We gotta talk about Margaret LeFay

[LordDresden2]

Regarding Margaret and her escape, we have to assume that Eb is telling the truth when he told Harry that she had broken the First Law, among others, and that by the time Harry was born the Wardens were actively hunting her.  Even if it started out as simply 'watching' her, as Luccio said, Eb said specifically that it had gone way past that by the end.

We have to assume that, because otherwise, when she escaped and went on the run, Margaret could have turned to the Council for protection.  She could easily make it worth the Wardens' while to protect her and Malcolm from the WVs, IF she was just still a misguided idealist.  After all, she would be an absolute platinum mine of juicy intel about the White Court.  She could deliver inside information about the innermost circles of the organization.

But in the event, she was running from both the Council and the Court.

[g33k]

... We have to assume that, because otherwise, when she escaped and went on the run, Margaret could have turned to the Council for protection ...

Not necessarily.

For example -- Eb says she broke the First Law, and they were hunting her.
But what if she had been framed?
Knew she was innocent, but that she was under a kill-on-sight order?

Alternatively, I (and others) suspect that the "Dinner Party" she had invited Eb to -- he one with the white King & Duchess Arianna (where she spotted that Eb & Maggie "fought like family") -- was likely a "Black Council" initiative, an effort to recruit Eb.  And if she was inside the "Black Council," it is entirely possible that she knew (or had excellent reason to suspect) that the White Council was already too compromised for her to shelter safely there.

I'm sure that Jim could create other valid reasons for Maggie Sr. to be "less evil" than depicted, but unable to claim any sanctuary or safety with the White Council.  We know our understanding of her to be woefully inadequate; both incomplete, and mistaken in (at least some of) the details.

[Mira]

I'm sure that Jim could create other valid reasons for Maggie Sr. to be "less evil" than depicted, but unable to claim any sanctuary or safety with the White Council.  We know our understanding of her to be woefully inadequate; both incomplete, and mistaken in (at least some of) the details.

  It is possible that Margaret was every bit as bad as the White Council says she was.  If you can believe Chauncy, who said she was headed right into their arms, she was.. Eb loved her, blamed himself no doubt, but I don't think he has any illusions about her.  There are those who tried to be sympathetic, Rashid, Listens to Wind, even Morgan, partly because of Eb, and maybe because they might have known her a bit better than others did.  So yeah, she was bad, she broke laws, but she wasn't beyond redemption, and she was redeemed in the end, Chauncy said so, even if he didn't understand.  The love of a very good man with a very good soul and loving him back, made her want to mend her ways, and she was redeemed.. So everything said about Margaret can be true, it is just very complicated.

[LordDresden2]

Not necessarily.

For example -- Eb says she broke the First Law, and they were hunting her.
But what if she had been framed?
Knew she was innocent, but that she was under a kill-on-sight order?

Alternatively, I (and others) suspect that the "Dinner Party" she had invited Eb to -- he one with the white King & Duchess Arianna (where she spotted that Eb & Maggie "fought like family") -- was likely a "Black Council" initiative, an effort to recruit Eb.  And if she was inside the "Black Council," it is entirely possible that she knew (or had excellent reason to suspect) that the White Council was already too compromised for her to shelter safely there.

I'm sure that Jim could create other valid reasons for Maggie Sr. to be "less evil" than depicted, but unable to claim any sanctuary or safety with the White Council.  We know our understanding of her to be woefully inadequate; both incomplete, and mistaken in (at least some of) the details.

Agreed about out lack of knowledge.

But...this is where Ockham's Razor cuts sharply.  We don't have much hard data about Margaret, but we've had lots of hints and clues, and most of them point in the same direction.  Eb said point blank that she had broken the First Law, and added 'among others' IIRC.  Nicodemus has 'fond memories' of Margaret, and her ability to make her own simulacrum and project it into Thomas and Harry's minds suggests she knew the Denarians well enough to study some of their abilities.  Thomas called her 'one hell of a dangerous witch'.  Chanzoggorth said Hell thought they were going to claim her.  Lea said that Margaret acted like Harry...at the very end of her life.  Not before.  Goodman Grey, IIRC, called Margaret a 'piece of work'.  That from a half-Nagloshi.  She was plotting something with Lord Raith, who is known for being a Solid Guy (that's sarcasm, son, as Foghorn Leghorn would say), and Aramina, who is Aramina.

Out of all the hints and clues we've had from people who knew her or interacted with her, only Stacy's version is at all positive (and Lea's a little, Lea said she started acting like Harry acts at the very end).  All the other references have been negative.  Oh, yeah, one other tiny good sign:  apparently Martha Liberty had some kind of positive opinion of Margaret, or so it's hinted at one point.

But the overall thrust is bad.

OK, maybe she was like Harry, broke Laws but not a true warlock, complicated extenuating circumstances and so forth.  But contrast their reputations.  A lot of people, on and off the Council, think Harry is a dangerous menacing warlock or worse...but there are also a lot of people, on and off the Council, who have very high opinions of him, too.  It's not hard to find people in the Dresdenverse who'll tell you that Harry Dresden is a stand-up guy and solid.  If a lot of people hate, fear, and distrust him, a lot of other people hold him in high regard and respect.

In contrast, almost everything we've received about Margaret is negative.

So what's the simplest interpretation of the data, as William of Ockham would ask?

One possibility (and I don't necessarily believe it, it's a WAG):  during her idealistic wild youth, she might have found herself in a situation kind of like Harry's life, breaking a Law or two in extremis, and wrongly condemned for it.  If she went down the wrong road after that, the twisting effects of black magic and bad company could have turned her into the Margaret we've all heard about.

Which might be part of why Eb is so worried about Harry's current activities...

[Mira]

Agreed about out lack of knowledge.

But...this is where Ockham's Razor cuts sharply.  We don't have much hard data about Margaret, but we've had lots of hints and clues, and most of them point in the same direction.  Eb said point blank that she had broken the First Law, and added 'among others' IIRC.  Nicodemus has 'fond memories' of Margaret, and her ability to make her own simulacrum and project it into Thomas and Harry's minds suggests she knew the Denarians well enough to study some of their abilities.  Thomas called her 'one hell of a dangerous witch'.  Chanzoggorth said Hell thought they were going to claim her.  Lea said that Margaret acted like Harry...at the very end of her life.  Not before.  Goodman Grey, IIRC, called Margaret a 'piece of work'.  That from a half-Nagloshi.  She was plotting something with Lord Raith, who is known for being a Solid Guy (that's sarcasm, son, as Foghorn Leghorn would say), and Aramina, who is Aramina.

Out of all the hints and clues we've had from people who knew her or interacted with her, only Stacy's version is at all positive (and Lea's a little, Lea said she started acting like Harry acts at the very end).  All the other references have been negative.  Oh, yeah, one other tiny good sign:  apparently Martha Liberty had some kind of positive opinion of Margaret, or so it's hinted at one point.

But the overall thrust is bad.

OK, maybe she was like Harry, broke Laws but not a true warlock, complicated extenuating circumstances and so forth.  But contrast their reputations.  A lot of people, on and off the Council, think Harry is a dangerous menacing warlock or worse...but there are also a lot of people, on and off the Council, who have very high opinions of him, too.  It's not hard to find people in the Dresdenverse who'll tell you that Harry Dresden is a stand-up guy and solid.  If a lot of people hate, fear, and distrust him, a lot of other people hold him in high regard and respect.

In contrast, almost everything we've received about Margaret is negative.

So what's the simplest interpretation of the data, as William of Ockham would ask?

One possibility (and I don't necessarily believe it, it's a WAG):  during her idealistic wild youth, she might have found herself in a situation kind of like Harry's life, breaking a Law or two in extremis, and wrongly condemned for it.  If she went down the wrong road after that, the twisting effects of black magic and bad company could have turned her into the Margaret we've all heard about.

Which might be part of why Eb is so worried about Harry's current activities...

One of the themes of the series is redemption, that's what the Holy Knights are about.  Their job isn't to kill Denarians, but to convince them to redeem themselves or try to.  While maybe a Holy Knight didn't do it, Margaret managed to redeem herself in the end.  Chauncy said it, they lost her in the end.  So all the bad things said about her could all very well be true, but at the same time the good things said about her in the end were also true.

[vincentric]

One of the themes of the series is redemption, that's what the Holy Knights are about.  Their job isn't to kill Denarians, but to convince them to redeem themselves or try to.  While maybe a Holy Knight didn't do it, Margaret managed to redeem herself in the end.  Chauncy said it, they lost her in the end.  So all the bad things said about her could all very well be true, but at the same time the good things said about her in the end were also true.

And yet you stand fast to the idea that Mab, Titania and Molly no longer have souls. That Thomas and all the other WC vampires are just monsters pretending to be human. Redemption is for everyone, not just the people we like. Why is Margaret Redeemable and not them?

[Mira]

And yet you stand fast to the idea that Mab, Titania and Molly no longer have souls. That Thomas and all the other WC vampires are just monsters pretending to be human. Redemption is for everyone, not just the people we like. Why is Margaret Redeemable and not them?

Margaret remained 100% human, with a human soul, powerful wizard maybe, but still human..  By her acts she put her soul in jeopardy, but she still had a soul.  Same goes for the Denarians, they still have a soul, if they give up their coin, it is up to them to redeem themselves in their remaining time on Earth..  Mab is about 99.99% not human.. Debatable whether she has any soul left or not to redeem.

[g33k]

... and Aramina, who is Aramina.

Errr... who is Aramina?
(edit:  do you mean the Rampire Duchess Arianna Ortega?)

...  Oh, yeah, one other tiny good sign:  apparently Martha Liberty had some kind of positive opinion of Margaret, or so it's hinted at one point ...

You forgot to mention Rashid; who is, likely, the very most Clued-In of all the White Council.
I think we see that he liked her, too.  Maybe not 100% in agreement, but more in-agreement than not (and evidently with ample opportunity to take her out, if he had been so inclined).

... But the overall thrust is bad ...

Dunno.

You've listed Nic & Chaucy as key character-witnesses, here; and while their supernatural/Infernal state puts them very much in a position to know, their trustworthiness is worse than just "bad."

I'd be more inclined to think of them as con-artists, telling the story they want Harry to hear... including enough truth to be "that checks out" but also enough "bad stuff" to keep him from looking too hard for fear of what nastiness he might find.

Eb I think was trying really hard, still, to keep the secret of her parentage.  So he couldn't investigate too hard, and maybe accepted the word of people he shouldn't have, about her lawbreaking behavior.

She was walking the wrong side of the line for a good long while, no mistake:  politics may make "strange bedfellows," but she was literally in bed with the strongest Incubus in the world, having "awesome vampire sex" (Jim's phrase).  I think Grey's experience of her was likely mostly from this "Black Council" period.

But when we look at Martha Liberty -- and especially Rashid -- then I think her overall image gets MUCH more shades-of-gray... and not necessarily one of the darker shades.

My headcanon has her "seduced by the Dark Side" for a while -- lured in via her idealism & the all-too-obvious failings of the White Council -- and working the "Starbabe Plan" on their behalf; but then broken-free (possibly/probably by Lea) and meeting Malcolm, and deciding a Starborn Wizard not under "Black Council aegis" was what the world needed (again, likely Lea's doing).

But also, Uriel was _deep in those weeds, I think.

[Mira]

You've listed Nic & Chaucy as key character-witnesses, here; and while their supernatural/Infernal state puts them very much in a position to know, their trustworthiness is worse than just "bad."

Might add though that Chauncy admitted that she changed somehow, he didn't elaborate, and she was lost to his side.  I think that can be trusted because I think it took a lot for him to admit a loss for his side.

My headcanon has her "seduced by the Dark Side" for a while -- lured in via her idealism & the all-too-obvious failings of the White Council -- and working the "Starbabe Plan" on their behalf; but then broken-free (possibly/probably by Lea) and meeting Malcolm, and deciding a Starborn Wizard not under "Black Council aegis" was what the world needed (again, likely Lea's doing).

But also, Uriel was deep in those weeds, I think.

I agree with this for the most part.

[LordDresden2]

Errr... who is Aramina?
(edit:  do you mean the Rampire Duchess Arianna Ortega?)

Yes, that's her, for some reason I always find myself thinking of her as 'Aramina'.  I don't know where that comes from, but I keep doing it.

You forgot to mention Rashid; who is, likely, the very most Clued-In of all the White Council.
I think we see that he liked her, too.  Maybe not 100% in agreement, but more agreement than niot (and evidently with ample opportunity to take her out, if he had been so inclined).

I can't prove it, but I suspect we're seeing a 'timeline' issue.  That is, Stacy's version was Margaret in the early stages, before she crossed whatever lines she crossed.  Probably Rashid's association with her was in those relatively early stages too, Stacy did mention that even back then, she was a genius at accessing Faerie.  I suspect the nastier stuff came later.

Dunno.

You've listed Nic & Chaucy as key character-witnesses, here; and while their supernatural/Infernal state puts them very much in a position to know, their trustworthiness is worse than just "bad."

I'd be more inclined to think of them as con-artists, telling the story they want Harry to hear... including enough truth to be "that checks out" but also enough "bad stuff" to keep him from looking too hard for fear of what nastiness he might find.

I don't think Chauzoggoroth ever lied to Harry by commission.  I'm not sure he even could directly lie to Harry, once the deal was struck.  Certainly, even if he could, getting caught in a direct lie would wreck his credibility, and thus tend to drive off sucke-I mean customers. :lol:

Now Chaunzoggorth certainly lied to Harry by omission and implication, just as Mab and her ilk sometimes do.  He was trying to sucker Harry in, and Harry only realized what an idiot he was being in dealing with Chaunzoggoroth when it was almost too late.  But I don't think C ever directly lied to Harry during their interaction.

Notice how he structured his statements.  Everything he told Harry was a simple, direct statement of fact, except for one tidbit:  the idea that the source of the loup garou curse was Saint Patrick.   When he got to that part, C said, 'it is said that'.  C didn't say Patrick cursed the MacFinns, he said that 'it is said that he cursed them'.  Which is probably not a direct lie, I'm sure it's been said by someone at some point, whether he really did or not.  That suggests to me that C doesn't actually, technically lie during his contractual exchanges.

.

Eb I think was trying really hard, still, to keep the secret of her parentage.  So he couldn't investigate too hard, and maybe accepted the word of people he shouldn't have, about her lawbreaking behavior.

That I do not buy.  Eb is many things, but stupid isn't one of them, and I can't imagine he would be made the Blackstaff if he wasn't the sort of man who doesn't do 'sloppy'.

But when we look at Martha Liberty -- and especially Rashid -- then I think her overall image gets MUCH more shades-of-gray... and not necessarily one of the darker shades.

As I said, I suspect it's a timeline issue, it depends on at what point in her life we're talking about.  A century is a long time, on a human scale.

[Mira]

I don't think Chauzoggoroth ever lied to Harry by commission.  I'm not sure he even could directly lie to Harry, once the deal was struck.  Certainly, even if he could, getting caught in a direct lie would wreck his credibility, and thus tend to drive off sucke-I mean customers. :lol:

Now Chaunzoggorth certainly lied to Harry by omission and implication, just as Mab and her ilk sometimes do.  He was trying to sucker Harry in, and Harry only realized what an idiot he was being in dealing with Chaunzoggoroth when it was almost too late.  But I don't think C ever directly lied to Harry during their interaction.

Notice how he structured his statements.  Everything he told Harry was a simple, direct statement of fact, except for one tidbit:  the idea that the source of the loup garou curse was Saint Patrick.   When he got to that part, C said, 'it is said that'.  C didn't say Patrick cursed the MacFinns, he said that 'it is said that he cursed them'.  Which is probably not a direct lie, I'm sure it's been said by someone at some point, whether he really did or not.  That suggests to me that C doesn't actually, technically lie during his contractual exchanges.

Yeah, I do think while Chauncy might not out right lie to Harry, I also think he could be deceptive.. If you aren't smart enough to figure that out it's on you, how many times have we heard Mab say that to Harry?  In other words saying enough to where they aren't lying, but leaving out some important information allowing you to lie to yourself about what she said.  Anyway that's off topic  a bit, I don't think Chauncy lied about Margaret to Harry simply because I don't think it was any advantage in telling Harry that she redeemed herself in the end. 

[g33k]

Yeah, I do think while Chauncy might not out right lie to Harry, I also think he could be deceptive....  In other words saying enough to where they aren't lying, but leaving out some important information allowing you to lie to yourself ...

THIS.
100%

You can tell the absolute truth, without coming anywhere close to the whole truth, and still be telling nothing but the truth.

If Chauncy tells a carefully-curated "worst 5%" of the truth to Harry; and puts careful spin and "implication" onto it -- loaded words without being false words, etc -- then he can deceive Harry quite completely, by telling "the truth."

Nicodemus/Anduriel even more-so, even more subtly.  Without lying, he can imply things that will lead Harry to suspect certain things, that will spark certain ideas, that will get Harry to investigate in certain directions.  If Harry then does as Nic predicted, well... that was Harry's free will, wasn't it?  Even if the info Harry finds is untrustworthy/prejudicial... and that was known to Nic.

[LordDresden2]

THIS.
100%

You can tell the absolute truth, without coming anywhere close to the whole truth, and still be telling nothing but the truth.

If Chauncy tells a carefully-curated "worst 5%" of the truth to Harry; and puts careful spin and "implication" onto it -- loaded words without being false words, etc -- then he can deceive Harry quite completely, by telling "the truth."

Nicodemus/Anduriel even more-so, even more subtly.  Without lying, he can imply things that will lead Harry to suspect certain things, that will spark certain ideas, that will get Harry to investigate in certain directions.  If Harry then does as Nic predicted, well... that was Harry's free will, wasn't it?  Even if the info Harry finds is untrustworthy/prejudicial... and that was known to Nic.

Yeah, but that fails the Ockham's Razor test.

Yes, they could be lying indirectly...but Chaunzoggoth's statements about Margaret were pretty direct and basic.  There wasn't much room for interpretation, as far as they went.

Now Nicodemus is certainly capable of lying, directly or indirectly, and certainly willing to do so...but again, under the circumstances when the exchange happened, he had no motive to do so.  He was trying to recruit Harry, but he had already decided that if Harry wouldn't join up, then he was going to kill him then and there.  So manipulation would be a waste of time.  That whole conversation looks most likely to be just what it seemed like, Nicodemus trying to recruit Harry, mentioning in passing that he knew Harry's mother and about his sibling, and Harry refusing to play.

Nicodemus had every intention of killing Harry there and then, and he would have done so, except that Shiro showed up just in time to save him.  So Nicodemus could have been playing con man...but under the circumstances, that fails the Razor test.

[Mira]

Yeah, but that fails the Ockham's Razor test.

Yes, they could be lying indirectly...but Chaunzoggoth's statements about Margaret were pretty direct and basic.  There wasn't much room for interpretation, as far as they went.

Now Nicodemus is certainly capable of lying, directly or indirectly, and certainly willing to do so...but again, under the circumstances when the exchange happened, he had no motive to do so.  He was trying to recruit Harry, but he had already decided that if Harry wouldn't join up, then he was going to kill him then and there.  So manipulation would be a waste of time.  That whole conversation looks most likely to be just what it seemed like, Nicodemus trying to recruit Harry, mentioning in passing that he knew Harry's mother and about his sibling, and Harry refusing to play.

Nicodemus had every intention of killing Harry there and then, and he would have done so, except that Shiro showed up just in time to save him.  So Nicodemus could have been playing con man...but under the circumstances, that fails the Razor test.

It does pass it in the sense that what Nic was doing was twisting the knife and increasing Harry's emotional pain in hopes of weakening him to the point where Harry would give up and accept the coin because he would feel that the White Council wronged his mother and wronged him.  He was playing Harry but not in the usual way.

[g33k]

Also, I think Nic & Anduriel are entirely capable of making a "safety" play & leaving Harry with an impression they'd like him to have, on the outside chance he survives.

They know there are KotC's in the field against them, so they know their "best-laid plans" may still not be good enough.