underwood for being an annoying wannabe and lovelace for being the most annoying bad guy.

I say Nathaniel for being a big jerk. I was the only one who picked him! :P

I absolutely hated Underwood...Grrrrrrr.....he was so annoying...

Well, that's because Nat has several other sides to him. Good ones.

And Lovelace and the rest really don't.

Well, Bart does and a few others but still.

I like characters that have good/bad sides(in this case for ex. John/Nat).
They add a pleasent twist. Take, for example, Frodo, Anniken Skywalker,
and Potter(because he's a brat in the fith one :P ).

Mannequin Skywalker didn't act enough to have good and bad sides.

In the old ones he did.

He doesn't act like a brat, just a hormonal teenager who's struggling with being the hero.

Anakin *did* have different sides to him.

Sad and angry.

I don't understand why Vader was so bad at saber fencing in the last three...He's supposed to be like his old self, just darker and more evil, and a lot more awesome. Plus he has a cool cape. :P

So, did anyone else think Nick was a "bad character"?

Meh. I thought he was just an idiot.

I thought ms Lutyens was bad because in ptolemy's gate she acted coldly toward Nat. I liked Mr underwood and felt kinda sorry for him because he didn't have any real friends - he must of been lonely. I actually wished he hadn't died.

I was hovering over Mr. Underwood but I chose Lovelace. A geeky willain? Bad news, eh? Ms. Lutyens wasn't that bad. At least she was nice to begin with.

Mandrake and Nat. Should be two different options.

They're the same person.

Hello Everyone

I think he was talking about the different sides of Nat Nathaniel and Mandrake represent =)

He was.

But it's still the same person who is held responsible for those actions. Kind of like Golem, but in a less pyscopatic and scary way...

But they are seperate characters to a certain extent. One could say that the corrupted gollum was evil, however smeagol was not. In the same way, one could say Nathaniel represents the selfless ideal of magicians, while john represents the cool, selfish, greedy exterior magicians present to the world.

Selfless ideal of magicians? I think not.

The whole point of using demons is to use them for your own selfish gains. Ptolemy was really the only one who tried to help them.

You're right though, in a way.

Hm, with Nathaniel, I'm not talking about magicians as a whole, but him in particular. If you look to the first book, he admits his theft to Lovelace, owning up to his actions. His reasons for doing so are purely noble, that he alone should bear the fruit of his actions. This is the "selfless" ideal of a magician, that they should strive to help the commoners, not rule over them. The fundamental ideals that Mr.Purcell drilled into him, which he then lost when he became the person of "John Mandrake".