Without immediacy in this particular agreement, which is the only one I am speaking to, not all faerie agreements in perpetuity, there is no purpose in facilitating (“arranging”) anything, since one could simply give the information to Dresden and wait to collect. If immediacy is meaningless in this instance, & Maeve isn’t conceiving a child (by herself or by proxy) right then & there, then she is essentially giving Harry a gift of free sex for no reason, which fae cannot do. Again the lore does not permit this view of things, circumstance dictates that she wanted this child immediately else Jenny's "services" would come with a price.
That is why it is in parenthesis, to indicate that it was not literally said but intended based on sentence context. Journalists use these quotation formats all the time, e.g. I ask you “do you like the color blue?” and you respond “I do,” I would quote you as “I do (like the color blue)” because of the context of what you are responding to. You did not literally say “I do like the color blue,” but based on what you were responding to, yes, that is what you said.
“'That' can mean a number of things.”
In context it does mean “that statement,” but if you’ll revisit my last reply, I allowed for this disagreement because I expected you to mention it & not accept it. I said “even if we allow that this is more faerie weasel words…” before explaining how the circumstances of the arrangement necessitate it regardless of how “that” is interpreted.
“There is nothing at all which links Jenny's offering to Maeve's, other than the offer of pleasure.”
It does, for reasons I have explained. Moreover, Jenny offers nothing, these are not two separate offerings here, this is all Maeve offering explicitly connected portions of one deal to Harry, partially including Jenny, and she includes Jenny explicitly to “arrange” for the original deal to be facilitated, i.e for Maeve to acquire Dresden’s “issue”. If these were separate offerings, then Jenny would be offering a gift, which she cannot do.
“I mean, honestly. Look at the words. Does Maeve ever say, "I want you to have a child with me"? Does she say "I offer sex in order to have this child"? No. It is never stated.”
If one ignores all of the surrounding textual & logical context around the situation, then there is a point in here.
“Barely even implied.”
This is simply blatantly false, there’s simply no other way to put it. Even if we all agree that Maeve successfully weaseled her way out of out of having sex, that does not mean that there was only “barely” an implication that this is what was offered, because it was heavily implied. Dresden knew it, or at least thought he did, and the sexual tension was all around him leading from Maeve's original words regarding his “issue”. That was the core of his fight against temptation, him losing his future child is what caused him to disagree. All of his reasoning was based around that supposition, so to imply that there was not even a strong implication is beyond the pale.
“And let me tell you, if you don't get that a faerie can lie by implication and letting you run off with the wrong idea, then you might want to re-read a few of these books.”
I have forgotten how many times I have reread these books. I completely understand, & I know you know that I do, because I wrote about it in my last reply, twice, mentioning faerie weasel words that mislead, & also that I understood how you came to that conclusion because of faeries’ tendency to deceive. We both know that I understand this, so unless you didn’t read what I wrote, I don’t get why you said this.
“Yes, this is important. Yes, this is vital. Because at the end of the day, for you to claim that Cold Case contradicts the books, *it*actually*has*to*contradict*the*books*!”
I am satisfied in my demonstration that it has, based partly on how faerie bargains work in general, and partly on the particulars of this specific bargain as well.
“The actual explanation that Cold Case gives - that the ladies desire it, but cannot have it, and the mantle defends the ladies violently - completely and utterly explains everything in the books.”
The mantles also prevent them from reneging on deals. This would be an explanation, if not for these two facets coming into conflict, as I have explained. I agree it would be a perfect fit, if not for one, glaring inconsistency. That it fits well elsewhere does not mean it fits well here.
(a) Yes he does, or else Maeve is providing a gift which is not possible
(b) I explained that form of quotation, I am sorry you misunderstood it.
(c) I never said it was sex for a child, I said it was a child for knowledge, and that the sex was merely a facilitation (“arrangement”, as Maeve says). But I am interested in seeing that you now say that it was actually implied, after apparently saying it was “barely even” implied a few paragraphs above.
(d) It was originally, but then Maeve offered herself as a substitute, before eventually offering them both, with Jenny getting pregnant.
“…it's not a break in continuity for Maeve to offer sex to Harry…”
It is because she could not fulfill that bargain if it was made, because she included herself in it, optionally. Had he chosen that, she would not be able to complete the bargain, which is not a situation her mantle would allow; it would force her to say something completely different, like it did Molly when she tried to divulge secrets in Cold Case.
“Can you NOT see how that might drive a person to go for that and lean on the self-defense mechanism for violent killing?”
I can see that, because the person who wears the mantle is far more fallible & starved by temptation. The mantle however, is robotic, and does not permit sex (as a Lady) or reneging on deals (as a fae). In Summer Knight, Maeve has placed herself in a situation where, had Harry taken the deal, one of these things would have had to happen. The mantle does not allow that, regardless of what Maeve would’ve wanted, so for this entire situation to happen requires contradiction.
“Because honestly, if you re-read the fight between Harry and Maeve in Cold Days with the knowledge you have from Cold Case…”
Again, I have reread the entire series more times than I can remember as the series was being released. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that I have read Cold Case specifically (a late addition to the series), at least 4-5 times, & Cold Days much more, probably 2-3 times after having read Cold Case the first time. It occurred to me even before I had read Cold Case that Maeve was just putting on a show in order to get him distracted so she could murder him when he was incapacitated by lust. I fully understand the use of sex as a weapon, as you put it, but the situation is totally different from Summer Knight for a multitude of reasons. I’ll list just three:
Maeve was not infected by Nemesis & had no restraints
There was not a bargain in play for the mantle to fight against
Harry was not a guest, so Maeve could actually kill him.
That’s right, Harry was Maeve’s guest the entire time during Summer Knight, she could not have killed him under Winter Law, after offering protection, just as Harry could not torture Lacuna without Winter abandoning him (as a prisoner/guest, which Toot Toot confirms the guest equivalency). Only for the Ladies, the mantle doesn’t just vanish, it goes into autopilot, prevents her from doing it, period, as she now has not one but two impulses from the mantle preventing murder. The idea that she intended to kill him instead of having sex makes no sense because it is not possible to achieve her aim that way. At most she could try to have sex, fail, try to kill him, fail, and end up doing nothing, resulting in the deal being reneged upon, which is also not possible.
“However, when you start saying things like that it 'breaks' parts of the Dresden Files - not just 'ruins a storyline I hoped would one day happen' but actually breaks it - I really hope you give some evidence”
I am satisfied in my demonstration.
“But don't go blaming the book or the story for being bad and that it never should have been written just for your own personal preference.”
My arguments, again, are predicated upon plot continuity. I am perfectly willing to accept things that don’t turn out the way I like them to, even if I may be disappointed, provided that it makes sense. This however, does not, now for a multitude of reasons. Presuming that I am saying what I say just because I “didn’t get what I want” doesn’t make my arguments dissipate. This is a red herring, trying to address me rather than what I have said.
“I can guarantee you that in the years to come, there will be a great deal more things that might rub you the wrong way.”
I am aware of this.