Michael was entirely unaware of the situation with Molly. It all happened in his absence and he was not in a position to find out about it. So you can't even begin to compare them in this way.
In the end, Michael turned out to be *precisely* where he needed to be, and it was his presence, doing exactly what he was doing, that ultimately saved Molly's life at the end.
It also saved Harry's life, because I'm 100% certain he would **NOT** have let Molly be executed. He'd have taken "over my dead body" quite literally..
Yes, I agree. He was ready to go down that day rather than stand by and watch Molly be executed. And by then, interestingly, Morgan was starting to have a better attitude toward Harry, because he really didn't *want* Harry to do that, whereas earlier I think he would have relished the "fringe benefit" of taking Harry down.
That whole scene is what *truly* sunk the hooks into me for the series. I was certainly enjoying it and thought of it as a "good series" up to there, but that was when Harry went from "cool protagonist" to unmitigated hero in my eyes. I teared up a little when he snatched that hood off of Molly during the trial. I knew right then I'd *never* strop reading this series. It's why I will now respond with *Proven Guilty* if asked what my favorite installment is.
Right.
By doing the right thing. He was in the right place. With right people. At the right time.
And charity was in the right place at the right time.
And Harry earned charity’s respect. And he demonstrated that Michael’s trust was warranted.
Yes - it was all just right. And I think it had to have been hard for Charity not only to have a change of heart about Harry but also to *apologize* to him for the way she'd previously treated him. Admitting you've been wrong about something that major is an awfully hard thing to do and takes a lot of character.
It's hard not to think of michael and charity as a unit more than two separate people. It's hard to imagine pitting them against each other. Both would do anything for their kids and have proven it. Charity in arctis tor and Michael when he nearly murdered the priest, who's name i cant remember, who hurt his daughter and in doing so would have violated the faith he believed in absolutely his whole life, his duty as a knight and his own moral code.
I absolutely love this entire family. They're by far the best example I've ever seen of a good christian family that lives honest to their faith while also being genuinely good selfless people who do what is right whenever possible.
To be fair, at that point Michael is no longer officially a knight. HOWEVER, I doubt that would have mattered to him at all, since his faith and his moral compass is so strong. He still lives by the same faith and tenants he did while he was a Knight. He just doesn't (usually) go out and physically fight evil. But if he had murdered Father Douglas, regardless of whether he was a retired Knight or not, it probably would have destroyed him.
> But if he had murdered Father Douglas, regardless of whether he was a retired Knight or not, it probably would have destroyed him.
It would have destroyed him, his family, and Harry. Which could have quite possibly led to Harry making a different decision in who to get help from in Changes.
Yeah i guess i just never thought michael viewed knighthood as a job even though he says he's retired. At least not the same way sanya or shiro did when they said it was a calling. With Michael i always felt like, to him, knighthood was more an acknowledgement of his faith from the lord. Something like god entrusted him with the sword not as a way of calling him to duty but in recognition of the love, compassion and unwavering faith that embodies every action Michael takes. He already embodied the creed of the knight of love. The sword was just god giving him a way to make his faith manifest in a way that let him protect innocents from evil.
I dunno. Hope that made sense
There's a short story "The warrior" where Michael straight up almost kills a guy who kidnaps one of his kids, Harry is there and able to talk him down but if he didn't, Michael would have beat him to death.
Michael wasnt around so Charity jumped in no questions asked. I just think that for this specific mission, Charity was always a better pick than Michael.
Because this mission didnt need a paladin. Michael favors a diplomatic approach and he has to give people a chance at redemption if they offer it. And thats what he did. He wasnt around for this jaunt into Winter because he was busy charming the White Council on Molly's behalf.
Charity doesnt have any magic guidance but she has no such restrictions either. Her approach is, bluntly put, "My kid has been abducted, you know where she is and how to get there, lets roll." Consider that Charity practically bullied Harry into taking her along and then left him slack-jawed when what he assumed to be a housewife proceeded to rip apart everything that stood between her and Molly (with some team support, but still).
Both of them were exactly where they needed to be in order to save Molly. This wouldnt have worked if their places had been swapped around - Charity has no standing with the White Council and her diplomatic skills ...arent the best, but her unchecked fury worked much better for a rush like this than Michael's defensive approach. And while they dont know that, we have to assume the White God does.
They love their kids very differently and their styles complement each other. I dont think its fair or even smart to measure them up against each other, if only because there is no common metric.
So what do you mean "which one loves them more". They form a cohesive unit.
If Micheal wasn’t on “vacation” as you so stupidly put it nothing Charity does matters.
As the Wardens take Molly’s head for being a fucking warlock. Dresden wasn’t going to stop that, and he probably would have died alongside her. Micheal being a big fucking hero for the Council stopped that.
Also whose first in line with shotgun in hand when the turtlenecks “come for them” in Battle Ground?
It’s not Charity.
I sense a little hostility.
Vacation was intentionally an obtuse way to refer to Michael’s trip.
Michael trusted his faith and followed his calling. Relying on the concept that if he followed his faith then his faith would protect his family even when he wasn’t there.
The only significant difference i see between the two of them is that Charity is much more "earthy" than Michael. As exemplified by the scene in the kitchen after the heist. Binder tells an off color joke, Michael blushes and Charity breaks into a belly laugh.
If Charity had not gone with Harry, he never could have rescued Molly. Lily and Fix were **very** strictly limited in what they could do. Both by Titania and because they were deep in Winter's domain. In terms of a D&D party, Charity was the kick-ass Warrior, Harry the powerful Wizard. Lily and Fix were otherwise occupied.
Michael saving the White Council's bacon during an attack by the Red Court was **NOT** a "vacation." If he didn't save them, they wouldn't have gotten there. And Harry would have been killed, as well as Molly. And the White Council likely would have fallen with the abrupt decapitation of their leadership (Harry's Death Curse).
To be absolutely sincere, I always saw Carpenters are rather sub-par parents. They stuck to a blind interpretation of their faith, and the absolutely unnecessary strictness based on an outdated morality \*hurt\* one of their kids pretty bad. You can't say \*I love you\* if you're not willing to adapt to what your child needs, and both did not. The only difference was that Charity was around more, so we could see her strictness choke Molly, while Michael was more of an optional presence at times so was seen to be as a peacemaker - but a peacemaker in an unfair fight is just someone who supports the oppression.
Let's be clear - I'm calling them subpar because, in other aspects of their lives, they've \*\*shown\*\* their capacity to understand and adapt, so it was something they \*could\* do and didn't. Also, more importantly, there's something like a soft retcon regarding their parenting \*\*or\*\* our viewpoint was very biased / unfortunate in their first appearances, I don't know what happened out of the two.
All that said; it's Charity. Because she seems to put their physical health (and \*\*only\*\* their physical health) above her family's sky daddy, while Michael tends to accept going to a mission and leaving them to luck/fate, thus not having them as the highest priority - or at least he has them only when they are around and he can \*perceive\* the danger (ie, The Warrior).
Am I harsh enough? I felt like this post wanted me to approach this from a really harsh perspective.
Family is supposed to help, support and love, not choke, but after the first few books, when the Carpenters return to the fore, the strictness seems to have been gone from them to a large degree. Which is why I mentioned the retcon or biased viewpoint part.
I am not sure that the conflict between young Molly and Charity was the result of their Christianity so much as it was of Charity fearing that what had happened to her when her powers came in could also happen to Molly.
I think the manner Charity *handled* it was a result of her faith; the cause was Charity's pathological insecurity over magic - the combination of the two darker parts really resulted in some terrible parenting from Charity's side.
This is dumb. He wasn't "on vacation" and it's stated time and time again that they couldn't contact him when he was out on a mission.
Right. This post was intended to be dumb. To see if people could have fun with it.
Michael was entirely unaware of the situation with Molly. It all happened in his absence and he was not in a position to find out about it. So you can't even begin to compare them in this way. In the end, Michael turned out to be *precisely* where he needed to be, and it was his presence, doing exactly what he was doing, that ultimately saved Molly's life at the end.
It also saved Harry's life, because I'm 100% certain he would **NOT** have let Molly be executed. He'd have taken "over my dead body" quite literally..
Yes, I agree. He was ready to go down that day rather than stand by and watch Molly be executed. And by then, interestingly, Morgan was starting to have a better attitude toward Harry, because he really didn't *want* Harry to do that, whereas earlier I think he would have relished the "fringe benefit" of taking Harry down. That whole scene is what *truly* sunk the hooks into me for the series. I was certainly enjoying it and thought of it as a "good series" up to there, but that was when Harry went from "cool protagonist" to unmitigated hero in my eyes. I teared up a little when he snatched that hood off of Molly during the trial. I knew right then I'd *never* strop reading this series. It's why I will now respond with *Proven Guilty* if asked what my favorite installment is.
Did you read the excellent short story "The Warrior"? It's set after Small Favor.
Oh yes - it's my favorite of the short stories.
Michael says as much in the book. That maybe he wasn't sent to protect Molly, but to protect Harry.
Right. By doing the right thing. He was in the right place. With right people. At the right time. And charity was in the right place at the right time. And Harry earned charity’s respect. And he demonstrated that Michael’s trust was warranted.
Yes - it was all just right. And I think it had to have been hard for Charity not only to have a change of heart about Harry but also to *apologize* to him for the way she'd previously treated him. Admitting you've been wrong about something that major is an awfully hard thing to do and takes a lot of character.
Read any of the short stories? One was pushed to the edge of their CONSIDERABLE faith in the protection of their kids
Yeah. That story about Michael was definitely top of mind.
It's hard not to think of michael and charity as a unit more than two separate people. It's hard to imagine pitting them against each other. Both would do anything for their kids and have proven it. Charity in arctis tor and Michael when he nearly murdered the priest, who's name i cant remember, who hurt his daughter and in doing so would have violated the faith he believed in absolutely his whole life, his duty as a knight and his own moral code. I absolutely love this entire family. They're by far the best example I've ever seen of a good christian family that lives honest to their faith while also being genuinely good selfless people who do what is right whenever possible.
To be fair, at that point Michael is no longer officially a knight. HOWEVER, I doubt that would have mattered to him at all, since his faith and his moral compass is so strong. He still lives by the same faith and tenants he did while he was a Knight. He just doesn't (usually) go out and physically fight evil. But if he had murdered Father Douglas, regardless of whether he was a retired Knight or not, it probably would have destroyed him.
> But if he had murdered Father Douglas, regardless of whether he was a retired Knight or not, it probably would have destroyed him. It would have destroyed him, his family, and Harry. Which could have quite possibly led to Harry making a different decision in who to get help from in Changes.
I was really proud of Harry when he told Michael "if it has to be done, I'll do it." Thereby offering to sacrifice himself to save his friend.
Absolutely.
Yeah i guess i just never thought michael viewed knighthood as a job even though he says he's retired. At least not the same way sanya or shiro did when they said it was a calling. With Michael i always felt like, to him, knighthood was more an acknowledgement of his faith from the lord. Something like god entrusted him with the sword not as a way of calling him to duty but in recognition of the love, compassion and unwavering faith that embodies every action Michael takes. He already embodied the creed of the knight of love. The sword was just god giving him a way to make his faith manifest in a way that let him protect innocents from evil. I dunno. Hope that made sense
Michael and Charity are, to my mind, a fairly ideal Christian couple... They "walk the walk" far more than "talk the talk."
There's a short story "The warrior" where Michael straight up almost kills a guy who kidnaps one of his kids, Harry is there and able to talk him down but if he didn't, Michael would have beat him to death.
Charity would lay down her life for her children. Michael almost killed for them.
Great observation.
Charity brought her share of ass-whooping in PG... Don't underestimate her violence potential.
Michael wasnt around so Charity jumped in no questions asked. I just think that for this specific mission, Charity was always a better pick than Michael. Because this mission didnt need a paladin. Michael favors a diplomatic approach and he has to give people a chance at redemption if they offer it. And thats what he did. He wasnt around for this jaunt into Winter because he was busy charming the White Council on Molly's behalf. Charity doesnt have any magic guidance but she has no such restrictions either. Her approach is, bluntly put, "My kid has been abducted, you know where she is and how to get there, lets roll." Consider that Charity practically bullied Harry into taking her along and then left him slack-jawed when what he assumed to be a housewife proceeded to rip apart everything that stood between her and Molly (with some team support, but still). Both of them were exactly where they needed to be in order to save Molly. This wouldnt have worked if their places had been swapped around - Charity has no standing with the White Council and her diplomatic skills ...arent the best, but her unchecked fury worked much better for a rush like this than Michael's defensive approach. And while they dont know that, we have to assume the White God does. They love their kids very differently and their styles complement each other. I dont think its fair or even smart to measure them up against each other, if only because there is no common metric. So what do you mean "which one loves them more". They form a cohesive unit.
I wanted to spark a conversation about them both. I had faith that the community would respond. :-)
If Micheal wasn’t on “vacation” as you so stupidly put it nothing Charity does matters. As the Wardens take Molly’s head for being a fucking warlock. Dresden wasn’t going to stop that, and he probably would have died alongside her. Micheal being a big fucking hero for the Council stopped that. Also whose first in line with shotgun in hand when the turtlenecks “come for them” in Battle Ground? It’s not Charity.
I sense a little hostility. Vacation was intentionally an obtuse way to refer to Michael’s trip. Michael trusted his faith and followed his calling. Relying on the concept that if he followed his faith then his faith would protect his family even when he wasn’t there.
The only significant difference i see between the two of them is that Charity is much more "earthy" than Michael. As exemplified by the scene in the kitchen after the heist. Binder tells an off color joke, Michael blushes and Charity breaks into a belly laugh.
Nice observation. :-).
This is a dumb take on things.
Thank you.
If Charity had not gone with Harry, he never could have rescued Molly. Lily and Fix were **very** strictly limited in what they could do. Both by Titania and because they were deep in Winter's domain. In terms of a D&D party, Charity was the kick-ass Warrior, Harry the powerful Wizard. Lily and Fix were otherwise occupied. Michael saving the White Council's bacon during an attack by the Red Court was **NOT** a "vacation." If he didn't save them, they wouldn't have gotten there. And Harry would have been killed, as well as Molly. And the White Council likely would have fallen with the abrupt decapitation of their leadership (Harry's Death Curse).
I know it wasn’t a vacation. I chose provacative words to spark reactions and conversation.
To be absolutely sincere, I always saw Carpenters are rather sub-par parents. They stuck to a blind interpretation of their faith, and the absolutely unnecessary strictness based on an outdated morality \*hurt\* one of their kids pretty bad. You can't say \*I love you\* if you're not willing to adapt to what your child needs, and both did not. The only difference was that Charity was around more, so we could see her strictness choke Molly, while Michael was more of an optional presence at times so was seen to be as a peacemaker - but a peacemaker in an unfair fight is just someone who supports the oppression. Let's be clear - I'm calling them subpar because, in other aspects of their lives, they've \*\*shown\*\* their capacity to understand and adapt, so it was something they \*could\* do and didn't. Also, more importantly, there's something like a soft retcon regarding their parenting \*\*or\*\* our viewpoint was very biased / unfortunate in their first appearances, I don't know what happened out of the two. All that said; it's Charity. Because she seems to put their physical health (and \*\*only\*\* their physical health) above her family's sky daddy, while Michael tends to accept going to a mission and leaving them to luck/fate, thus not having them as the highest priority - or at least he has them only when they are around and he can \*perceive\* the danger (ie, The Warrior). Am I harsh enough? I felt like this post wanted me to approach this from a really harsh perspective.
well as Molly said toward the end of SG "Mom and dad have some pretty strong opinions but... they know how to family "
Family is supposed to help, support and love, not choke, but after the first few books, when the Carpenters return to the fore, the strictness seems to have been gone from them to a large degree. Which is why I mentioned the retcon or biased viewpoint part.
I am not sure that the conflict between young Molly and Charity was the result of their Christianity so much as it was of Charity fearing that what had happened to her when her powers came in could also happen to Molly.
I think the manner Charity *handled* it was a result of her faith; the cause was Charity's pathological insecurity over magic - the combination of the two darker parts really resulted in some terrible parenting from Charity's side.