I think Juliette had a different mindset with her power as opposed to Nick and Kelly. Nick and Kelly always knew they could be killed and we could look at the Mauvais Dentes as an example. Kelly explained to Nick how dangerous even just one of them was which is why she initially kept her presence concealed and then double-teamed him. Kelly was always extremely cautious until she wasn't in the end. That tells me she's very aware she could be killed due to any minor slip-up.
I don't think Juliette had any fear of dying once she gained control of her powers. She certainly wasn't strong-armed into joining the royals. She even warned the king against making a move against her even in a room full of place full of people there to serve him.
Juliette would have never asked Nick to kill her if she didn't believe she could be killed.
(12-13-2018, 05:27 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]Juliette would have never asked Nick to kill her if she didn't believe she could be killed.
That doesn't mean she had a fear of dying. She was going to let Nick kill her which is very different from being very cautious because you're afraid someone may get the better of you and kill you.
I didn't state Juliette was/wasn't worried about dying that night. I stated that I believed Juliette understood that she could be killed that night. If she didn't she wouldn't have allowed Nick to strangle her.
I do not think she thought could be killed.
She provoked Nick but then she was well prepared to kill him
So now the discussion is skewed from the original question posed by this thread of "Did Juliette understand that Kelly might be killed or did Kenneth fool her." to if "she, Juliette herself, felt she could die?
A better discussion would be, which it was discussed on many other threads, without going into its legal matters of burden of proof. WTF is the difference if Juliette understood that Kelly might be killed of it Ken fooled her. In the real world or in this made up Grimm world, intent and results are not too much co-dependent.
When it comes in describing a character flaw, what is critical is, intent has a lot less weight that character's development than the results of their actions.
Whether you think Juliette was smart enough to realize Kelly would be killed or Juliette was as dumb as a door nail to be fooled by Ken? The fact of the matter, she, Juliette, her actions/behavior was critical in getting Kelly killed.
As much as I hate to be like a politician by answering a question with another question. In replying to the question asked on this thread, my question to "Did Juliette understand that Kelly might be killed or did Kenneth fool her", is WTF is the difference? To answer the question? Results are what count, not intent. She betrayed another woman's trust!
I agree that Juliette betrayed Kelly's trust and she should be held responsible for her death like Kenneth and co. She didn't have any good intentions that during that stretch and nothing but disaster would be the result.
But I'm a general sense, I don't agree that intents don't matter. I find them crucial whenever judging a character. There are characters that shouldn't be condemned to he'll because the results of their actions aren't ideal. Sansa Stark comes to mind immediately because I constantly see how much she gets bashed even when she had no bad intent or was just naive. The writing for her has sucked for the past few years but that's besides the point. She was much better written when was prissy and naive. Context matters. It's really a case by case basis.
(12-14-2018, 10:13 AM)Hell Rell Wrote: [ -> ]I agree that Juliette betrayed Kelly's trust and she should be held responsible for her death like Kenneth and co. She didn't have any good intentions that during that stretch and nothing but disaster would be the result.
But I'm a general sense, I don't agree that intents don't matter. I find them crucial whenever judging a character. There are characters that shouldn't be condemned to he'll because the results of their actions aren't ideal. Sansa Stark comes to mind immediately because I constantly see how much she gets bashed even when she had no bad intent or was just naive. The writing for her has sucked for the past few years but that's besides the point. She was much better written when was prissy and naive. Context matters. It's really a case by case basis.
Like you stated, content is crucial in the consideration of intent. Your example of Sensa Stark, I am assuming you are referring how she was coerced into turning against her family. I agree, her intent of turning against her family was based on very false information given to her. In this case, intent is based on false information and, IMO, it is forgivable.
In comparison to Juliette, the example you gave doesn't even come close. I never intended it to be a generalization but a specific application to this Juliette character
Like you said, I also agree that intent does matter. I also find it crucial whenever judging a character. The "intent" issue here for Juliette, does not change her guilt, if anything, in this situation, intent adds to her guilt. So yes, content is crucial in considering intent. IMO, For the Juliette character, its redundant.
(12-14-2018, 03:37 PM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2018, 10:13 AM)Hell Rell Wrote: [ -> ]I agree that Juliette betrayed Kelly's trust and she should be held responsible for her death like Kenneth and co. She didn't have any good intentions that during that stretch and nothing but disaster would be the result.
But I'm a general sense, I don't agree that intents don't matter. I find them crucial whenever judging a character. There are characters that shouldn't be condemned to he'll because the results of their actions aren't ideal. Sansa Stark comes to mind immediately because I constantly see how much she gets bashed even when she had no bad intent or was just naive. The writing for her has sucked for the past few years but that's besides the point. She was much better written when was prissy and naive. Context matters. It's really a case by case basis.
Like you stated, content is crucial in the consideration of intent. Your example of Sensa Stark, I am assuming you are referring how she was coerced into turning against her family. I agree, her intent of turning against her family was based on very false information given to her. In this case, intent is based on false information and, IMO, it is forgivable.
In comparison to Juliette, the example you gave doesn't even come close. I never intended it to be a generalization but a specific application to this Juliette character
Like you said, I also agree that intent does matter. I also find it crucial whenever judging a character. The "intent" issue here for Juliette, does not change her guilt, if anything, in this situation, intent adds to her guilt. So yes, content is crucial in considering intent. IMO, For the Juliette character, its redundant.
Ok, I agree with you about Juliette. I just wanted to make sure this wasn't a generalization and I now see that it wasn't.
(12-14-2018, 10:13 AM)Hell Rell Wrote: [ -> ]I agree that Juliette betrayed Kelly's trust and she should be held responsible for her death like Kenneth and co. She didn't have any good intentions that during that stretch and nothing but disaster would be the result.
Disaster was set in motion when Kelly, Renard, and the scoobies betrayed Adalind by kidnapping Diana and placed the blame on the royals. I don't believe betrayal of a trust is a criminal action, otherwise they could be criminally liable for blaming the royals.
All I can say for Juliette's intent is that she helped Kenneth get Diana. I'm not excusing her actions, but I think there's a lot of speculation about what she did that's somehow equated to truth. We didn't see her do anything at the time other than stay in a room upstairs. As for Kenneth, I'm not sure what his intentions were outside of taking Diana. If he wanted really wanted Kelly dead, it certainly wouldn't have been any issue to have a sniper take her out as she's walking up the sidewalk. Yet he wastes time by interacting with Kelly, then "taking it outside", blabbering to Juliette about it, then decapitating Kelly and hotfooting it around the house to find a box for her head.
As for good intentions, I don't think an argument can be made for any of the characters displaying good intentions during that stretch. Arguments to the contrary might make a good thread for discussion.