I guess so . . . at the very start of the novel at least.

Haha.
You're up against stubborn opposition here, Apollo.
I'm going with Apollo on this one.
One's actions rarely obscure their past completely.

No, I agree that he was living the good life in GE (well, until he lost his master and was about to lose his job, that's why I said "at the start of the novel at least"), but I'm just saying I didn't like where his personality was at that stage.

Bleh, kids always transform from innocent to arrogant and uncaring. It's Teh Way of Life

And then back again?

Mmm, Nat had a conscience but he didn't seem *that* great morally, seeing as he was conspiring revenge at twelve and all.

umbreo wrote:And then back again?

Technically Nat wasn't an adult yet (he was 17) But was obviously getting close to it.

If you looked from a distance. On a dark night.

Very Nice.
17 can be manly, Nat wasn't.
He was lanky with a crew cut.
Think thin marine, but less muscle.

He learned his lesson.

One way or another.

He did. But Nat didn't know what he was doing was immoral (I won't say he was completely ignorant, but he did to an extent believe whatever he was doing was okay). If he had persisted with that belief even after Kitty & Luciene's sermon, one could say he was truly evil. But he changed immediately & sought to right the wrong.

He learned his lesson, but barely.
He wouldn't have 'immediately' sought to right the wrong if
A) He was completely (note emphasis) innocent.
B) There was something in it for him
C) If Kitty weren't also in danger
D) Any combo of the above
But, to his credit, he does at least redeem himself a bit,

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:He did. But Nat didn't know what he was doing was immoral (I won't say he was completely ignorant, but he did to an extent believe whatever he was doing was okay). If he had persisted with that belief even after Kitty & Luciene's sermon, one could say he was truly evil. But he changed immediately & sought to right the wrong.

Lucy...a figure of morality. She's gonna be insulted. :D

It was actually a sermon about J/J, but the censored me out and replaced me with the art teacher =[

Mwamba wrote:

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:He did. But Nat didn't know what he was doing was immoral (I won't say he was completely ignorant, but he did to an extent believe whatever he was doing was okay). If he had persisted with that belief even after Kitty & Luciene's sermon, one could say he was truly evil. But he changed immediately & sought to right the wrong.

Lucy...a figure of morality. She's gonna be insulted. :D

Oh sorry! Seriously! I meant Lutyens, but I dunno how Luciene got into the way. Some credit to her, I suppose ;) .

I like the childhood of Nat., imagine having all that books, but I dont like the unconscious part of him when he attacks Lovelace.

Mr.Underwood wrote:I like the childhood of Nat., imagine having all that books, but I dont like the unconscious part of him when he attacks Lovelace.

Why not?

And welcome.

Welcome Underwood!

It's funny, when I'm reading through Nat's childhood again, it's like a horror movie - "Don't go in there . . . don't go inside!" and all that. All these mistakes he's making. I'm going "No! Don't do that! Don't get the glasses!"

Thanks.