FORKNI-L
Logfile LOG9606D Part 5
June 22, 1996
File: "FORKNI-L LOG9606D" Part 5
TOPICS:
SPOILER: LK, AtA, Fran -- Good & Evil (long) (4)
Congratulations! You are the First Visitor!
Happy Birthday Announcement (2)
-- Good & Evil
A question of holy symbols
The NEW, NEW Question! Tia talkin' (2)
The Fix/Nick & Nat
What's under spoiler protection again?
Good vs. Evil
GWD's new series
Alyse
Ger and a new series
Holy Symbols...
Nick and Nat
Feeding the Beast Spoilers, Nick and Sex (3)
Milk Carton msg.
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 10:45:23 -0500
From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK, AtA, Fran -- Good & Evil (long)
At 09:50 AM 6/22/96 -0500, TippiNB wrote:
>Amy wrote:
>>.... yes, we can say that someone is wrong, and even evil. ....
>>ripping the living hearts out of unwilling victims? That would be wrong,
>>and evil, and it would be just fine to say so.
>So the Aztecs were wrong and evil, too? Whatever they were doing socially
>allowed them to become one of the most advanced and largest civilizations in
>history. Their religion worked for *them*.
So if murder appears to "work" for a society it's okay? The only criterion
is whether it "works"?
Margie (treeleaf@i.......)
N&NPacker
Cousin of the Knight
Save FK - http://members.aol.com/CuznJamiMR
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:09:53 -0500
From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......>
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You are the First Visitor!
Lisa wrote:
>1st Place Prize - virtual assorted chocolates of your choice or one
>anatomically correct dark chocolate figure of Uncle in a strawberry flavored
>thong. Please, take your time in deciding. <humming theme to
>Jeopardy...don't know why, just popped into my head>
Make it grape and you got yourself a deal!
Yay!
****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: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:08:32 -0300
From: Stapleton <d7ux@u.......>
Subject: Happy Birthday Announcement
Today, June 22, is the birthday of Catherine Disher. Let's get out there
and celebrate. Virtual chocolate to everyone! (I'm in a happy mood today,
and no one can spoil it)
Lynn Stapleton
Bouncy NatPacker (is there any other kind? :-))
d7ux@u.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 12:25:00 -0400
From: Mary Davis <Spirit3679@a.......>
Subject: Re: -- Good & Evil
Everybody has an opinion on the issue of God, right,wrong,good,evil,....
So I may as well throw in mine. Here goes.
I think God is probably doing one of two things.
Shaking his head and mumbling to himself, "They don't get it, they just
don't get it"
Laughing his ass off, "They don't get it, they just don't get it"
Ah what fools we mortals be.
Mary Davis
Just another actor strutting on the stage of life.
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:31:51 -0500
From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK, AtA, Fran -- Good & Evil (long)
I wrote:
>>So the Aztecs were wrong and evil, too? Whatever they were doing socially
>>allowed them to become one of the most advanced and largest civilizations in
>>history. Their religion worked for *them*.
Then Margie wrote:
>So if murder appears to "work" for a society it's okay? The only criterion
>is whether it "works"?
The words "murder" and "okay" don't appear anywhere in my above statement.
Such words are not value neutral and the only one in which one can have a
meaningful debate is to remain *value neutral*. Anything else is, by
literary standards, rhetoric, which accomplishes little and inflames much.
There are (were) religions in which human sacrifice was mutually consentual.
Both religion and practioner agreed to it, whether explicitly by
verbalization or implicitly by the continuing implementation of said
religious practices.
How I once viewed FK and how I view it now are different. It *was* once a
black or white issue for me. I was not a fan then. The more complex I
realized it was, however, the more I watched. There are themes in it that
parallel wider sociological themes. Very few answers are just handed to us,
which leaves it up to interesting conversations such as this one. ;) Just
imagine if we all saw it the same way, how boring that would be.
****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: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 12:56:14 -0400
From: Judith Freudenthal <DanaKnight@a.......>
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday Announcement
Out of curiousity does anyone know how old Catherine Disher is?
Judy
DanaKnight@a.......
Natpacker, Knightie, N&Npacker
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 12:57:22 -0700
From: Robin Carroll-Mann <harper@t.......>
Subject: Re: A question of holy symbols
"J.S.Levin/Stormsinger" <wabbit@e.......> said:
>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.
When you say that Judaism condemns vampirism, are you basing that on the
biblical prohibition against consuming blood? If so, there's a loophole.
Any of the laws of the Torah can (and must) be broken in order to save
human life. Orthodox Jews will drive on the Sabbath to take someone to
the emergency room, if need be, or eat ham if there is nothing else to
keep them from starvation. There are only three laws that cannot be
broken in order to save life: idolatry, adultery, and murder. So by
Jewish law, Nick is doing what he ought to do: drinking animal blood to
keep himself alive.
Now, if Nick were Jewish, he would probably be required to restrict
himself to the blood of kosher animals. As a gentile, he is not bound by
the laws of kashruth. Judaism holds that he *is* bound by the 7 laws
given after the Flood to the sons of Noah. One of these laws prohibits
eating the flesh of a living animal, and is considered to be a general
prohibition against cruelty to animals. So I would guess that Nick is
not allowed to drink straight from the cow, but should restrict himself
to blood from animals that were humanely slaughtered. OTOH, while
Judaism provides certain loopholes for vampires, I do not think that it
condones *choosing* vampirism.
Disclaimer: All of the above is my (doubtlessly flawed)interpretation of
what traditional Judaism would say about vampires. I'm Jewish, but not
very observant, and most of this is based on stuff I've read, including a
thread on this very topic in soc.culture.jewish.
>Storm (Vaquera, Scrapper, Gangrel)
--
Harper *** Robin Carroll-Mann
harper@t....... OR rcmann@d.......
"Mostly Harmless" -- Douglas Adams
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:00:36 -0400
From: Lisa Prince <Moonlight@g.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK, AtA, Fran -- Good & Evil (long)
Hey, Hey All :)
(Amy, Marci, you really shouldn't be doing this to me)
I am playing devil's advocate here and the examples here are used
to illustrate a point -- i.e. absolutes are as much a matter of
perspective as the concepts of good and evil. If you've had it
with this debate or don't feel like reading, but all means delete
away.
Amy writes:
>All souls are equal before God, their creator.
Yes, all souls are equal before God, but each also is
individualistic. Each creates its own understand of what is righ
and what is wrong.
Amy writes:
>And all souls are equally subject to the universals of Right and
>Wrong which transcend culture, time, place, and species. There
>are not a lot of universal absolutes, and I don't claim to be able
>to define them, but those there are apply equally to every being.
I must disagree (as if you didn't know that ;)). I'll use the
example of murder which most people believe is wrong and evil.
Capital punishment fits the bill quite well. Our government says
that murder is wrong and then it turns around and murders the
murderer. If murder is always wrong and evil, then the government
is as wrong as the murderer. Two wrongs don't make a right and all
that there sort of thing. Now I'm not saying that I agree with or
don't agree with capital punishment, I'm simply saying that the
world is not ruled by standards that are simply wrong or right.
Perspective, motives, and individualism always impact upon ideas of
good versus evil.
Amy writes:
>Actions that defy them are, by definition, evil. Saying that a
>culture *functions* in defiance of these absolutes does not make
>it *good.* Existence is not its own validation.
Again, this is an individual perspective. According to certain
cultures, cows are sacred. Many people eat them quite liberally.
Their culture dictates that our actions are wrong and evil, ours
does not. Who is right? Whose perspective should be the one that
is followed?
Amy writes:
>Nick has correctly identified murder as one of those universal
>absolutes, and he wishes to be free of the hunger which drives him
>to violate that absolute. This is good.
According to definition, murder means "the intentional killing of
one human being by another." Therefore, if one believes that
murder is a universal absolute evil, wars are evil -- both sides
are evil whether they are protecting the innocence or not, capital
punishment is evil, self-defense is evil, etc. etc.
Amy says:
>Evil is still evil; wrong is still wrong; and we are all
>accountable for ourselves.
Yes, and we are accountable to ourselves and *OUR OWN* perception
of what is evil and what is wrong.
Amy says:
>There is evil in him, as there is in us all. He struggles with it
>every day, as do we all. He *chooses* to be good rather than evil
>every day, as should we all.
True, but we acknowledge and understand when we are being *good*,
Nick does not. That is the fundamental problem with Nick and his
desire for redemption.
Marcia writes:
>>Hence, "murder" is simply an act of survival for a vampire.
Amy responds:
>As has been pointed out, vampires can survive on the blood of
> non-sentient beings (I really think Nick should investigate pig).
> Therefore, the killing of sentient beings is wrong.
A sentient being is a being that has sensation or feeling. We have
absolutely no idea whether animals communicate in any type of
sophisticated manner. Do they feel fear and pain and hunger and
affection? Yes. Why are they more acceptable to kill? Simply
because we can't talk to them? They can't beg for their lives?
They can't scream and cry and implore their attacker not to kill
them? Shouldn't we be protecting those animals that are *less*
intelligent than we are?
Amy wrote:
>>>Some things are, or ought to be, engraved on the souls of
>>>all....
All I can say is that as soon as someone does a survey that shows
every human being agreeing on the wrongfulness or evil of any given
act without qualifications, I'll accept that.
Marcia responded:
>>Oh, I can hear Lisa now...;D Yes, "ought to be" - wouldn't that
>>be great?
It's really not nice to taunt people, you know ;)
Amy writes:
>Lisa has said that before. :-) Always, it's a misinterpretation
>of my point.
Not misinterpreting, Amy, simply disagreeing. I actually would
have saved everyone the pain of hearing my blathering if you hadn't
included this line.
>An action that violates a moral absolute is an evil action.
><snip>If there was not a moral absolute, actions could not be
>evil, because all things would be relative to individual
>perception. <snip> there is an absolute.
No, there is not an absolute. There is the belief in absolutes
within certain people. There is a vast number of people who
believe that evil and good are always relative terms. Actions can
be evil without moral absolutes. As I've said before, to admit to
the existence of good is to admit to the existence of evil. The
concept and understanding of one can't exist without the other.
However, that doesn't require either to be dictated by moral
absolutes. Actions and evil are always a matter of individual
perception.
Marci wrote:
>>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.
Amy replied:
>Obviously not, or Nick would be the son LC always wanted.
Excuse me? You're now comparing LaCroix to Jeffrey Dahmer -- a
serial murderer who *ate* his victims -- and John Wayne Gacy -- a
serial murderer who killed and raped young men and buried them in
his basement? Are you saying that you believe that LC wants Nick
to become like either of these fellows? If so, I think you are
totally off the mark. All LC has ever asked Nick to do is accept
himself. Considering the pain and angst that Nick goes through by
rejecting something that is a part of him, I can see why LC would
want him to accept himself. He doesn't want his child to be in
pain. Right or wrong, agree or disagree, I think there is a *VAST*
difference between what LaCroix is advocating and what Dahmer and
Gacy were. Besides which, by accepting himself and the wrong that
he has done, Nick will be much closer to redemption and salvation
than he is now.
Amy:
>This compulsion drives vampires to commit acts which violate the
>moral law (murder) and damn them if they remain unrepentant.
Yet, Nick is not unrepentant, so he is not *evil*. The largest
argument surrounding Nick, in my very humble, is his unwillingness
to believe in his own goodness and accept that he can be forgiven
if he only asks for it.
Marci wrote:
>>we're both right on this because we have no way of knowing if a
>> vampire's soul can be considered human or not.
Amy replies:
>Aside from my firm belief that there could be no difference
>between the souls of sentient beings,
According to several religions, every creature has a soul. Humans,
animals, etc. So, all should be given the same reverence and
consideration.
Amy says:
>In ND, Nick asks what will happen if he steps into the light -- a
>choice he is clearly being offered. The Guide tells him that he
>"will be reclaimed," "as a mortal," and that his soul "will be
>judged."
Yes, and Nick refuses to step into the light and accept the
consequences of his behavior. Acceptance of our mistakes and our
sins are the first step on the way to redemption. Nick, as with
his search for a cure, wants guarantees of his salvation before he
gets there. We, as humans, must accept our judgement without fore
knowledge of our redemption, why should Nick be different.
Amy writes:
>(Note: the reason Nick was "stranded" when he decided not to
>enter the light was because there was no one bringing him back at
>that moment, as LC did before. Nat takes a bit longer, so he made
>his decision relatively earlier the second time around.)
Again, both times he rejects the light for selfish reasons and he
must rely on others to bring him back. He needs proof, but in
order to have true faith, he must reject his quest for proof and
accept what is unproveable.
Marci writes:
>>As to "universal morality" - there ain't no such thing. Who
>>decides this?
Amy writes:
>God. Certainly not us. :-)
Yes, and we, as humans, interpret God's words -- priests, scholars,
church-goers, etc. etc. (Sounds familiar for some reason :))
Those who wrote the Bible, wrote it after the death of Jesus. They
interpreted his life and expressed it in written words. Were they
divinely guided in their writing? Who knows. But as I've said
before, all reading is interpretation. We see the words,
internalize them, and come to invest meaning in the words according
to our own experiences. There are multiple interpretations of the
Bible and more will proliferate as the world grows older. Who
knows which interpretation is the one that the writers or God meant
for us to accept.
Marci wrote:
>>Who decides the dividing line between killing to live or to
>>defend oneself or not?
Amy replied:
>Same as above. We aren't to judge, but that doesn't mean we won't
>be judged.
This is true. We will always be judged. But, we are not the ones
that have the ability to judge something or someone. Until we
climb into the shoes and soul of another being, we will never be
able to judge whether or not that person's motives are pure. That
being said, who are we to judge anyone else's beliefs and actions.
According to your argument, God is the ultimate judge. Therefore,
we should not be condemning someone for a perceived evil; we should
be leaving that condemnation and punishment up to God.
Marci wrote:
>>What of cultures which, because of their *different* value of
>>human life, practice ritualistic suicide and the like? Are they
>>wrong? Evil? <snip> They're just *different*.
Amy replied:
>I would need a more relevant example, of course, but yes, we can
>say that someone is wrong, and even evil. Read David Eddings?
>Priests of Torak, ripping the living hearts out of unwilling
>victims? That would be wrong, and evil, and it would be just fine
>to say so. That it was a part of their culture for thousands of
>years doesn't make it acceptable
Sorry about over quoting up there. No way around it :(
Anyway, back to the argument. It doesn't make it acceptable to you
and a number of other people. It obviously is very acceptable to
them or they wouldn't be doing it. They are different from you and
as an outsider, you look in and place a value judgement on their
behavior. It is unfair to the difference of that culture for you
to judge them as an outsider.
Lisa
Who can't believe she lets herself get pulled into this every
time :)
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:14:42 -0400
From: Joy Davis <Rjoi@a.......>
Subject: The NEW, NEW Question! Tia talkin'
Hey people out there!
I got many good answers, and the majority said that Nick looks like he's
going to heaven! No one was rude and I must say that it was a pleasure to get
polite, nice answers to my question.
Well, today's question is:
WHAT IF PEOPLE FOUND OUT ABOUT VAMPIRES? WHAT WOULD THE HUMAN RACE DO?
I MEAN EVERYBODY! THE JUNKIE ON THE STREET, THE MILLIONARE IN HIS
MANSION, MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE, ETC.
IF THERE WAS NO DOUBT THAT THEY EXISTED, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN?
Thanks everybody! I thank EVERYBODY personally, and I read each and every
answer I get. Please give me thoughtful answers because I am in Jr. High, I'm
busy, and I take the time to read and respond to the answers I receive.
Thanks for your support!
Tia
N&Npacker~Natpacker
Knightie
Cousin of the Knight~Cousin (an aquired taste!)
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 12:28:53 -0500
From: D Echelbarger <gryphon@e.......>
Subject: Re: The NEW, NEW Question! Tia talkin'
On Sat, 22 Jun 1996, Joy Davis <Rjoi@a.......> wrote:
>WHAT IF PEOPLE FOUND OUT ABOUT VAMPIRES? WHAT WOULD THE HUMAN RACE DO?
> I MEAN EVERYBODY! THE JUNKIE ON THE STREET, THE MILLIONARE IN HIS
>MANSION, MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE, ETC.
>IF THERE WAS NO DOUBT THAT THEY EXISTED, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN?
Tia, dear, you don't need to SHOUT. :) We all can hear just fine.
That said, anyone who wants a few fan-fic answers to this question should check
out the "If They Only Knew" challenge stories on the FK FTP site, since that
was the question posed by the challenge.
I'll send a copy of my (admittedly depressing) story in this challenge to
anyone who asks by midnight tomorrow (6/23). :)
(Cynthia, is there is a separate section for this challenge? I couldn't find
one...)
Diane E
# D Echelbarger gryphon@e....... #
# WWW HomePage: http://www.execpc.com/~echelbar/ #
# "Look, I know you're a figment of my imagination, #
# but you have to stop sneaking up on me!" N. Lambert #
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:32:11 -0400
From: Mei Wa Kwong <kwongm@g.......>
Subject: The Fix/Nick & Nat
I erased the previous message, but I think there was some confusion on
one of my previous posts. In response to someone's post as to why Nick
didn't kiss Nat on the lips after he was cured if they were lovers, I
said that they weren't lovers yet. What I meant was that while they, in
my opinion, were in love, they had not consummated their love in any way,
be it physically or telling each other that they were in love. Hence, my
reasons for saying they were not lovers. Hope this clears it up!
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:32:04 -0400
From: Ann Lipton <Iocaste@a.......>
Subject: What's under spoiler protection again?
Yes, I know this has been said a zillion times, but I forgot. Could someone
please let me know for the (hopefully) last time what is still protected?
Thanks,
Ann
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:35:10 -0400
From: "Margaret L. Carter" <MLCVamp@a.......>
Subject: Re: Good vs. Evil
I fall on the side that believes ethical standards apply to all sentient
(intelligent, soul-possessing, however you want to put it) beings. I also
happen to believe that the FK-type vampires are
human-beings-with-a-difference, not former human beings, but even if I held
them to be a "different species," I would still not hold them therefore
exempt from what we recognize as standards of Good and Evil. (I write about
vampires who are literally a different species; some among them consider
human beings equivalent to lower animals and therefore not the subject of
ethical constraints [note, however, that many real-world human beings don't
regard "lower" animals this way], while others consider human beings as
sentient, intelligent, etc., and therefore deserving of ethical treatment.
The disagreement is whether homo sapiens is "intelligent" enough to evoke a
moral quandary, not whether moral standards apply to all intelligent
life-forms.)
And, to segue into a side-remark about killing vs. sipping, I see the
"vampire who doesn't have to kill" as more involved in moral quandaries
because, among other things, it seems to me that a person who, in the absence
of an irresistible craving, makes a cool decision to kill because he gets a
kick out of it, is more guilty than the person who is swept away by that
aforementioned irresistible craving.
Universal morality? Disagreements among real-world cultures about
euthanasia, suicide, number of spouses, etc., are disagreements about
details, not fundamentals. As C. S. Lewis points out in THE ABOLITION OF
MAN, a truly "different" morality would be simply unrecognizable. (To apply
this to FK vampires, for example, those like LaCroix don't deny the value of
life; they just restrict it to vampire life. Others expand the concept to
include respect for human life, as well.) I think I've recommended this book
on this topic before, so in the spirit of "here's where I came in," I'll shut
up.
Margaret Carter
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:35:27 -0400
From: "Margaret L. Carter" <MLCVamp@a.......>
Subject: Re: GWD's new series
I would really enjoy seeing him as a private investigator, too. Or a public
defender getting involved with the downtrodden. How about GWD in the series
that the TV version of "The Client" SHOULD have been -- a dramatic
examination of social issues (whereas it seemed to establish itself very
quickly, from the eps I've seen, as one more "murder of the week" show).
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:34:39 -0400
From: "Margaret L. Carter" <MLCVamp@a.......>
Subject: Re: Alyse
Contrary to the earlier post on this topic, I felt the character of Alyse was
marginally better in the FK pilot. In the original NICK KNIGHT, she behaved
so stupidly she made me gag -- I just could not believe her as a professional
woman with a doctorate.
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:05:32 -0700
From: Margie Gillis <margieg@e.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK, AtA, Fran -- Good & Evil (long)
Talking about societies/cultures that practice human sacrifice, and whether
or not they are intrinsically evil, Tippi wrote:
>There are (were) religions in which human sacrifice was mutually consentual.
>Both religion and practioner agreed to it, whether explicitly by
>verbalization or implicitly by the continuing implementation of said
>religious practices.
>
And to put this in another perspective--Christianity, particularly
Catholicism, is a religion which is based *entirely* on the concept of
willing human sacrifice. This sacrifice is repeated
ritually--celebrated--every single day. Although the argument can be made
that now it is repeated symbolically, rather than actually, and thus doesn't
carry the same weight, that doesn't hold with Catholic beliefs. And even if
it did, the original sacrifice was real. I know of no Catholics who
consider their religion evil, or themselves evil for taking part in it. Nor
should they, imo. The willing sacrifice of oneself to one's god in order to
save one's people is a very powerful thing, indeed.
I don't want to get into a huge discussion on the merits of
Catholicism--I'll leave that to Amy, who does a terrific job and is still a
Catholic, so remembers things that I don't. :) I just wanted to point out
that sometimes it isn't always the "alien" society that needs to be looked
at. Automatic assumptions about intrinsic good and evil can be dangerous.
>How I once viewed FK and how I view it now are different. <snip> Very few
>answers are just handed to us,
>which leaves it up to interesting conversations such as this one. ;) Just
>imagine if we all saw it the same way, how boring that would be.
>
Ain't it the truth? :)
Margie
margieg@e.......
Dark Knightie/Immortal Beloved/Unnamed
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:09:01 -0700
From: Marg Rothschild <margr@a.......>
Subject: Re: Ger and a new series
Hello all!
On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, Muldy Sculler wrote:
> Okay, I will play. GWD in a new series playing a priest. Just ponder
> what confession what confession would be like. Humm a crime-solving
> priest, well, he is more interesting than Geo. Kennedy.
LoL, I could see this - he did a great job in the confessional in For I
Have Sinned!!! I was ROTFL! Love the accent!
Marg Rothschild, Cousin
margr@i....... or margr@a.......
(sig in process)
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:20:12 -0700
From: Antonia Spadafina <asginger@i.......>
Subject: Re: Holy Symbols...
Hi all--
I've been following the discussion revolving around the empowerment
of symbols. Here's my $.02 worth...
One example of the empowerment and subsequent corruption of
a symbol is the swastika. In many cultures it is a symbol
of prosperity and good fortune. It was a favorite symbol on
Mesopotamian coinage; it appeared in early Christian & Byzantine
art; the Mayas and principally the Navajos used it as a focal point.
In India it is still used as an auspicious symbol; Jainas are
reminded of the four possible places of disposition for their souls by the
four arms. This symbol is still used for good - to guard doors against the
entrance of evil or to keep bad fortune away from balance books. The right
hand swastika is considered a *solar* symbol, imitating the
rotation and path taken daily by the sun. To some peoples it is a symbol
of universal peace & happiness.
The left-hand swastika more often stands for night, the goddess Kali
(represented as a hideous hag smeared with blood, for which she has a taste,
with bared teeth and protruding tongue - a real vampires' goddess!) and magical
practices. The Nazis took and invested the swastika symbol with overtones of
racial superiority and the crushing military might of the German folk. Used
as a uniting emblem, it lit a fire with the power of belief in the government's
propaganda.
Keeping this in mind - might the right-hand swastika be used to repel
the attack of a vampire in the modern age? There is yet belief in this symbol.
Or must the vampire have been brought over when the Navajo nation was at its
peak - or the Mesopotamians ruled what is now Iraq, thus being susceptible.
It is a *sun* symbol, not unlike the knife used in "Blackwing", or a certain
other symbol currently under spoiler protection (further deponent sayeth not).
And further, would we be safe in saying that the left-hand swastika would
invest a vampire with greater strength and lead him deeper into evil?
I'm curious what y'all think.
***********************************************************************
*Toni S. / asginger@i....... _OR_ antonia_spadafina@s....... *
*new Vaquera, old Knightie from NYC *
*DUM SPIRO SPERO!! *
***********************************************************************
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 14:21:51 +0000
From: Gayle McCreedy <gmccree@c.......>
Subject: Re: Nick and Nat
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
Natalie's attraction to Nick is immediate. When she first opens the
body bag, her reaction as she gazes at his face is, "...not bad at
all." (Said, I should add, in a sexy undertone.) And Nick's attraction to
Nat, while it develops more slowly, is equally apparent. He is NOT
just Nat's "best bud."
N&N slammers are missing two important pieces of the puzzle.
First: Nick is/was a KNIGHT! Think of coming of age in the age of
superior courtliness. The courtly ideal, and the model of courtship,
is a chaste one. The romanticism of Nick's era is that the love of
the knight's lady is pure, is chaste, and is HEALING. The mere touch
of a lady's hand on a fevered brow, the sole occurance of a chaste
kiss, a token of affection in the form of a lock of hair or a piece
of jewelry - the romantic knight takes these into battle with him.
It is a 90's predisposition that love = sex. Given that Nick views
Nat as his lady, with all of the romanticism and idealization that
entails, a long and chaste courtship would be the most logical of
paths for Nick to take. When you add that Nick's vampirism makes it
a virtual certainty that Nat would die from a sexual encounter, the
enforcement of a chaste relationship is even stronger.
Secondly, Nat's acceptance of this role, even though she is generally
a 90's sort of women, is simply to let her romantic side out. How
many women hold in that secret part of their hearts a remnant of
Rose, who longs to be the saving love for the Beast? (Fie on the
cartoon; go back to the book!) Our society is littered with the
mythical remnants of the saving power of the love of a good woman
upon an "unredeemable" man. How many of us have spent time in the
quest of transforming that man who really seems to need our love to
complete themselves? Natalie, who begins looking for a
cure with needles and textbooks, ends up believing that perhaps it IS
the quality of a pure love to be the cure.
Nick and Nat come into their love from different times and cultural
perspectives, full of fear of rejection and fear of acceptance, both
seeking that pure love which will permit them to transcend the
constraints of the life they had to enjoy a life in the ideal.
************************************************************
Gayle McCreedy
gmccree@c.......
Nick&Nat Packer "In Love and Faith There is Forever"
*****************************************************
...Sanity is the playground for the unimaginative...
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 14:30:29 +0000
From: Gayle McCreedy <gmccree@c.......>
Subject: Re: Feeding the Beast Spoilers, Nick and Sex
Back again to the knightly courtship...
A Lady supplies the chaste love, the dream, the cure, the courage to
endure.
Sex is simply something easily had with the slut du jour.
Nick is not the feminist ideal of the perfect date; just the
knightly/romanticist one.
************************************************************
Gayle McCreedy
gmccree@c.......
Nick&Nat Packer "In Love and Faith There is Forever"
*****************************************************
...Sanity is the playground for the unimaginative...
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 14:02:48 -0500
From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......>
Subject: Re: Feeding the Beast Spoilers, Nick and Sex
Gayle wrote:
>Back again to the knightly courtship...
>A Lady supplies the chaste love, the dream, the cure, the courage to
>endure.
>
>Sex is simply something easily had with the slut du jour.
He has sex with Janette a bunch -- and he still married HER! ;)
****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: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 14:06:30 -0500
From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......>
Subject: Re: Feeding the Beast Spoilers, Nick and Sex
I wrote:
>He has sex with Janette a bunch -- and he still married HER! ;)
Wuh oh! Replying to my own post!
Actually there's no proof in the show itself that he and she were
technically married. But the Renaissance equivalent of common law marriage,
on the other hand...
In other words, in Nick's mind sex is *not* just for the "slut du jour".
****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: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 15:15:20 -0400
From: Apache <lf@c.......>
Subject: Re: Milk Carton msg.
Thanks very much to everyone who wrote! I got about twenty answers, and
it seems pretty clear that the "Spilt Milk" story got delivered by ".edu"
servers but not by any others -- there's some reason why edu servers get
a more direct connection from the lists.
Anyway, the story is up on the ftp site now.
Thanks again, all,
Apache
=========================================================================
Knight graphics and parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/
