FORKNI-L
Logfile LOG9606D Part 2
June 21, 1996
File: "FORKNI-L LOG9606D" Part 2
TOPICS:
Sony, TV_ShowStuff and FK Merchandise (2)
was Re: Nick, Nat, and Janette (3)
Help with a prank... please
HELP!
SPOILERS: Good vs Evil, LK (2)
quickie--& spoilers for AtA sort of
alise (sp) & sipping
Help with Fiction list!
In need of assistance..........Please.
strange fan club address
FORKNI-L Digest - 20 Jun 1996 to 21 Jun 1996 - Special issue
Nick is an eternal boy
Saving face
Blackwing, etc.
YKYBWTMFK
Ger and a new series
Alyse & sipping
A question of holy symbols
Milk Carton msg: Have you seen this story?
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 12:11:23 -0400
From: Mary Davis <Spirit3679@a.......>
Subject: Re: Sony, TV_ShowStuff and FK Merchandise
In a message dated 96-06-21 02:35:02 EDT, you write:
>> Anne says that SONY's last response was that it would be too much
>>trouble to draw up the legal papers, etc. for merchandise licencing, etc.
>>Anne's take is that SHOWSTUFF would be doing all the work in getting
>>manufacture, promotion, distribution, order fullfillment, etc done.
>>All SONY would have to do is deposit checks! (ahh, to have THAT job!)
> the only thing Sony can lose on this deal is *face*
>Then we come along....<EG> And we're not going away, either...
>
Sony's real question may be this: should TVShowstuff be the company to get
the license. There might be other companies negotiating. Licensing decisions
are based on several factors The primary one being profit. If you license to
a small company they might not provide the market size that would show the
most profit. If you license to a low quality company, your merchandise ends
up being low quality crap that makes your name look bad and lowers the
its value. This lowers profit and would cause Sony to lose face.
If we show our support for TV Showstuff with a volume of inquiries Sony can
feel confident that the profit would occur. Its up to TV Showstuff to prove
that they would run a quality merchandising campaign.
When you write to TV Showstuff. Make your request specific. State a reason
you are expecting them to be THE source. This will give Anne some leverage.
Get friends to write to TV Showstuff asking for other tv merchandise as well.
Mary Davis
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:22:43 CDT
From: Cousin Erik <jrarmstr@p.......>
Subject: Re: was Re: Nick, Nat, and Janette
> I think Janette has often _thought_ she was in love with Nick. But, she
> left him during the Rennaissance and she left him again in the present day.
> She doesn't really have any desire to share life with him.
I think this was as much because of Nick as Janette. Nick has not, to my
knowledge (and I haven't seen every ep yet), ever seemed like he was in love,
per se, with Janette. In lust, yes. In need, yes. But not in love. I
can't say that I blame Janette for not wanting to share her life with a sponge.
That's not "sharing;" that's Janette giving and Nick taking.
As for Janette, we don't know a lot of her life before Nick beyond what we
saw in FWTD. Mistreated and misused by men for most/all of her life, Janette
probably feels that all men are that way. The only man who ever gave her
anything without expectation was LaCroix. It may have seemed at first that
Nick was not the same kind of man she was used to dealing with, being a "noble"
Crusader. Time proved her wrong.
The main reason, IMO, that she stayed with him so long was more due to LaCroix
than anything. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is an episode
where Nick and Janette are travelling together without LaCroix.
Until next time, I'll be watching...
Cousin Erik (Le Phantom de L'Opera)
jrarmstr@b....... // http://bsc.edu/~jrarmstr/
"Don't you know it's really a bad idea to come in without your lines learned?"
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 12:53:49 -0400
From: Jennifer Dukarski <DUKARSJA@u.......>
Subject: Help with a prank... please
** Proprietary **
All right guys and gals... I need a little help.
My roommate and neighbor find it imensly funny to play practical jokes on
me... most of them relating to thongs. (My mistake, trying to get them to
join the list.)
They have posted thongs all over my room among other jokes that are
funny... but my time for revenge has come.
So that's why I turn to you all... HELP!?!?
I need ideas or accomplices (since they ARE on e-mail). Feel free to
contact me privately if you have any ideas.
And by the way... if anyone knows the address to get on the Highlander
list, it would be much appreciated.
With virtual chocolate and fudge to anyone willing to help,
Jenn Dukarski (dukarsja@u.......)
Keeper of the Hope
"In faith and love there is forever."
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 12:58:17 -0400
From: dotti rhodes <dottir@w.......>
Subject: Re: HELP!
At 07:39 PM 6/20/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Okay guys,
>
>I need help. Did anyone get a copy of part 7 of Breaking Dawn? I sent this
some time ago and it has not dropped into my box.
No, Carrie, I didn't get it. ( sob, sob, sob, sob!!)
Dotti R
Knightie 4-Ever
Defender of the Knight
dottir@w.......
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 14:40:10 -0400
From: Marcia Tucker <ScFiMarci@a.......>
Subject: SPOILERS: Good vs Evil, LK
Amy R. <akr@n.......> defines the discussion:
>>The Return of the "Nature of Good and Evil" Discussion! When last we met,
I was pushing hard for Absolute Morality, and Lisa Prince, Marcia, Laurie and
others thought I was stark, raving mad. :-)<<
And we still do think you're stark raving mad, dear, but we love you all the
more for it! I wish you could have been at the OMNI SF/Fantasy Chat I hosted
last night as this was the topic! Lisa Prince and I, of course, were
enthusiastically hawking our view of things and we could have used the other
view to balance out the discussion! ;D
>>I see no real difference between it and the silly idea that there is a
proper "woman's persepective" or "Black perspective" or "Canadian
perspective" or "adolescent perspective." "But all of those perspectives are
human," you are probably thinking. So?<<
Yes, that is what I'm thinking. And here's my take - vampires are no longer
human. I maintain that their transformation when being brought across is so
profound that they have essentially mutated into a different species - and I
apply this to their souls as well. Okay, so I'm REALLY into science fiction
where you can let your imagination fly free to see possibilities such as
this. I can conceive of a reality where a soul could be transformed. How
could we possibly know that this is impossible, anyway? So I accept that it
is possible because I don't know that it isn't.
Besides, I think that the rule book has to be thrown out when you consider
that vampires must feed on blood to survive. That's point one, and then you
can argue that they can subsist on animal blood, and that's true. But
there's point two, which is: the hunger. Vampires have an innate bloodlust
that focuses their whole being on attaining the blood of humans for food.
We're not talking about cravings, here, at least how I see it. We're
talking about a fever that so overwhelmed Nick Knight that he could not stop
himself from draining Natalie (I'm not getting into the state of that
relationship, no way!). Nat, his best friend, his beloved to *some*
perspectives (not mine, another discussion), his confidante, and the person
who had been trying to help him leave this whole thing behind (which I
believe is impossible, but that's also another discussion!).
Human? Human-like. But not human. No matter how much Nick wants it, he's
not human anymore. His physiology is not human and his
physical/psychological needs are not human. IMO.
>>Nick (and I) however, believe that there is only one morality, and it applies
to all thinking beings. Murder is simply wrong. LC can't excuse what he
did in "Cherry Blossoms" by saying that he's a vampire. It was murder,
and it was wrong. Torture is simply wrong. <<
I don't go along with torture either, but I do think it points to a
fundamental difference in LaCroix's vampire point of view and that of Nick's.
When ANYONE (and there have been plenty examples of this in human history)
devalues human life, that sort of thing will happen. Kind of like the child
who pulls the head off its doll - it doesn't think of the doll as a living
being, and those who torture do not either. I believe it is wrong for
humans. But I believe more that the devaluation of life is the wrong part
more than the action. Same for murder. But here when we get to vampires
things get a little grayer. Vampires do not need to torture to feed.
Vampires may not be able to keep from killing to feed. Hence, "murder" is
simply an act of survival for a vampire. Optimally I would like it if
vampires had better self-control to avoid killing a victim, but that just
ain't so. I see LaCroix's perspective in regards to killing as normal and
expected for a vampire. Nick's is not. I *am* very much a Knightie, though,
and while I do not believe it is natural for Nick to feel the way he does, I
do honor his value of life.
Don't get me wrong - this isn't all cut and dried for me either. I'm not
excusing LaCroix nor vampires. I'm just giving them the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to their physiological requirements. But obviously Nick's case
makes one pause to think. There's no easy answer, is there?
>>Evil is evil, and being a vampire doesn't excuse you for its commission.
Some things are, or ought to be, engraved on the souls of all -- and
vampires lose neither their human soul nor their human conscience when
they come across<<
Oh, I can hear Lisa now... ;D Yes, "ought to be" - wouldn't that be great?
But some things are not engraved on the souls of all. If they were, we
wouldn't have wars, crime, etc. So, I guess it just depends on the condition
(same or changed) of the vampire soul. Either it's the same human soul, or
it's changed and no longer a human soul. I have to go with the latter. I
don't believe that being made a vampire automatically makes a person a
Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy, i.e. a human psycho/sociopath. I believe
that a vampire just isn't human anymore, soul as well. Different, not same.
>>Again, I'm apparently the only one who thinks this, but vampires *were*
human, and in fact still have human souls. (snip)They are not a separate
species, and even if they were, the same universal morality still binds
them.<<
Yes. They *were* human. But I maintain that they are no longer human.
We're just seeing them two different ways, IMO, and I'd have to say that
we're both right on this because we have no way of knowing if a vampire's
soul can be considered human or not.
As to "universal morality" - there ain't no such thing. Who decides this?
Who decides the dividing line between killing to live or to defend oneself
or not? We could argue case after case where this just isn't clear and there
is no way to satisfy everyone as to where those dividing lines lie. We could
go into euthanasia, mercy killing, suicide, war, etc. What about doctors who
have to make life and death decisions about who gets what donor organ? When
choosing one recipient over another is the doctor then murdering the one who
doesn't get the organ because of the choice? Er, no... you see the dilemma,
I hope. Morality is roughly defined by culture and finely defined by
individual. It can't be pigeon-holed into one all-encompassing universal
view. What of cultures which, because of their *different* value of human
life, practice ritualistic suicide and the like? Are they wrong? Evil? I
don't think we can say that. They're just *different*.
Just so you don't think I'm unfeeling or anything, I'm more pro-life than
pro-choice, agree that murder and torture are wrong for *me*, would not like
others to murder or torture, do not want Nick to kill either, for that
matter, or LaCroix, or other vampires. I just maintain that vampires are a
predator species that may not have a choice at times. I don't have to like
it - it just is.
>>No! He needs to struggle against what he is with every fiber of his
being! :-) (I've taken to calling this point of a discussion
"Knightie/Cousin deadlock," but I suppose, "Amy's being really stubborn
again" would be as, if not more, accurate. <g>)<<
And many of us love Nick for precisely that reason. However, I would like
Nick to accept himself better largely because it's hard to see him in such
pain all the time. I honor and respect his struggle as a noble gesture, but
he's in severe denial of his own reality and it's taking its toll on his
psyche. (re what happened in C&C and LK, in particular) I want him to be
moral (not kill, use his powers for good) but not on the edge of flipping out
like he was in LK because of his crushing guilt.
Really, Amy, we *both* want our Nick to be happy. You want him to achieve
his cure, and I want him to accept what he is better. We want the same
thing, just different means of achieving that happiness.
When it comes down to it - we're on the same side. Nick's.
Marcia Tucker / scfimarci@a.......
Dark Knightie / Enthusiastically Unnamed / Immortal Beloved / FFF
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 13:54:58 -0500
From: Mad Hatter <cli7@s.......>
Subject: quickie--& spoilers for AtA sort of
s
o
r
t
o
f
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
i just picked up in a number of places about nick's spirituality
or the spiritual side of his condition, and i just wanted to say that
one reason why i particularly LIKED "ashes to ashes" was that it
incorporated a religion other than the of-course-christianity theme;
i mean, the sun god of Egypt (Ra? Horus? i forget, sorry).
given all the religions in the world, i've always wondered how other
holy symbols would affect vampires. would it be limited to the
individual vampire's beliefs? would, say, a vampire brought across
in ancient Egypt be only susceptible to the sun symbol and/or the
ankh? islamic? buddhist? what if an african vampire had never seen
a christian cross?
that brings a very strong and dangerous premise of *assuming*
only a certain deity exists, beyond question--and AtA does a good job
of incorporating other realities, i think.
very curious!
-madhat
<cli7@s.......>
Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live
Not where I love, but where I am, I die.
-r.southwell
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 13:56:35 -0500
From: Mad Hatter <cli7@s.......>
Subject: alise (sp) & sipping
finally watched "dark knight" (hi chad!)_
were there any other episodes with Alise (sp) in them?
and what is *sipping* exactly? i thought it meant
throught only the wrist. oh well . .
-madhat
<cli7@s.......>
Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live
Not where I love, but where I am, I die.
-r.southwell
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 15:44:24 -0400
From: Ann Lipton <Iocaste@a.......>
Subject: Help with Fiction list!
Could whoever it is that runs the fiction list, or assistant runs, or
whatever email me privately? Quick question for you ...
Thanks!
Ann
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 16:05:11 EDT
From: Kenneth Dare <102226.1213@c.......>
Subject: In need of assistance..........Please.
Hi all.
Just a little question here. I need to non-mail myself for a few weeks (I'm
going to California for the GWD weekend) and I can't get it right. I've gotten
several other commands to go through with out a hitch, I just know that I'm
doing something very stupid. I just don't know what it is. Someone please
take pity on me!!!!
Thanks for all your help in advance
-------------------
Brandy
102226,1213@c.......
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 13:33:16 -0700
From: Valery King <kingv@u.......>
Subject: strange fan club address
I, too, am one who had a couple of message sent to this list disappear
into the ether the other day. I think they'll probably show up sometime
(probably around Christmas) so I don't want to repeat them, except for
one very strange thing I saw in print this week.
My satellite guide, OnSat, has a Q&A column, and one of the questions was
about FK ("Say it isn't cancelled!""Sorry, rumor says it is" kind of
thing). But Polly whatsername who answers the questions said to contact
the "Forever Knight" Fan Club for more information--but the address was
given as P.O. Box 7487 in Burbank, Calif.!
Now, having been a member for a few years, I know that the fan club
address is in Boston, NOT Burbank. Does anyone know who the folks in
Burbank are? Is this some corporate plot to siphon off fan letters into a
black hole (kinda like my post on this subject earlier this week)? A
local fan club? What?
If you have enlightenment available, please distribute!
--Valery
kingv@u.......
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 16:34:13 -0400
From: Mary Davis <Spirit3679@a.......>
Subject: Re: was Re: Nick, Nat, and Janette
In a message dated 96-06-21 11:02:04 EDT, Margie wrote
>
>I think Janette has often _thought_ she was in love with Nick. But, she
>left him during the Rennaissance and she left him again in the present day.
>She doesn't really have any desire to share life with him.
>
I thought Janette said they had been together 200 years, when fighting with
Nick over her portrait. I think that should constitue sharing life.
Mary Davis
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 16:47:09 -0400
From: Eileen Duffy <watson@t.......>
Subject: Re: FORKNI-L Digest - 20 Jun 1996 to 21 Jun 1996 - Special issue
But
>let's not pretend that the balance is by any means even. Nick seems to think
>sometimes that his presence in Natalie's life is its own reward ;)))))
Granted.
> It looks to me like he specifically wanted HER to try the cure and come back
>across. With the kind of money he has?! He could have paid any Screed-like
>vampire a million dollars, easy, to try the cure as a control group. He did
>not have to go to Janette because she was the only vampire in town.
Okay, here's where the wet noodle comes out. Get ready to use it, folks. :-)
Let's remember, this is a TV SHOW. What if the only reason that Nick ran to
Janette was because 1) They had to use DD in the episode, or 2) The writers
weren't feeling creative enough, or 3) The idea of a "control Vampire" took
too much screen time to explain?
We have to remember, as wonderful as the show is, that not all decisions
about what happens on the show are made because the producers or writers
have the canon of the show firmly in mind. Many are made due to time
restraints, budget restraints, and sloppiness in continuity. (They do make
these discussions interesting, though!) Keep in mind that the classic Trek
episode "City on the Edge of Forever", written by Harlan Ellison and winner
of many awards, originally had the Guardian of Forever being a giant temple
in a huge valley lined with statues and carvings. What did it become? A
small rock arch on a deserted planet. Why? Money and time constraints.
> I just don't
>buy a "love" story where TPTB apparently decide they should throw a romantic
>episode on in there every four months or so, and have them just act like good
>buddies all the rest of the time.
Well, IMHO, I truly believe that Nat was meant by those PTB to be the
human"love interest" for Nick. And Janette was meant to be the vampire
"love interest". That doesn't mean that I can't take sides ;)
>Felicia Bollin
***Eileen Duffy*** Beam Me Up watson@t.......
Montclair, NJ
Defender of the Brain -- WAR!!!!
In Love and Faith There is Forever
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 16:33:55 -0400
From: Mary Davis <Spirit3679@a.......>
Subject: Re: Nick is an eternal boy
In a message dated 96-06-21 09:27:48 EDT, Tippi wrote:
> When Janette calls him an "eternal boy" she about sums it up for me.
> He's rather innocent for being a undead creature of the night! I like that
> paradox.
>
What paradox? He's a brick.
(As in dumb as a brick, but you gotta love him)
Mary Davis
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 16:05:43 -0500
From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......>
Subject: Re: Saving face
Lisa wrote:
>Note: is Anne dealing with SONY US (or whatever the American subsidiary
>is called)?
I believe she's dealing only with the U.S. end of things, since she's said
that she's met with them (that was my understanding at any rate). And the
man to whom I referred her was the merchandizing director and had an
American-sounding name. But I, too, have an American sounding name and I'm
half Asian. ;) I'll write to Anne tonight and find out.
More later.
****Wicked Cousin Tippi****
HEY! Want FK stuff? Sony needs to know that you want it! Contact
Anne at TV_ShowStuff@p....... and TELL her NOW! :)
"Poetry can be so deceiving." - LC in Baby, Baby
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 17:01:51 -0400
From: Judith Freudenthal <DanaKnight@a.......>
Subject: Re: *Blackwing, etc.*
Ger doesn't have to take his clothes off to do a steamy scene. Look at the
two N&N scenes in Night in Question. I thought they were 2 of the steamiest
scenes I have seen.
Ger could give lessons to other actors, writers, directors, etc.
Judy
DanaKnight@a.......
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 17:15:04 -0400
From: Linda Simon <lsimon@h.......>
Subject: YKYBWTMFK
I wanted to jump into the "Ger's New Series" game and I thought of him as an
athlete, maybe an aging or just-injured one who becomes a sports journalist
and takes us into the lives of a new athlete each week (with dramatic
problems, of course)
and then I thought:
Oh, he couldn't because there would be too many daylight requirements, like
attending practices and interviewing at all hours....
AAAAGH!
Linda Simon
NatPacker, subliminal Cousin
"I like not the smell of this authority!" John Proctor, The Crucible by
Arthur Miller
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 17:13:34 +0000
From: Gayle McCreedy <gmccree@c.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Good vs Evil, LK
Spoiler Space
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Is it the act itself, or the motive behind the action that defines
the evil? Are ethics situational or static? I am finding this morality
discussion fascinating because it touches on so many different areas,
both of the show and of our lives.
Amy's contribution goes to the heart of the question of boundaries.
Are there acts which, no mater what the mitigating circumstance, are
evil?
I believe that most could agree that torture, in whatever
form, is evil regardless of circumstance, because the definition of
torture itself is to inflict suffering. Torture is designed to
objectify the individual, to strip them of their rights and identity
as a human, and to reduce them to a state of terror beyond which
death may well appear to be a welcome relief. It is the raw sadism
of the act which defines it.
But Marcia's contribution asks us to further define the nature of the
circumstances of death. Is murder to be a broad term, applied to any
circumstance in which one ends a life? Or is murder a
more narrow term, only applied to a willful and evil act by one
individual to intentionally end the life of another?
If we limit the discussion only to FK, we can see the same
ambiguities of moral definition there that we struggle with.
When Nick realizes that Francesca is keeping artists alive for the
purpose of feeding them and draining them slowly, he defines her slow
murder as evil (I am going to put aside the question of whether
killing an artist is more evil than killing an untalented slug for
the point of discussion). And, as he considers his own "pit of dying
bimbos," he redefines his actions through the eyes of his nephew and
time and considers them evil. Why? Because he and Francesca both
have crossed the line from murder to torture. They have moved from
hunting from necessity to hunting for sport, concentrating on the
pleasure they receive without attention to the suffering caused. The
enjoyment reaped at the pain of others have moved them into the
sadistic realm.
But Nick has no problems killing for cause. When someone who is
blatantly evil is killed on FK, either by Nick or by others, there is
no mourning. I am thinking particularly of Vudu here. Vachon kills
him, but Nick's only regret is that he does not have enough time to
find the madman's reasons. Nicholas follows the general principle
that the death of one for the salvation of many is a worthwhile
cause.
And this leads Nick to the crux of his anguish. Nicholas, far more
than LC or Vachon or any other of the vampires, believes in a
hierarchical valuation of life. He believes that the value of the
lives of the victims is higher than the life of those by which they
are taken. The life of the victim is worth more than the life of the
murderer. In exactly the same way that we are saddened to read of a
death in the headlines and long for justice, if not vengance, Nick
does as well. And when Nick is the cause of the death, he realizes
that there is a justice out there in need of service. Nick's moral
ambiguity is held by the tension that he believes he *should* pay in
some way for the deaths he has caused, and also equally by the fact
that he *won't* surrender himself to be killed for them.
The FK opening discusses "atonement" as the frame for the discussion, but I
think that the sense of societal justice is just as large a factor in
Nick's mind. When Nick or other vampires randomly kill, not killing
the evil persons in a society, or killing oppressors in the aid of
the oppressed, and particularly where the killing becomes a sport,
Nick tends to view these acts as those which violate societal mores
to the point of being evil. Granted, the societal mores Nick holds
dear are decidedly western and decidedly Christian, but they are
Nick's.
It is precisely the moral ambiguity between Nick's longing for a
world without evil and his determination to continue his life (which
he self-defines as evil) that lies at the center of FK. And so, what
the writers did with FK (an episode that I really dislike,
incidentally), is to end the series with the resolution of his
ambiguity. Through the love of Natalie and through the conviction of
her faith in the ultimate justice of a loving god, and in the face of
the evidence that Nick cannot rid either the world or himself of evil,
Nicholas prepares to remove himself from his ambiguous position
by ending his life.
Is his possible murder of Nat evil? Is his possible suicide evil?
Does LC inherit the evil of Nick's suicidal intent if he becomes the
agent of the death?
Moral finitude or moral ambiguity?
My money is on ambiguity any day.
************************************************************
Gayle McCreedy
gmccree@c.......
Nick&Nat Packer "In Love and Faith There is Forever"
*****************************************************
...Sanity is the playground for the unimaginative...
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 16:33:37 -0500
From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......>
Subject: Re: Sony, TV_ShowStuff and FK Merchandise
Mary wrote:
>Sony's real question may be this: should TVShowstuff be the company to get
>the license. There might be other companies negotiating. Licensing
>decisions
>are based on several factors The primary one being profit.
Sony's licensing a few logos to TV ShowStuff won't prevent them from
licensing something else to some other company. From what Anne's told me,
the X-Files people will sell you a license for some specific thing for
around $25k. Sony wanted MUCH more than this for FK.
I'd be semi-happy if Sony would just licence ONE logo that Anne could
plaster on T-shirts, mugs, etc. I'd be extremely happy if Sony licensed
more than that. I just want them to license SOMETHING so that we can buy it
and show them with our $$$ that we support FK!
Onward and upward,
****Wicked Cousin Tippi****
HEY! Want FK stuff? Sony needs to know that you want it! Contact
Anne at TV_ShowStuff@p....... and TELL her NOW! :)
"Poetry can be so deceiving." - LC in Baby, Baby
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 17:40:30 -0400
From: Lynn Messing <messing@a.......>
Subject: Ger and a new series
Carrie wrote a delightful scenario for a new series for Ger, in which
he would play a lawyer. Then she wrote:
> There. I'd call it....Well, I haven't a klew what I'd call it. It sounds
> good to me anyway.
Isn't the title of that obvious? Why...It would be *Ger*ry Mason!
<ducks and runs>
cheers, Lynn Messing messing@a.......
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 17:05:53 -0500
From: "J.S.Levin/Stormsinger" <wabbit@e.......>
Subject: Re: Alyse & sipping
madhat queries:
>were there any other episodes with Alise (sp) in them?
No, although I believe the original plan was to have her as a continuing
character. She is one of the few "personnel changes" from the Rick
Springfield "Nick Knight" that I don't think was better than the original --
although she's more like a "stereotypical" archeologist (whatever the hell
that might be!).
>and what is *sipping* exactly? i thought it meant
>throught only the wrist. oh well . .
Sipping is the phrase people are using to mean vampiric feeding (from the
source, wrist or neck) without killing. There is an ongoing question as to
whether or not this is actually possible in the "canon" of the FK universe.
Suffice it to say that Nick apparently doesn't believe *he* can successfully
do it.
Storm (Vaquera, Scrapper, Gangrel)
wabbit@e....... (J.S.Levin/Stormsinger)
Their canon met my imagination and was outgunned.
If you practice being fictional, you discover that
"characters" are as real as people with bodies and heartbeats...
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 17:17:19 -0500
From: "J.S.Levin/Stormsinger" <wabbit@e.......>
Subject: Re: A question of holy symbols
madhat asks:
>given all the religions in the world, i've always wondered how other
>holy symbols would affect vampires. would it be limited to the
>individual vampire's beliefs?
Actually, there are any *number* of possible ways of looking at this -- none
of which have been, to my thinking, firmly defined as FK "canon".
My OWN opinion on the subject is that there are several factors involved:
1) Is the symbol commonly considered to be either a protection or a symbol
of good over evil? As an example, the cross/crucifix *is*, the Jewish Star
of David is *not*, and the pagan/Wiccan pentacle *may be*.
2) How does the religion in question deal with the question of vampires
(almost every one actually does, interestingly enough, in some form) and
good and evil? Judaism explicitly, and Christianity implicitly condemn
vampirism. Some of the eastern religions are less hard and fast. Wicca
could be very individual, since the general rule is "And it *harm none*, do
what you will". If the vampire is taking blood without *harm* (say, as your
lover, and you don't mind), then the vampire isn't evil.
3) Is there enough *faith* loaded into that symbol for it to have any
energy? This is not even the personal faith of the person holding it. I
could hold up a CD and say, "This is the symbol of good over evil, and I
define you as evil". But if I'm the only one who believes it, there's not
much psychic energy invested into that object. Crosses work because of the
*amount* of belief that's been poured into them over the centuries. It must
have been quite a shock to the first vampire who actually felt him/herself
repelled by one, in that transitional period. Or equally, when an Ankh (one
of the ancient Egyptian symbols of life, and the symbol of Ra, the sun god)
or some such failed to drive them back.
So, in short, *my* three criteria for an effective holy symbol are: the
type of symbol, the definition of good/evil in the religion, and the psychic
power behind the symbol. Now, I reiterate, these are *my* criteria. Your
milage may vary.
Storm (Vaquera, Scrapper, Gangrel)
wabbit@e....... (J.S.Levin/Stormsinger)
Their canon met my imagination and was outgunned.
If you practice being fictional, you discover that
"characters" are as real as people with bodies and heartbeats...
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 18:06:06 -0500
From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......>
Subject: Re: was Re: Nick, Nat, and Janette
Mary wrote:
> I thought Janette said they had been together 200 years, when fighting with
>Nick over her portrait. I think that should constitue sharing life.
I think she said 97 years. Which is still a long damn time by any standard! ;)
****Wicked Cousin Tippi****
HEY! Want FK stuff? Sony needs to know that you want it! Contact
Anne at TV_ShowStuff@p....... and TELL her NOW! :)
"Poetry can be so deceiving." - LC in Baby, Baby
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 19:15:49 -0400
From: Apache <lf@c.......>
Subject: Milk Carton msg: Have you seen this story?
Could anyone (not on the V-Loop) who saw either one or both parts of a
story called 'ADULT: Spilt Milk' on FKFIC-L please let me know by private
e-mail? I posted it close to 48 hours ago and it has not dropped, to the
best of my knowledge, but I don't want to repost if it did actually go
through.
Thanks,
Apache
lf@c.......
=========================================================================
Knight graphics and parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/
