fight!"

Exactly, we are talking religious belief, faith, not the laws that govern physics or any other tangible scientific facts..

Given how well he knows Harry, I'd be inclined to believe Michael doesn't expect Harry to give up his magic (which is probably why Michael doesn't press the point much). I wouldn't call it an exaggeration, per se, but as I said, Michael tends to speak with conviction and sureness; he believes it will work, so he speaks as if it's a sure thing.

And as far as he or Harry knows, he could be right, it was never tested..  However Harry didn't care to pay at that point anyway, when Michael suggested it as the price to rid himself of the shadow.

I agree with this in the sense that, if there is no documented evidence of someone giving up their magic to weaken/get rid of a Shadow, this is almost certainly the chain of logic that led to the conclusion that getting rid of one's magic would get rid of a Shadow.

Isn't kind of like believing in the afterlife?  Some believe in it even though there is no documented evidence proving it and will argue hard that there is one... Others believe just as hard that dead is dead, and there is actually good evidence for that belief.. But those who believe in the afterlife will continue to cling to the belief despite the evidence... So who is lying?

[nadia.skylark]

I'm not going to be responding to everything stated here, because some of these posts are getting really long. I'll try to cover every point brought up, but no promises.

This is still assuming a level of micromanagement that's probably completely unnecessary for an edge case that probably never, or almost never, comes up in any kind of practical sense. If it hasn't happened in 2,000 years, Nicodemus isn't going to give a damn about the possibility.

Nicodemus is a spymaster. Keeping track of what his enemies know/believe is what he does.

I'm not saying it's his first priority, but between Anduriel and the fact that we know that there is enough corruption in the Church for the Denarians to keep getting their coins back, it wouldn't be that difficult for him to keep track of.

As you say, it's at best remote; and I doubt Michael would be swayed, anyway.

Agreed.

He literally looks Harry in the eye and says that if Harry takes up the coin, he absolutely will be there, and says so while his hand is on his sword. I don't know what more you could possibly want on this -- Michael makes it absolutely clear that he is fully prepared to take his best friend's head off if need be.

I'll accept this as provisionally true, on the basis that the only argument I can think of making against it is personal and I don't want to discuss it; and I'm not going to claim you're wrong without providing an explanation of why I think so.

I kinda don't think formal logic comes into play; we're not talking about randomized statistical samples here.

Formal logic only comes into play because you were claiming that this wasn't evidence; formal logic allows me to establish that it absolutely is evidence.

How much weight to give that evidence, on the other hand...

Nicodemus is arrogant as hell, and after a couple hundred years of nobody to his knowledge removing a Shadow, he probably just thinks it's impossible and stops worrying, if he ever worried at all.

He's as vulnerable to confirmation bias as anyone, so if he doesn't want there to be a way to get rid of a Shadow, and in a couple hundred years, nobody does, that's good enough for him to conclude that it's simply a non-issue.

Maybe, but I seriously doubt that Nicodemus is going to decide "well, I've been spying on the Church for 2000 years, I'll just stop now."

The argument you should be making is that Nicodemus doesn't consider the possibility of Harry having gotten rid of the shadow because he's well aware that Harry's still throwing magic around, and furthermore that he's been using hellfire.

True. I won't posit that he can go to The Man Upstairs for confirmation on everything, but given what we see in the books, I'd suggest that his intuition and "gut feeling" is probably more accurate than most when he's trying to suss out the truth.

Fair enough.

Fair on the first bit. On the second, again, I have to insist that Michael has no reason to be aware of these risks, and that the "missing information" didn't exist until it was posited in this thread. It's just not a reasonable concern he would have or should have had, and it's unfair to expect him to account for it.

I'd argue that the missing information was in the books, but absolutely Michael would not know it. That was the point I was trying to make--Michael does not and should not be expected to have access to this information.

I wouldn't call it an exaggeration, per se, but as I said, Michael tends to speak with conviction and sureness; he believes it will work, so he speaks as if it's a sure thing.

Fair enough. At this point I'm convinced that Michael absolutely had reason to believe that his suggestion would help and would be the right thing to do (I just think it might not have done quite as much as he implied it would--but as you pointed out, that could just be a result of Michael's certainty, rather than any attempt to deliberately mislead Harry).

Isn't kind of like believing in the afterlife?  Some believe in it even though there is no documented evidence proving it and will argue hard that there is one... Others believe just as hard that dead is dead, and there is actually good evidence for that belief.. But those who believe in the afterlife will continue to cling to the belief despite the evidence... So who is lying?

I think this is an issue of differing axioms and differing beliefs about what constitutes evidence.

I'd rather not discuss it further, because it's getting too near real world religious issues for my comfort.

[Kindler]

You know, I think some are forgetting that prior to Harry telling him, Michael had thought Harry had actually taken up the Coin.

Proven Guilty, page 415 on Nook:

"Don't be ridiculous," Michael said. "Remember that the Knights of the Cross were not founded to destroy the Denarians. We were founded to save them from the Fallen. It is therefore my duty to help you in whatever way I can. I can help you discard the coin if that is what you wish to do. It's best if you choose to do it yourself."
"I don't need to discard it, actually," I said. "I haven't really taken the coin up. I buried it. Never used it."
Michael looked surprised. "No? That is good news, then. Though it means that the Fallen's Shadow is still attempting to persuade you, I take it?"

(All emphasis added).

1. Michael is ready to help Harry if he wants it. It's better if Harry comes to Michael for help out of contrition rather than Michael confronting Harry about it and forcing the issue.
2. Michael had truly believed that Harry had taken up the Coin, but not that he had signed up to play on the Fallen's team yet (otherwise I find it hard to believe that Michael would give Harry the task of protecting his family while he was away Knighting, if nothing else).

So, I think it's perfectly possible that Michael was not prepared to fully answer Harry's question, and instead fell back on the old standbys: through an act of free will, reject the power you are tempted with.

Further keep in mind that Michael is generally uncomfortable with magic. It's brought up much more frequently in the earlier books (and he doesn't trust Bob at all), but Michael seems (or seemed) to think that magic is power that causes temptation. I bet Michael had Matthew 5:29 on his mind:

If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna.

Fundamentally, I think Michael believes that an act of free will that rejects offers of corruptive power and influence should reduce or eliminate the presence of the Shadow. And, as Mr. Death has pointed out many times in this thread, just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean they don't know how it works, so there's not necessarily much contradiction between that and Small Favor.

[nadia.skylark]

You know, I think some are forgetting that prior to Harry telling him, Michael had thought Harry had actually taken up the Coin.

You're right! I had forgotten that.

So, I think it's perfectly possible that Michael was not prepared to fully answer Harry's question, and instead fell back on the old standbys: through an act of free will, reject the power you are tempted with.

This makes sense.

Further keep in mind that Michael is generally uncomfortable with magic. It's brought up much more frequently in the earlier books (and he doesn't trust Bob at all), but Michael seems (or seemed) to think that magic is power that causes temptation. I bet Michael had Matthew 5:29 on his mind:

Fundamentally, I think Michael believes that an act of free will that rejects offers of corruptive power and influence should reduce or eliminate the presence of the Shadow.

I was arguing that this was a possibility earlier, actually, but... meh, I like my theory about hellfire leaving a residue in magic like summer fire does better. It lets me think better of Michael than if he was still prejudiced against magic after years of Harry using it to help him.

[Mr. Death]

I'm not going to be responding to everything stated here, because some of these posts are getting really long. I'll try to cover every point brought up, but no promises.

Nicodemus is a spymaster. Keeping track of what his enemies know/believe is what he does.

I'm not saying it's his first priority, but between Anduriel and the fact that we know that there is enough corruption in the Church for the Denarians to keep getting their coins back, it wouldn't be that difficult for him to keep track of.

He keeps track of things that matter. Getting rid of a Shadow is, at best, extremely rare, rare enough to be a non-issue for whatever Nicodemus has been up to for the previous 2,000 years. Nicodemus has more important things to worry about than something that may well have never happened. He has no reason to go out of his way to suppress a bit of obscure minutiae that he may well not even know exists in the first place.

Just because it's mentioned in a conversation important to Harry doesn't mean it's important to Nicodemus.

I'll accept this as provisionally true, on the basis that the only argument I can think of making against it is personal and I don't want to discuss it; and I'm not going to claim you're wrong without providing an explanation of why I think so.

Fair enough.

Formal logic only comes into play because you were claiming that this wasn't evidence; formal logic allows me to establish that it absolutely is evidence.

How much weight to give that evidence, on the other hand...

Yeah, that's the sticking point, I think -- you might consider it evidence that could point to it not being a thing, but I'm saying it's not evidence that shows that it's not a thing.

Maybe, but I seriously doubt that Nicodemus is going to decide "well, I've been spying on the Church for 2000 years, I'll just stop now."

Yeah, that's not what I said or implied. What I said was, after a few centuries of nobody getting rid of a Shadow, Nicodemus would not bother to continue worrying about people getting rid of a Shadow. "Spying on the church" doesn't mean he gets every single minor fact and detail every time he looks.

I'd argue that the missing information was in the books, but absolutely Michael would not know it. That was the point I was trying to make--Michael does not and should not be expected to have access to this information.

The "missing information" I refer to is the idea summed up as "Harry getting rid of his magic will not get rid of the Shadow." There's no statement or suggestion to that effect in the books. There's only a sort of negative evidence, in that Michael didn't bring it up in the Small Favor conversation, long after the whole idea of Harry giving up his magic is moot and clearly not in play, which has any number of other explanations besides that.

Fair enough. At this point I'm convinced that Michael absolutely had reason to believe that his suggestion would help and would be the right thing to do (I just think it might not have done quite as much as he implied it would--but as you pointed out, that could just be a result of Michael's certainty, rather than any attempt to deliberately mislead Harry).

OK then.

[Mira]

Yeah, that's not what I said or implied. What I said was, after a few centuries of nobody getting rid of a Shadow, Nicodemus would not bother to continue worrying about people getting rid of a Shadow. "Spying on the church" doesn't mean he gets every single minor fact and detail every time he looks.

And as I pointed out in Small Favor, Nic had no clue that Harry could rid himself of the shadow.. If he knew he wouldn't have called upon Lasciel's shadow to take Harry over at that moment.