6

Reading this question reminded me of a scene in the Artemis Fowl series. In the third book, The Eternity Code, Juliet gets Holly able to enter a facility this way:

She [Holly] had got permission to enter the facility minutes earlier when Juliet had called to enquire about the public tours. Juliet had put on her best cutesy voice for the security guide.

'Hey mister, is it OK if I bring my invisible friend?'

'Sure it is, honey,' replied the guide. 'Bring your security blanket too, if it makes you happy.'

[reminder if needed: fairies can't enter a human dwelling unless invited. Whether the rule applies to dwellings or buildings is kind of debatable since this instance takes place at a lab or a facility (not a house), if my memory serves me, but let's assume for this question that it was a building which needed permission to access.]

I can see how the "security guide" has some kind of authority over the place (being a guide and all), but what would happen if someone else came along and said "No, you can't, shoo!" ? Would the previous statement from the guide be revoked?

On a bigger scale, what if the "rightful owner" of the place stated once that "no, no fairies can enter this building. Ever. And that is my final word and it should not be able to be overriden by any minion of mine." ? Would the guide not have been able to allow access in the first place (even if not knowingly)?

It's been some years since I read the books and I couldn't remember such an instance in what I read. I don't think I ever read an interview of Eoin Colfer. In the end, my question boils down to: who gets the last, irrefutable word about who can or can't enter?

Community
  • 1
Jenayah
  • 56,704
  • 13
  • 242
  • 326
  • You have accepted Kevin's answer, which is probably the correct answer, but I say that Kevin's point 3 is very weak. Kevin doesn't understand that a child with a guardian can be the legal owner of a property, because he doesn't understand that the legal ownership of property and the legal authority to make financial decisions about that property are separated when the owner is not legally competent. Thus the magic rules could have recognized Artemis as the legal owner, and his mother as his agent, so that either could have invited or forbid fairies. Maybe also Butler. – M. A. Golding Jun 25 '18 at 21:01
  • @M.A.Golding I agree with you on the point of "A child can own something, even a manor", but I chose to look at point 3 with the premise of "Invitations have nothing to do with human concepts of ownership". Indeed, any hillbilly could have invited them into Fowl Manor (which is why they try it with the troll); the hillbilly in this case just happens to be Butler. – Jenayah Jun 25 '18 at 21:06
  • Is it possible there's a mistake in this line of your quote: Juliet had put on her best cutesy voice for the security guide.? My book has "tour guide" – do you have a different version, or did you perhaps type the wrong word? – Alex Aug 31 '18 at 05:55
  • @Alex quote snatched on the Google book version – Jenayah Aug 31 '18 at 06:19
  • @Jenayah Okay... rather strange that that one word would be changed between editions. – Alex Aug 31 '18 at 06:26
  • If anyone's interested, the issue was eventually put into a question: Why did a security guide become a tour guide in Artemis Fowl: the Eternity Code? – Jenayah Aug 31 '18 at 12:16

2 Answers2

12

Invitations have nothing to do with human concepts of ownership, and are always subject to explicit cancellation or reinstatement.

In the first book alone, we have a number of interesting examples of this principle:

  1. A child invites Holly to the restaurant where she fends off the troll by calling for help. The child is presumably a patron of the establishment and not in any way an owner.

  2. Artemis says the following to Root, which is regarded as binding:

    None of your race has permission to enter here while I am alive.

    Artemis does not own Fowl Manor. Ownership is probably vested in his mother since his father is missing and presumed dead, but it would certainly not be vested in a 12 year old child. At this point, Artemis is living under the legal fiction that his mother is competent to serve as his legal guardian. There is no reasonable situation in which he obtains the title to Fowl Manor without drawing a great deal of unwanted attention from the Irish authorities.

  3. Later, the fairies send in a troll with the purpose of securing an invitation. Butler does not give them this invitation, but the text clearly implies that he could've. Not only does Butler not own Fowl Manor, he is not even in the Fowl family.

From the above, we can reasonably surmise that the "last word" is literally the last person to give the fairies an invitation or to explicitly revoke the same. If Artemis had been able to make (2) irreversible, he would have done so. Then the fairies would not have bothered with (3), instead moving directly to the bio-bomb.

However, invitation may require that the human is actually present in the dwelling in question, because otherwise Juliet would have simply invited Holly herself without needing to call anyone.

Kevin
  • 9,513
  • 5
  • 49
  • 69
  • It seems this way, but might there not be a little more to it? Otherwise, why wouldn't fairies use an allied (or mesmerized) human to break into a dwelling then invite them in? – Adamant Jun 24 '18 at 08:42
  • Interesting finds! :D Adamant's makes a point though, this "super restrictive rule" seems to have it's share of workarounds of you fiddle a bit. Any material on that? :) – Jenayah Jun 24 '18 at 09:04
  • Holly does try to use the Mesmer to break out, with mixed results. – Kevin Jun 24 '18 at 15:49
  • @Kevin Your ideas about legal ownership are inaccurate. If Artemis's father is missing and presumed dead, he may still be legally alive and the owner of Fowl Manor. If He has been declared legally dead after being missing for the required number of years, his estate has gone into probate or the equivalent and might even have been distributed to his heirs, presumably including his wife and his son Artemis. Thus Artemis could already be the legal sole or part owner of Fowl Manor. There is absolutely no minimum age to legally own property, merely a minimum age to manage your finances. – M. A. Golding Jun 24 '18 at 17:24
  • @Kevin For example, King of Kings Shapor II was born in 309, the year his father died, his older brother was deposed, and he was made kIng of kIngs. Some stories claim that Shapor was crowned while still in his mother's womb. In any case, Shapor became the monarch and the legal owner of a vast fortune before he was one year old, though he didn't rule or reach his majority until he was 16. The idea that children can't own property would upset countless millions of children who believe they own personal property like clothing, toys, books, etc. – M. A. Golding Jun 24 '18 at 17:36
  • 1
    @M.A.Golding: Artemis Fowl does not take place in the 4th century AD, so I'm unsure what point you are trying to make. I'm not saying that Artemis cannot own property of any kind, I'm saying that he is highly unlikely to own such a valuable piece of real estate while his mother is still alive and ostensibly acting as his legal guardian. It would be absurd to turn over title to a 12 year old under those circumstances. If somehow it bypassed his mother (which is unlikely), it would be in a trust. He would not own the land in fee simple absolute. – Kevin Jun 25 '18 at 03:36
  • I waited a bit to see if anyone else came up with something new, but it seems not. Your post does answer my question, and digs up quite a bit of a loophole actually! +1 and accepted :) – Jenayah Jun 25 '18 at 17:47
  • @ Kevin And I say that the legal heir or heirs of Mr. Fowl owned his property in fee simple once the probate of his estate was finished. I say that Artemis was the legal owner in fee simple of anything he may have inherited from his father as soon as the probate was done with, and Artemis's mother was the legal owner in fee simple of anything she inherited from her husband. There is a difference between the legal ownership of a property and the legal authority to make decisions about that property, and those are separated when the legal owner is a minor or otherswise legally incapacitated. – M. A. Golding Jun 25 '18 at 20:25
  • 1
    Continued So Artemis fowl could have been the sole or part owner of Fowl Manor as a minor, but if he was his mother as his guardian would have been legally required to make important financial decisions about Fowl Manor for him until his majority. Just as when Shapor I was a minor he was the reigning King of Kings and the legal owner of his palaces and estates, but his regents and guardians made political and financial decisions for him until he reached his majority. Continued – M. A. Golding Jun 25 '18 at 20:36
  • Continued And if the regents and guardians of Shapor I were prudent they always made decisions in his best interest, lest they be punished, perhaps with fiendish torture, upon his majority. For example, giving away many crown estates to their relatives could have been considered theft of his property by Shapor. – M. A. Golding Jun 25 '18 at 20:40
  • @M.A.Golding: This is a fascinating discussion, but it is utterly unsupported by Colfer's writing, so I am disinclined to integrate it into my answer. Do you have any other suggested improvements? – Kevin Jun 25 '18 at 20:51
0

I don't think that there is any such conflicts in the actual book, however I would assume that the rule would apply to the person who is in control of the dwelling, at the current time.

For example, the phrase on the question: "no, no fairies can enter this building. Ever. And that is my final word and it should not be able to be overriden by any minion of mine." Would apply as long as they own said building, and after they pass along ownership, the next owner can refute that rule. An interesting loophole there could be that once a "minion" gains the rightful ownership, he would no longer be a subordinate to the original person and could cancel it.

Thomas Owens
  • 33
  • 2
  • It's a bit of a speculation, and Kevin did find instances of "non-owner" people granting access to fairies. But thanks for taking the time to think about it :) – Jenayah Jun 25 '18 at 17:48