John, Jane and Jessica. The contrasts (and similarities) between those characters got me thinking.

John breaks free completely of the chains of magicianhood, becoming once again his true self Nathaniel.

Jessica Whitwell shows a heckuva backbone and gets herself killed defying Nouda and company.

Jane continues to function within the strictures of the government, but she too marches out in defiance of far more powerful forces. Admittedly, her reasoning is a bit less than admirable, but still...

I don't really have a specific question, but I am hoping that people will sort of take up the topic of "character" in general, tackle some of the more general problems therein inherent, like....

What might the differences in various character's upbringings have been, and how much- if at all- do those differences mitigate against the contrast between one character's "good" action and another one's "bad" one?

Do characters acting in support of a corrupt government bear the burden of that government's crimes if they beleive that what they are doing is right and just?

Other moral/philosophical dilemmas I'm probably forgetting...

And, more generally, was Nathaniel's the only heoric act of the series, or can we attribute other, smaller acts of heroism to any other magicians? If so, who? What? And why?

Any takers?

Um, you haven't read Ptolemy's Gate have you?
WHAT ABOUT PTOLEMY? He was one of the most generous magicians. And yes, he was part of the series.
Can't believe you missed that, no offense.

Nero wrote: Um, you haven't read Ptolemy's Gate have you?
WHAT ABOUT PTOLEMY? He was one of the most generous magicians. And yes, he was part of the series.
Can't believe you missed that, no offense.

*sigh* I've read Ptolemy's Gate.

Allow me to rephrase: of the modern magicians, is Nathaniel the only one who acts heroically, or can other, smaller acts of heroism be attributed to his peers.

I'm discounting Kitty because (a) obviously envoking the gate was heoric and (b) she wasn't brought up as a magician and thus wasn't sujected to the same damaging psychological pressures (namely personality deconstruction).

The rest of the query remains vaild, unchanged, regardless of Ptolemy. <_<

I mean- seriously... Who are his fellow magicians, beneath all those reaction-formation defense mechanisms? And really, can you say that the psychological abuse inherent in their upbringing mitigates against their bad behaviour? I'm not just asking if you think "Nathaniel is the only hero in the books." Because if you say "no, he's not," there'll be nothing to talk about. Because I already agree with you.

I did phrase that bit badly, though. Sorry! I'm just, ahm, wondering about the trickier characters- primarilly Jane and Jessica, but also Underwood, Lovelace, Duvall, Deveraux, and the rest. What's going on inside their heads, do you think? Where should they be placed on the moral spectrum?

Oh. My bad.
Damn I am a conversation killer.
Sorry, haven't thought of anyone else. I'll get back to you.

Nero wrote: Oh. My bad.
Damn I am a conversation killer.
Sorry, haven't thought of anyone else. I'll get back to you.

Oh, now, the greatest joy of internet discussion is the lack of time limits.

I think this thread is the product of my snapendromy (syndrome named for severus snape, characterized by a crippling obsession with morally ambigious characters in works of fiction)... Yes, I know,

pensive-is-not-a-noun wrote: What might the differences in various character's upbringings have been, and how much- if at all- do those differences mitigate against the contrast between one character's "good" action and another one's "bad" one?

I suppose the most important difference between Nat and the rest is that he learned to respect Bartimaeus and the other spirits, and unlike the other magicians, he was less prejudiced.

In terms of upbringing, he also had Mrs. Underwood, who gave him some love, while Mr. Underwood showed him the harsh reality of life. He saw what failure looked like and he aspired to be greater.

What do you think is his downfall, his tragic characteristic? Personally, I think it might be pride, but there should be something more.

Luciene wrote: What do you think is his downfall, his tragic characteristic? Personally, I think it might be pride, but there should be something more.

I'm not sure he had a tragic flaw- I mean, as Mandrake he had major pride issues, but when he went back to being Nathaniel... I guess I'd have to say "social ineptness." He'd didn't really have a good handle on normal human interaction.

I know that doesn't exactly count as a standard, um, Greek drama problem, but... Eh, it's all I've got right now. Pretty pathetic, I know.

Some guy thinks Fflokes would be a friendly guy.
If you thoroughly read Golem's eye, there are hints that he is just like any other old magician; paranoid, ambitious or greedy. Fflokes seems like the kind of guy that is greedy.
Yes I know, this is completely different then pensive's question.

*shrugs* Nat's doesn't really fit too well in the tragic hero archetype anyway. He's not high-born. There's peripeteia, because he dies. Anagnorisis, because obviously he reverted back to "Nathaniel", the more moral boy he used to be.

I suppose ambition and pride can be the hamartia, but it's probably not social ineptness. He died because he felt the need to..i guess right his wrongs. So it could be a result of guilt?

I don't know, I'm rambling. I think I need to reread the books also :P

I think Whitwell might be an anti-hero. Sure she disowns Nat, but she has her limits on ambition.

I agree with Luciene, though I think it was not just him wanting to right his wrongs, geth the ol' karma back in favor *if you believe in that*, but also because Nouda really needed to die, Nat knew that, plus we have to remember that kitty was on his mind too.
Obviously, he wouldn't want Nouda rampaging around, killing people, specifically Kitty.