Mab Lying to Demonreach

[Arjan]

So why did Uriel say that she had? He was clearly referring to two or more statements, not situations. (There's only one situation that's really at stake.)

He did not. He did not say Mab lied, he said her statements were lies. There is a difference. Mab obviously believed what she said. 

You can spread lies without being a liar if someone else lied to you for example.

And they were only lies from his soul centered point of view. Uriel has a message here. In his view the only one who can change you is you yourself.

Yes they can torture or blackmail you, bribe you when your children are starving etc. But you could have chosen to endure and die, your soul is more important than your body, and the lives of your children it seems.

Mab does not share that view. She applies pressure and temptation and voila, people change. Actually none of them lied, it is all about point of view. That happens a lot in Jim’s work.

[Mira]

Quote

    And a voice—a very calm, very gentle, very rational voice whispered in my ear, “Lies. Mab cannot change who you are.”

    Butcher, Jim. Ghost Story (The Dresden Files, Book 13) (p. 575). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Quote

Subtle point perhaps,  but Mab wasn't trying to change Harry, she says she can make him do all of these things.  That isn't a lie, however it has been misinterpreted so often especially when applied to the likes of Slate it is seen as the truth.  Harry's biggest fear is Mab can change who he is by making him do stuff.  That is the lie, she cannot change him, only he can change him.

[Paviel]

Interesting. It seemed like a logical deduction to go from "Mab's statements were lies" to "Mab told lies" to "Mab lied."

But if Mab was just repeating what somebody or something else had told her, and whoever or whatever told her that was intentionally deceiving her...

That would mean that those statements were lies, but they weren't Mab's lies.

[morriswalters]

So why did Uriel say that she had? He was clearly referring to two or more statements, not situations. (There's only one situation that's really at stake.)

"(The statements that were just spoken are) lies. Mab cannot change who you are" makes a lot more sense to me than "(The situations here are) lies. Mab cannot change who you are."

I thought it was clear.  The phrase is not Mab lies, rather that her statements are lies.  They are true to Mab based upon a mistaken impression. It's a more arcane way of stating it. The prose is meant to do just what it does.  Jim wants you to draw the inference and use the first definition when in point he is using the second. The first is more interesting, for lack of a better way to say it.  He could have used mistaken impression and been clear.

[Arjan]

I thought it was clear.  The phrase is not Mab lies, rather that her statements are lies.  They are true to Mab based upon a mistaken impression. It's a more arcane way of stating it. The prose is meant to do just what it does.  Jim wants you to draw the inference and use the first definition when in point he is using the second. The first is more interesting, for lack of a better way to say it.  He could have used mistaken impression and been clear.

I do not think Mab’s impression is even mistaken, it is just based on a different point of view. If Mab makes Harry change who he is, who had changed Harry? According to Mab she did it, according to Uriel Harry did it. Both are right in their own point of view.

[Mira]

I do not think Mab’s impression is even mistaken, it is just based on a different point of view. If Mab makes Harry change who he is, who had changed Harry? According to Mab she did it, according to Uriel Harry did it. Both are right in their own point of view.

But that isn't the point, it is what Harry believes to be true.  Mab is perfectly happy to let him believe it.   So she isn't outright lying to him, but it simply isn't true that she can change who he is.   Uriel is saying that belief is a lie, not that Mab was lying.

[Arjan]

But that isn't the point, it is what Harry believes to be true.  Mab is perfectly happy to let him believe it.   So she isn't outright lying to him, but it simply isn't true that she can change who he is.   Uriel is saying that belief is a lie, not that Mab was lying.

That is not the point either. For what Mab says Mab’s point of view is important because whatever she likes Harry to believe she can not lie from that point of view. To understand her words we have to look at her point of view. And in her point of view it is true because if she makes Harry do it it is the same. It is about practical outcome.

Similar with Uriel’s words. With the addition that Uriel wants Harry to move to his point of view. It is about the soul and free will, it is about everything changed about yourself is ultimately your own free willed choice.

Choosing between the two is choosing a world view. If you say one is right and one is wrong you have chosen a world view.

Only if we want to know how Harry understands their words we must look at Harry’s point of view.

[groinkick]

I think something to consider is the wording the Sidhe use.  They speak the truth, but can be extremely deceptive in the way the speak it.  Uriel knows the truth, but Dresden is at a severe disadvantage against Mab.  I think Uriel was speaking in terms for Dresden to understand.  Dresden BELIEVED he would be Mab's monster.  That's why he had himself killed to begin with.  Mab stated she would change him, and Dresden obviously believed this to be a fact.  Uriel stating that they were lies may have simply been to break Dresden of the illusion he had no choice or free will in the matter.

Mab wasn't lying, she could completely control Dresden, however as Dresden pointed out, she doesn't want a mindless slave that she had to control 24/7.  She wants a Knight who follows her orders, and she wants Dresden, as Dresden.  She chose him for a reason after all.  Needing to control his every move would have made him a really poor choice of Knight.

[Arjan]

I think something to consider is the wording the Sidhe use.  They speak the truth, but can be extremely deceptive in the way the speak it.  Uriel knows the truth, but Dresden is at a severe disadvantage against Mab.  I think Uriel was speaking in terms for Dresden to understand.  Dresden BELIEVED he would be Mab's monster.  That's why he had himself killed to begin with.  Mab stated she would change him, and Dresden obviously believed this to be a fact.  Uriel stating that they were lies may have simply been to break Dresden of the illusion he had no choice or free will in the matter.

Mab wasn't lying, she could completely control Dresden, however as Dresden pointed out, she doesn't want a mindless slave that she had to control 24/7.  She wants a Knight who follows her orders, and she wants Dresden, as Dresden.  She chose him for a reason after all.  Needing to control his every move would have made him a really poor choice of Knight.

Mab was quite explicit in what she wants. She wants a knight that shares her purpose. From what we know about her purpose she will probably get it.

She also has her ideas about what makes an effective knight just as she has ideas about what makes an effective winter lady. She will get a more effective team but not in the way she thinks.

Uriel is not bound to the truth in any way we know, he is bound to his purpose and he has a certain reputation. I would not take what he says at face value either.

[Mira]

I think something to consider is the wording the Sidhe use.  They speak the truth, but can be extremely deceptive in the way the speak it.  Uriel knows the truth, but Dresden is at a severe disadvantage against Mab.  I think Uriel was speaking in terms for Dresden to understand.  Dresden BELIEVED he would be Mab's monster.  That's why he had himself killed to begin with.  Mab stated she would change him, and Dresden obviously believed this to be a fact.  Uriel stating that they were lies may have simply been to break Dresden of the illusion he had no choice or free will in the matter.

Mab wasn't lying, she could completely control Dresden, however as Dresden pointed out, she doesn't want a mindless slave that she had to control 24/7.  She wants a Knight who follows her orders, and she wants Dresden, as Dresden.  She chose him for a reason after all.  Needing to control his every move would have made him a really poor choice of Knight.

Exactly, what Uriel told him is exactly what Eb was trying to tell him back in Changes. 

[Arjan]

Exactly, what Uriel told him is exactly what Eb was trying to tell him back in Changes.

Or to make it more complicated. Uriel maybe was not even talking about anything Mab said. Uriel’s words were about what Harry was saying to himself.

[Mira]

Or to make it more complicated. Uriel maybe was not even talking about anything Mab said. Uriel’s words were about what Harry was saying to himself.

Or Uriel simply didn't express himself well.  I can tell you something that I think is true, but isn't, which Mab did.  So to her she wasn't telling a lie, she can order and even force Harry to do stuff.  Harry's understanding is she can force him and thus change him, his worst nightmare is turning into another Slate.  Uriel maybe should have said, "it is not true, while she can order you, she cannot change who you are."  Instead he says, "Lies."

[Yuillegan]

Pretty much this ^^

Paviel, can you at least accept the idea that Jim was not saying Mab was lying, nor was Uriel? It might have been better if Jim had used the word "wrong" or "false" but he was trying to use a word that has particular emphatic value, and "lies" isuch better for that than the previous possible examples. I agree with others that it would have been clearer to phrase it slightly differently, but the intention is clear enough...and the 2011 statement more than clears it up.

In any case, I wouldn't worry about it. Easier and happier to accept that Mab didn't lie, than worrying about an apparent inconsistency for too long - accepting the arguments that Mab didn't lie will probably be better for your enjoyment in the long run (unless you're a masochist).

Jim isn't a perfect writer and I think it's good as fans to do our best to try and understand what he was trying to do. If we hold his writing as gospel and immovable then we hold Jim to an impossible, ridiculous and unfair standard (not that you are, but in general). Jim is only human after all, and these stories were written mostly for fun.

[Mira]

Pretty much this ^^

Paviel, can you at least accept the idea that Jim was not saying Mab was lying, nor was Uriel? It might have been better if Jim had used the word "wrong" or "false" but he was trying to use a word that has particular emphatic value, and "lies" isuch better for that than the previous possible examples. I agree with others that it would have been clearer to phrase it slightly differently, but the intention is clear enough...and the 2011 statement more than clears it up.

In any case, I wouldn't worry about it. Easier and happier to accept that Mab didn't lie, than worrying about an apparent inconsistency for too long - accepting the arguments that Mab didn't lie will probably be better for your enjoyment in the long run (unless you're a masochist).

Jim isn't a perfect writer and I think it's good as fans to do our best to try and understand what he was trying to do. If we hold his writing as gospel and immovable then we hold Jim to an impossible, ridiculous and unfair standard (not that you are, but in general). Jim is only human after all, and these stories were written mostly for fun.

Or simply he was trying to fit everything into Uriel's seven words..

[Paviel]

I have already considered that it may have been an illogical leap to go from "The things Mab said were lies" to "Mab lied." I will no longer argue that point.

I like the idea that while the statements may have been lies, they weren't Mab's lies. But it makes me wonder who told Mab those lies...