Six of Crows thoughts: the scene at the end of the first book is a direct parallel to the parley disaster at the start of the book, which Kaz wins both by outplanning/maneuvering/staging a situation, and by relying on another person’s humanity- that the guard will run because he thinks his mistress is in danger. Over and over again, despite being a pessimist, Kaz relies on the strength of human ties between other people, whether romantic, as between Nina and Matthias, or familial, as between Colm and Jesper. He loses against Van Eyck because Van Eyck is better at maneuvering and outplanning and outposturing Kaz, using the image of respectability- the merchant’s council seal, his place in the community- to provide an image of legitimacy that Kaz buys hook, line, and sinker. But Kaz also loses against Van Eyck because he relies on Van Eyck’s love for Wylan, and because Van Eyck spots Kaz’s concern for Inej and uses it against him. Kaz loses because he expects someone else to be human while he is the monster, and instead finds himself human and someone else heartless.
This post is getting more traction so let’s dig into something else ive realised since that fascinates me: Kaz does what a criminal should never do. He falls for the Same Con TWICE. He falls for the important looking businessman with the official looking stamps in the fancy house with the servants. He falls for The thing he scoffs at others for playing by the rules of. He falls for respectability. IMO the duology is tightly interlaced with parallels and shadows and alter egos, and the manner in which Kaz is tricked by van eyck is incredibly similar to the way that he and Jordie were tricked by pekka Rollins. A shiny businessman- the kind of clean, upstanding businessman society tells you should be trustworthy- in a fancy house tells you you can be rich behind your wildest dreams if you do this One Thing for him, and so you give the devil your name. the first devil in a suit takes jordie’s life and the second almost takes inej’s.