FuzzyLobster wrote:See! See! Others saw it too, I'm not crazy! (much...) :P

I was being sarcastic. Oh, forget it.
Dougbuchanan.

Oh...

:P

Dansariki wrote:Oh, good, she's becoming one of us :)
That was fast.

Or maybe....

She already was one of you, just lost.
There's an idea. ^o)

I'm constantly amused by how u guys can talk about certain topics, veer completely off-track and come back again as though nothing has happened.
Then veer off track again.

Anyway, just to make my point, I've always been very taken with Nathaniel. I mean, from the start it was him with the conflicts, because you read Bartimaeus first and get the impression that magicians are greedy egotists, and suddenly you read from this kid's point of view and he seems innocent but misguided [the demons in the study]. trump card: kid + innocent + misguided + abandoned = thumbs up. Then you start getting frustrated and in my case yell at the book to tell that kid that he should try read his and the djinni's own story; e.g. get to know each other better, before he decides who's evil and who's not. ( Don't ask about me talking to books.)
The thing is, Kitty's always been prejudiced about the magicians AND demons, but the other two just view commoners as stupid and gullible. It'll be a lot easier to sort what's prejudice and what's not if you didn't have someone insisting that you were the bad guy. Then later she stops thinking that demons are evil, and Bartimaeus starts to realize that commoners actually CAN make a difference. But they're still convinced that magicians are evil and not as - erm - human as they are, and half of book 3 was spent speculating on how bad the magicians are. Not that I'm complaining, because the balance is perfect... but you get the point.
And in Book 2? Simple: Nathaniel was confused of not what's good or bad, but of what he thinks is right or wrong. He's been raised to think demons are bad. Through his encounters with Kitty she's done nothing but wound him physically, and only AFTER he broke his promise did she do something that he believes worthy. So when you think about it, the conflict in his head is whether he's wrong by breaking his promise, or whether he's right by arresting a 'terrorist', who admittedly had done people little good e.g. setting a mad afrit loose,wrecking careers, causing fires,stealing...and the list goes on. Even though most of these things were not done directly by her, he doesn't know that, does he? And he can't very well appreciate that she saved his throat from being slit by Fred when he had just got his head open.

All I can conclude is that only when she saved him from the golem did she have a real positive effect on things.

Wow, that's long. Don't worry, I can argue out Nat's, Kitty's and Bart's 'innocence' if I wanted too. The small thing is that we don't have a topic for that; I'm not into creating topics, just replying; and the fact that NONE of them are completely innocent. Just in one way or another they are victims of circumstances. (Makes you look at that in a whole new level.)

Last thing? Simply put, those who hate Nat are also prejudiced, like the characters in the book; or that they seriously can't understand humans.

Easy conclusion: Nathaniel is a prejudiced/misguided idiotic adorable kid; he's cause for conflicts and jokes; he gets pushed around by both protagonists and antagonists; without him most, if not all, the current events won't happen; he's the most interestingly conflicted character in the book and yes, I like Nathanel a lot.

lifelock pentacle wrote:I'm constantly amused by how u guys can talk about certain topics, veer completely off-track and come back again as though nothing has happened.

I'm constantly amused that some people can make a long, reasonably intelligent post like you did, but still say 'u' instead of 'you'.

Dansariki wrote:I always thought of him as a good guy.
In GE he was just a good person influenced by surroundings and his need to survive.
His being a jerk in GE is because of that.
I like how he ended up redeeming himself in the end, and giving Bartimaeus the greatest gift of all.

Always amazed at how people will find old quotes of mine to quote...

lifelock pentacle wrote:I'm constantly amused by how u guys can talk about certain topics, veer completely off-track and come back again as though nothing has happened.
Then veer off track again.

[And a good deal of awesome posting that I don't feel like quoting]

Anyways...

1) Good, you know how we work here.
2) I very much like and agree with that post, it sounds like some of my older analytical ones, nice to have some decent reading here, good and proper type.

lifelockpentacle wrote: I'm constantly amused by how u guys can talk about certain topics, veer completely off-track and come back again as though nothing has happened.
Then veer off track again.

Good, you catch on fast! :P We're just awesome that way.

and good post.

David Cat wrote:

lifelock pentacle wrote:I'm constantly amused by how u guys can talk about certain topics, veer completely off-track and come back again as though nothing has happened.

I'm constantly amused that some people can make a long, reasonably intelligent post like you did, but still say 'u' instead of 'you'.

Typically we just keep going off topic til we are bailed out.

And true.

lifelock pentacle wrote:I'm constantly amused by how u guys can talk about certain topics, veer completely off-track and come back again as though nothing has happened.
Then veer off track again.

Anyway, just to make my point, I've always been very taken with Nathaniel. I mean, from the start it was him with the conflicts, because you read Bartimaeus first and get the impression that magicians are greedy egotists, and suddenly you read from this kid's point of view and he seems innocent but misguided [the demons in the study]. trump card: kid + innocent + misguided + abandoned = thumbs up. Then you start getting frustrated and in my case yell at the book to tell that kid that he should try read his and the djinni's own story; e.g. get to know each other better, before he decides who's evil and who's not. ( Don't ask about me talking to books.)
The thing is, Kitty's always been prejudiced about the magicians AND demons, but the other two just view commoners as stupid and gullible. It'll be a lot easier to sort what's prejudice and what's not if you didn't have someone insisting that you were the bad guy. Then later she stops thinking that demons are evil, and Bartimaeus starts to realize that commoners actually CAN make a difference. But they're still convinced that magicians are evil and not as - erm - human as they are, and half of book 3 was spent speculating on how bad the magicians are. Not that I'm complaining, because the balance is perfect... but you get the point.
And in Book 2? Simple: Nathaniel was confused of not what's good or bad, but of what he thinks is right or wrong. He's been raised to think demons are bad. Through his encounters with Kitty she's done nothing but wound him physically, and only AFTER he broke his promise did she do something that he believes worthy. So when you think about it, the conflict in his head is whether he's wrong by breaking his promise, or whether he's right by arresting a 'terrorist', who admittedly had done people little good e.g. setting a mad afrit loose,wrecking careers, causing fires,stealing...and the list goes on. Even though most of these things were not done directly by her, he doesn't know that, does he? And he can't very well appreciate that she saved his throat from being slit by Fred when he had just got his head open.

All I can conclude is that only when she saved him from the golem did she have a real positive effect on things.

Wow, that's long. Don't worry, I can argue out Nat's, Kitty's and Bart's 'innocence' if I wanted too. The small thing is that we don't have a topic for that; I'm not into creating topics, just replying; and the fact that NONE of them are completely innocent. Just in one way or another they are victims of circumstances. (Makes you look at that in a whole new level.)

Last thing? Simply put, those who hate Nat are also prejudiced, like the characters in the book; or that they seriously can't understand humans.

Easy conclusion: Nathaniel is a prejudiced/misguided idiotic adorable kid; he's cause for conflicts and jokes; he gets pushed around by both protagonists and antagonists; without him most, if not all, the current events won't happen; he's the most interestingly conflicted character in the book and yes, I like Nathanel a lot.

An excellent post (I always only get to echo others).
I think I welcomed you already, but I will do it again-

I think you should create a topic on their innocence.
I'd do it, but because of your post, I think it appropriate you do it.
:D
Welcome again, a post that good deserves another.

^You just posted that for the sake of posting, didn't you?

Yep.
Though I do still think she should be the one to make the topic :)

Sigh.
Dansariki - fined 100 posts for admitted spam.

Sentynel wrote:Sigh.
Dansariki - fined 100 posts for admitted spam.

That's new.

Though I doubt it'll matter in a few days..

Whoa.
It was 12:42 in the morning, I was running off of caffeine...
I didn't know you could do that...
Cool, but sucks.
Unfair, I say!
Can't punish me with a punishment I didn't know existed!
Warn us first!
Or something like that...
lol.

Sentynel wrote:Sigh.
Dansariki - fined 100 posts for admitted spam.

OMG you can do that? That's awesome.

Anyway, I liked Nat.

How did you all not know about it? He's put me on -9999 posts before xD

Hmm. Must've missed that.

Grr.
I think it be a bit much...
It was just one post, after all :D

Sir Nils Olav has had -10 posts since his registration.