FORKNI-L
Logfile LOG9606D Part 9
June 23, 1996
File: "FORKNI-L LOG9606D" Part 9
TOPICS:
Janette evil? -- Spoilers, HF, Francesca
I need HELP!!!
The Fix & other stuff (5)
Crosses / evil (2)
good and evil (2)
Got "The Facts of Unlife", & "Blind Faith"
The List
Nick and Nat; SPOILER: HF
Nick and Nat (2)
Schanke
Cast FK actors in old movies (2)
Friendly debates
Houston GWD alert
Where do we go from here? (2)
It's all in their heads -- SPOILER for HF (was Re: Crosses / evil)
Hello?
"Ms. Snarl Hiss Thud"
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 15:32:16 -0400
From: Jane Credland <janes@i.......>
Subject: Re: Janette evil? -- Spoilers, HF, Francesca
Spoilers for Human Factor and Francesca below. I'm not a merc and therefore
don't advertise myself. So, in lieu of spoiler space, I offer a short poem
by Robert Herrick.
Meat Without Mirth
Eaten I have, and though I had good cheer,
I did not sup, because no friends were there,
Where mirth and friends are absent when we dine
Or sup, there wants the incense and the wine.
There, that should make ten lines altogether.
At 12:07 PM 6/23/96 -0700, Elizabeth Ann Lewis wrote:
>Nick presumably thought that Janette killing a prize musician for no good
>reason was a baaad thing. It had only been about a hundred years since
>Nick had killed Francesca for basically the same crime. While, as you say,
>Janette was simply having dinner.
On the surface, this seems like a good comparison. After all, both Janette
and Francesca killed musicians. However, there is a huge difference.
Francesca killed her victims ritually. She captured them in cages and kept
them in the dungeon until she was ready to kill them. When she did kill
them, Francesca used a knife to stop the heart, so that she would get the
best memories. Francesca was not simply killing to feed. She was killing
to capture and savour the best essence and talent of her victim.
Janette, on the other hand, fed. She bit into his neck and drained his
blood. Her victim was chosen to aggravate Nick, but she believed that he
would have killed the musician anyway.
>I think what is striking about that FB is that it is a very LC action,
>killing someone under Nick's nose when it would most likely annoy him.
>That Janette does it is interesting.
I don't know that I would define it as a very Lacroixian action. If you use
that measure of judgment, then you have to classify Nick's killing of the
mortal woman Lacroix was sweetening up and saving for himself (in that 3rd
season episode for which the name escapes me) as a very Lacroixian action as
well. Given that all three of them have done this from time to time,
perhaps it is better defined as a very vampiric action.
>Darn it, you mean I belong to a faction for a character that doesn't exist?
In my humble opinion, yes.
>:) I would agree with you *if* there hadn't been that conversation in the
>Raven with LC in which she states that she is having doubts about being a
>vampire.
But at the same time, she also said that she was leaving Toronto to get away
from Nick's influence in the hopes that she would lose those bothersome doubts.
>Actually, I don't agree that Janette is evil. :) But that act in False
>Witness is hardly something I would applaud, if for no other reason than
>she needlessly killed someone who brought pleasure into her life.
Again, you're judging Janette by human standards. Janette didn't
*needlessly* kill the musician. Perhaps her choice of victims was less than
judicious, but she still had to feed. Btw, are you implying that the only
reason Janette should not have killed the musician was because his talent
brought her pleasure. Would it have been more acceptable if the victim had
not been a talented musician?
>There is no evidence that they only met for the first time in the FB of
>Dance. So it was not so selfish for her to bring Nick in to her world.
But she didn't bring Nick into her world. Lacroix did. Yes, Janette made
love to Nick, but Lacroix was waiting in the wings, so he could complete the
job.
Jane (janes@i.......)
Raven ** Immortal Beloved
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference. (Robert Frost)
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 15:28:29 -0400
From: Ekaterina Baliasinskaya <ebaliasi@l.......>
Subject: I need HELP!!!
Hi everybody!
Here is a new (well, relatively new) member in the FK fandome!
It just happened that I was absent from American continent during the
1st and half of the 2nd seasons, so you can imagine the frustration our
presssiouss has been experiencing while picking up small bits and pieces
of FK-related information here and there! What is even more depressing in my
present situation, I do not have ANY access to earlier episodes.
My message and my desperate plea is:
** IF there are some Canadian fans here, on the list, IF they have been
taping FK from the very beginning, or at least have some of the first
episodes taped, PLEASE!!! Share your divine treasure with a fan dying in
the complete isolation among Melrose Place junkies !!! Whatever
conditions would be ( my soul, my blood, my life, my whatever) I agree to
them and sign in red ink! Just H-E-L-P!!!**
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 15:35:14 -0400
From: Mary Davis <Spirit3679@a.......>
Subject: Re: The Fix & other stuff
In a message dated 96-06-23 14:10:10 EDT, Jane writes
> It can and
>has been argued that, because vampires were once human, they are committing
>murder. However, vampires are no longer truly human. Should they be judged
>by human standards or by vampiric standards?
>
>
That makes about as much sense as saying - Adults are no longer truly
children so if they kill them......
Could everyone please come out of the deep end and play nice.
Mary Davis
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 15:36:14 -0400
From: "Margaret L. Carter" <MLCVamp@a.......>
Subject: Re: Crosses / evil
I tend to think that vampires' repulsion by religious objects is one of the
weaker arguments for the position that "vampirism is objectively and
absolutely evil" (in the world view of the TV series). Unlike the "allergy"
to sunlight, which appears to have some pretty definite physical effects, the
reaction to religious objects could easily be psychosomatic. Esp. with a
world-class guilt artist such as Nick.
Nat could test this theory by having Nick exposed to ordinary water and
telling him it's holy water. I should think one of the basic parts of her
research project would be to find out which vampire symptoms are objective
and which are psychosomatic.
Margaret Carter
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 15:42:58 -0400
From: Jane Credland <janes@i.......>
Subject: Re: The Fix & other stuff
I said:
>>murder. However, vampires are no longer truly human. Should they be
>>judged by human standards or by vampiric standards?
Mary Davis replied with:
>That makes about as much sense as saying - Adults are no longer truly
>children so if they kill them......
I beg to differ. Under no circumstances of which I can conceive would I
ever condone the murder of children. Ever!
Adult human beings may no longer be child human beings, but they are still
members of homo sapiens. IMNSHO, vampires are no longer physiologically
homo sapien. They are a separate species. They are predators whose prey is
human.
Jane (janes@i.......)
Raven ** Immortal Beloved
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference. (Robert Frost)
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 16:13:16 -0400
From: Mary Davis <Spirit3679@a.......>
Subject: Re: good and evil
>Ann Lipton questioned and answered:
>"Aack ... doesn't anyone agree with me that on FK, merely the state of
>being a vampire means you're evil? To me, the ultimate proof's in the
>crosses. As long as any vampire is repelled by crosses, that means
> that God (on the show) definitively finds them evil."
>
So, Ann, what you are saying then is that the device used to torture and kill
Christ is a symbol of good? Gee, I kinda imagine Christ would be a little
repelled or at least repulsed by crosses, do you think that makes him evil?
Perception is a funny thing isn't it.
Mary Davis
Asking the immortal question "Wasn't Forever Knight a television show?"
Isn't that supposed to be Entertainment?
>
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 16:28:25 -0400
From: Janice Phillips <PHILLI@a.......>
Subject: Re: good and evil
WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE GET ME OFF THIS LIST.
I have tried,but have been unable to do so.
Thanks
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 14:02:37 -0700
From: Raissa Devereux <1595@e.......>
Subject: Re: Got "The Facts of Unlife", & "Blind Faith"
Hi,
Blind Faith was a strange ep. for me, because it hit close to home. I live
in Arizona. Shortly before BF first aired, a psycho woman poisoned her
neighbor's assistance dog by lacing cat food with antifreeze. Moose, the
dog, had to be put to sleep. There was talk of charging the woman with a
felony, but they discovered the law would not support that. You can only
be charged with a felony if you harm/kill a police dog under current AZ
law. As a result, they could only charge her with a series of
misdemeanors. She was recently let off on the grounds of insufficient
evidence. Undead Old Yeller flashback aside, I appreciated the fact that
an assistance dog (Perry) beat the odds, even if it was only on TV. Also,
as a disabled person (CP), I appreciated the fact that the bond between
Perry and Jody was explored. I don't have an assistance dog myself, but
I've met people who do, and the writers got the dynamic down perfectly.
And on the real life level, I'm glad they actually hired someone with MS
to play someone with MS.
Until next time,
Raissa Devereux
raissa@i.......
I've got places to go, people to dissect. - Natalie Lambert
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 13:58:47 -0700
From: Amy R. <akr@n.......>
Subject: The List
You know you're in bad shape when reading your digests makes you reach
for the aspirin bottle.... And a month ago, I was afraid the list was
getting too fluffy, if you can believe it! :-) If we can all hold our
tempers, it's better like this -- really. At least we're not reduced to
debating the "stunt chest" issue! :-) My affection to you all, even
those I'd like to bop over the head with a Nerf bat... hard. :-)
***** Amy, Lady of the Knight (akr@n.......) *****
"Behind the problem of evil, the problem of good./...
tree after tree, inexplicable, yes inexplicable,/
never mind your principles of physics." -- L. Fargas
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 16:00:53 -0500
From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject: Re: Nick and Nat; SPOILER: HF
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
>
S
P
A
C
E
>
At 10:24 PM 6/22/96 -0400, Mei Wa Kwong wrote:
>Remember, in "Only the Lonely" towards the end, where NICK is about to
>kiss Nat, really kiss her, lips and all mind you, when SHE turns her
>head.
I saw "Only the Lonely" for the first time a few days ago, and I noticed
that too. It made me think that if Nick and Nat had gone with their
feelings of love for each other back then instead of going with their
fears, they might have discovered the cure that Janette discovered.
Margie (treeleaf@i.......)
N&NPacker
Cousin of the Knight
Save FK - http://members.aol.com/CuznJamiMR
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 15:53:36 -0500
From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject: Re: Nick and Nat
At 05:24 PM 6/22/96 -0700, LC Fenster wrote:
>Just because you are wildly possessive of someone you regard as your
>personal "property" does not mean you are in love with them. ... Nick
>admits to feeling protective of her - in a BROTHERLY way. .... he can't
>even bring himself to tell her he loves her in her birthday card.
To add a male perspective to the Nick and Nat controversy -
About Only the Lonely, my husband says, "Nick loves Nat. He shows all
the signs of having feelings for someone and not dealing with it in a
straightforward manner." And hubbby adds, "Been there, done that."
Margie (treeleaf@i.......)
N&NPacker
Cousin of the Knight
Save FK - http://members.aol.com/CuznJamiMR
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 14:11:36 -0700
From: Amy R. <akr@n.......>
Subject: Schanke
In the six months I've been here, I've never seen any real discussion of
Schanke. I assume that there must have been many discussions of him
through the first two seasons -- his relationship with Myra, his abilities
as a cop, his attitude toward women, his acceptance of Nick, Nick's
treatment of him, LC and Janette's reactions to him, his stupid sideburns,
his interpretation of the N&N situation, his interpretation of the N&J
situation, the age of his daughter, why he was a cop, giving up smoking,
etc.
I would really enjoy reading an analysis of Schanke that goes beyond food
references. Are there any analytically-minded FoDs out there?
Trivia: why is the computer on Schanke's, and then Tracy's, desk, but
never on Nick's? Paperwork avoidance technique?
***** Amy, Lady of the Knight (akr@n.......) *****
"Behind the problem of evil, the problem of good./...
tree after tree, inexplicable, yes inexplicable,/
never mind your principles of physics." -- L. Fargas
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 17:17:22 -0400
From: Mary Davis <Spirit3679@a.......>
Subject: Cast FK actors in old movies
Let's lighten things up around here.
I could see Ger replacing Cary Grant in 'A Love Affair to Remember'
or Ger replacing Jack Lemmon and Deb replacing Lee Remick in 'The Days of
Wine and Roses'
or Ger as Jack Lemmon and Nigel as Tony Curtis in 'Some Like It Hot'
C'mon everybody, think of your favorite movies. Who would you replace?
Mary Davis
Let the good times roll
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 17:23:17 -0400
From: Allison Percy <percy91@w.......>
Subject: Friendly debates
Amy said:
> At least we're not reduced to debating the "stunt chest" issue! :-)
Can we go back to debating the "stunt chest" issue? Pretty please??
After re-watching Queen of Harps, I may have some additional fodder to
add to this discussion. ;^)
Drool,
Allie
percy91@w.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 16:33:20 -0500
From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......>
Subject: Houston GWD alert
For Houston area folks:
Saturday at 5 PM on channel 39, they will be showing GWD's 1992 movie
"Terror Stalks the Class Reunion".
****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: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 16:36:00 -0500
From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject: Re: Where do we go from here?
At 10:03 AM 6/23/96 -0400, Susan M. Garrett wrote:
>We've gotta write to Sony to tell them we demand FK merchandise ....
>We've gotta support the vendors like TVSHOWSTUFF and Crescendo who are
>trying to give us FK merchandise.
Star Trek had neat stuff like little models of the Enterprise and phasers
and commumicators. That kind of stuff is good to have around, 'cause it
catches people's eye and can start conversation. Does TVSHOWSTUFF do stuff
like that, or should we write directly to SONY about it? I was thinking
of a copy of Nick's detective badge, a radio microphone with the letters,
CERK, a model of a piano with a candelabra on it, and of course, amodel of
a green Caddy with a ragtop and fins (would GM have to get in on that?).
Margie (treeleaf@i.......)
N&NPacker
Cousin of the Knight
Save FK - http://members.aol.com/CuznJamiMR
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 14:15:48 -2055
From: "L. Katherine Queen" <lqueen@p.......>
Subject: Re: Crosses / evil
Margaret L. Carter <MLCVamp@a.......> wrote:
>Nat could test this theory by having Nick exposed to ordinary water and
>telling him it's holy water. I should think one of the basic parts of her
>research project would be to find out which vampire symptoms are objective
>and which are psychosomatic.
When I read this I had the most hilarous vision of Natalie unexpectedly
springing out at the unsuspecting Nick with a huge bottle marked ACME HOLY
WATER <which she had cleverly replaced with plain water, of course ;-)>.
Sorry, I just had to share.
ObFK - It could very well be that a vampires reaction to traditionally
anti-vampire items is psychosomatic. I refer you to the psycho-trinity in
Hearts of Darkness. When the girl exhibited the non-vampire personalities
she exhibited no signs of the traditional vampire phobias or weaknesses,
including sunlight. But physically, she was still a vampire. Who knows.
Maybe we do create our own reality.
Katherine, devoted to the Knight
lqueen@p.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 18:25:04 -0400
From: TJ Goldstein <vanguard@p.......>
Subject: It's all in their heads -- SPOILER for HF (was Re: Crosses /
evil)
L. Katherine Queen wrote:
> I refer you to the psycho-trinity in
> Hearts of Darkness. When the girl exhibited the non-vampire personalities
> she exhibited no signs of the traditional vampire phobias or weaknesses,
> including sunlight. But physically, she was still a vampire. Who knows.
SPOILERS FOR HUMAN FACTOR AHEAD -- is this still under protection?
Which reminds me of an interesting thought by an off-line friend of
mine, who said, "You know, I thought it was pretty interesting that
Jeanette convinced herself she was mortal." It never even occured
to her that Jeanette might really BE mortal. I arrived at FKSPOILR
right about this time. Did we discuss that possiblity?
---- TJ
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 15:26:01 -0700
From: Torrey <neva@i.......>
Subject: Re: The Fix & other stuff
At 02:47 PM 6/23/96 -0400, Ann wrote:
>I would _love_ it if other religions were treated equally on the show, but
>the fact that they are not, to me, suggests even further that the rules of
>FK's universe are very black and white, morally. And that's the pathos of
>the show -- gray characters in a black and white world.
I find it surprising that you lable the show as " gray characters in a
black and white world". I have always felt that the show did a great job of
presenting well rounded characters and a very diversified fictional world. I
am interested in hearing how you feel the show could be "colored" better.
Maybe it will give me some new ideas to work with.
"Dona" Torrey <neva@i.......>
*VAQUERA*
Mikies SKL V-Loop
"No. But her chances aren't good. Her surgeon was a falcon." Nick
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 17:18:45 -0500
From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject: Re: Cast FK actors in old movies
At 05:17 PM 6/23/96 -0400, Mary Davis wrote:
>or Ger as Jack Lemmon and Nigel as Tony Curtis in 'Some Like It Hot'
Or Ger as Jack Lemmon and Nigel as Walter Matthau in 'The Odd Couple.'
Margie (treeleaf@i.......)
N&NPacker
Cousin of the Knight
Save FK - http://members.aol.com/CuznJamiMR
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 18:44:05 EST
From: Rebecca Burns <rburns@a.......>
Subject: Hello?
Did the Hamsters eat the list mail again or is it just quiet?
BCB
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 18:36:47 -0400
From: Felicia Bollin <AriCon@a.......>
Subject: Re: Nick and Nat
Mei-Wa Kwong writes:
>Well, how about fear of rejection? Remember, in "Only the Lonely"
>towards the end, where NICK is about to kiss Nat, really kiss her, lips and
>all mind you, when SHE turns her head. Perhaps he was afraid of such a
>response once again and to face
?? I thought this was "My Boyfriend is a Vampire", third season. I was not
aware that Nick ever went for Nat's lips at the end of "OtL". Was this the
Canadian version?
I rewatched the scene I believe you're talking about. I don't see ANY point
at which Nick looks like he's "really" going to lay a big passionate one on
her. The scene as I watched it <G> runs thus:
Nick and Nat, in the precinct (Nat is in blue tailored suit). Nick and Nat
are holding on to each other, at arms' length. Nat says something like
"thank you for saving my life." Nick at Nat *mutually* look at each others'
lips for a *couple seconds at most* pause, then they *both* break eye contact
and Nick presses his lips to Nat's *forehead*. Nick's lips do not pucker or
prime at any point during this scene (neither, in fact, do Nat's). I see
nothing indicating that he was planning on hugely smacking her on the lips.
They both thought about it, and they both changed their minds at the same
time. Sorry if you have a different interpretation, but without crawling
into Nick's head, IMO I see nothing to indicate that he lusts after kissing
her and more than she wishes to kiss him, which is to say, briefly indeed.
>Nick's feelings as merely possessiveness in "Only the Lonely", sorry, need
>to disagree with that one. Oh, I do think he is a possessive sort, but I
>think there is a little more there than mere claiming of territory. (the
>relief we see in his face and the kisses he gives her when she's safe).
Why am I not surprised? :)
Oh, of course. If my merely platonic friend was almost done away with by a
crazed rapist, I couldn't possibly look relieved when she escaped that fate.
;) Then why is it, Nick's "attentions" perk up for real only when he sees
her with Roger; and why do they cease directly, never to return until,
inexplicably, the advent of Be My Valentine, nearly a whole year later? Only
then, does he turn 'dog in the manger': I see it as the little boy who may
or may not want her for himself, but certainly knows he doesn't want anyone
else to have her. I will concede that he may have been attracted to her _at
the time_ . But they were still casual kisses, i.e no tongue, etc. Not even
close. It could still be attributed to relief, plain and simple, tempered
with the drama of the moment. I admit, it could go either way, depending on
how you watch it. Which is a sight more than most (I said, "most" <G>) of
the Nick and Natpackers give me, when it comes to Nick and Janette's kisses:
No, when Nick is kissing Janette, then I usually find someone telling me some
variant of "it's Janette's 'fault' for tempting him so unbearably with her
'vampire-slut' ways". Apparently Nick has no free will of his own, nor is it
_Nick_ who goes to _Janette's_ club on a regular basis. Janette shows up
uninvited at Nick's loft maybe twice in two years ("Killer Instinct" springs
to mind, and she is also an invited visitor in "Stranger than Fiction"), but
oh no, it's *her* who's chasing Nick, not the other way around. ;)
Someone on the Nick/Nat/Janette subject heading said, basically, that the
reason Jane's list of Nick's bedpartners didn't count, was because they were
"just sex" (a snack, what-have-you). How does that help to _prove_ word one
about Nick-loves-Nat?
Anon. : "Well, I know he loves her because he won't sleep with her."
Jane replies (paraphrasing here): "But, he sleeps with nearly everyone
else."
Blank replies: "Well, that's because *they're* just
sex/bloodletting/possible sources for a cure/back from the time when Nick was
still rejoicing in his vampirism (add your own)"
Me: "Well, if he's already doing it with so many women, why won't he do it
with Nat?"
Anon. replies again: "Well, Nick won't sleep with Nat because I know he
loves her!"
And then there we are again, right back at square one. Nick loves Nat,
because he won't sleep with her; and, for a little novelty <G>, he won't
sleep with her because he loves her. Poor Nat gets the tail end of both.
I guess maybe I need to state my position a little more clearly:
I am not opposed to Nick and Nat having feelings for each other. I just do
not believe that they are "in luv". Nor do I believe that they are likely to
fall in love any time soon. Nor do I believe that Nick feels one-tenth of
what Nat feels for him. Part of my "evidence"? All the other women which
Jane made a laundry list of, whom he *has* honoured in some way, shape, or
form with some form of actual, not imagined, love/sex/bloodletting. IMO, a
bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Amy R. said that, when it comes to Nick, she would rather be neglected
like Nat than used like Janette. Now I, myself, see *nothing* romantic about
courtly love. It makes me manic ;) I can't stand stories in which the man
puts the woman up on a pedestal (one can "look but not touch", as the case
may be; who wants a guy who won't touch you because you're too 'pure' and
'wonderful' for him to sully your body with his uncouth hands? I'd rather
have the touching, thankyouverymuch <VBG>). Courtly love is about the
socially inferior male adoring an unattainable, i.e. usually married or
betrothed female from the peerage from afar, yes?. IMO, I see nothing
romantic about being "admired" from afar. Nick, as someone said to me
recently, is not meant to be some vampiric version of Vincent from "BatB", a
poetry-spouting eunuch (no offense to "Beast" fans, I meant that
descriptively!): He is, as the "laundry list" showed, a _highly sexual_
being.
In such, the analogy of courtly love is not all that new; some of us have
been saying for years that Nick puts Nat up on a pedestal *of mortality*,
very like what he might have done with his liege lord's lady, putting her on
the pedestal of courtly love. Either way, it's not how I would like it ;)
As Laurie CF said, IMO there has been about one solid year in which we could
entertain the concept of Nick and Nat as a somewhat typical couple. In
contrast, we know that Nick *has* had a relationship with Janette. They were
together for nearly a century. Natalie cannot hope to compete with that, not
any time soon at any rate. In some respects I agree with Amy: Janette and
Nick share a romantic past and potential. (I would also add "_sometimes_ a
present", but surprisingly enough, not as often as you might expect from an
IB ;) ). We also know that Nick and Janette *could*, in probability, share a
future, because they *have* shared a past, and insofar as by mortal
standards, they had an excellent relationship that lasted longer than many
mortal lifespans. (Ask me how I know it was excellent; cf. "PotM". Nick
didn't look like he was any too happy about ending it <EG>) Janette has
proven that in the past, she can make a relationship with Nick work. And he,
at least, is quite often nothing loath when it comes to the vampiric/sexual
aspect. This seems, IMO, at least a pretty good groundwork for a future, if
I may be allowed one sweeping generalization ;) Whatever I may think about
the current level and condition of their relationship aside, ('cause I want
to go to sleep and so do y'all <G>), Nick and Janette have a precedent.
In contrast, Natalie and Nick have never had a "real" relationship. So
(hopefully) no-one will argue with me; what I mean by "real", is that
Natalie has no realistic concept of what it's like to live with Nick's moods,
bear his self-tortured slurs with equanimity, keep him cheerful, *day in and
day out*, for hours and hours a day, in the manner that Janette did for *over
97 years*. By comparison, Nat doesn't know what a tough time with Nick _is_,
merely because she always gets to go home at night!!
Janette has practical, real-life experience in dealing with Nick. Natalie's
still at the casual "live-in-lover" stage by comparison. She has not yet
proved her possible longevity in a romantic relationship with Nick. FWIW,
that's about half the reason why my money's on Janette.
Felicia Bollin
AriCon@a.......
Ravenette*Immortal Beloved*MBDtK
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 18:43:30 -0400
From: Ann Lipton <Iocaste@a.......>
Subject: Re: The Fix & other stuff
Dona Torrey wrote:
I find it surprising that you lable the show as " gray characters in a
black and white world". I have always felt that the show did a great job of
presenting well rounded characters and a very diversified fictional world. I
am interested in hearing how you feel the show could be "colored" better.
Maybe it will give me some new ideas to work with.
And I reply:
I don't really see the b&w world thing as a flaw. See, my take is this: We
have morally ambiguous characters living in a place where the rules are hard
and fast -- vampires are evil, crosses are good no matter who wields them or
for what purpose, etc. (I'd like to make it clear that this is only how I
see the world of FK, not how I see the world.) So these morally ambiguous
characters have to figure out a way to reconcile themselves with extreme
demands. LC & Janette try to prove to themselves that they are not a part of
the rules. Nick, on the other hand, completely accepts that he is evil and
tries to redeem himself in the only way he knows how.
That's what's interesting to me. We viewers at home can scream and rail that
OF COURSE Nick's not evil, that even LC can be very sympathetic, but in
numerous episodes it has been expressed, by Nick and by less-biased sources,
that Nick and LC and all vampires are in fact "evil," with very little wiggle
room.
I am open to the suggestion that it is the belief in one's own evil that
makes one evil -- as someone aptly pointed out, Hearts of Darkness shows a
woman without that belief and so without the consequences. Which would have
to mean that LC & Co. do, on some level, believe they are evil. Not a bad
idea, actually -- LC even says that about himself on occasion.
Ann
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 15:54:26 -0700
From: Elizabeth Ann Lewis <lizbet@p.......>
Subject: Re: The Fix & other stuff
At 3:17 AM 6/23/96, Ann Lipton wrote:
>Aack ... doesn't anyone agree with me that on FK, merely the state of being a
>vampire means you're evil?
Yes. (I'm a light Knightie, what can I say?) :)
>To me, the ultimate proof's in the crosses. As long as any vampire is
>repelled by crosses, that means that God (on the show) definitively finds
>them evil. And Nick is repelled by crosses always, even if it does get a
>little better over time.
Not just crosses. The knife in Blackwing was VERY interesting!
We can (and have) argue back and forth about whether or not *vampires* are
evil, but in the FK universe *they are,* in fact, evil. In the FK universe
an omnipotent being exists, in whatever form(s) you want to label it
(LaCroix admits it) and that being (for whatever reason) doesn't like
vampires. No matter what Nick does, as long as he is a vampire, he is
considered evil.
PLEASE NOTE! I am *not* arguing real world religions/morals.
>And as I said, eps like SoB show people whose actions
>are evil who are yet able to fight off Nick with holy symbols, even though
>Nick has just done good deeds.
There is the theory that it is the belief of the owner or wielder of the
object that invests it with the power to harm a vampire. (How's that for a
convoluted sentence!) The judges in the fb of SoB did not presumably see
themselves as evil, so their belief in the power of their religious symbol
was undimmed.
Lizbet ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Proud Member of the Mercenary Guild
lizbet@p....... ~~ Lizbetann@a....... ~~ Ravenette of the New Order ~
Cleopatra ~ Knightie/NatPacker/N&NPacker with Cousinly tendencies and the
faintest of leanings toward Vanquera-ism ~~ Arnyd yw Ewyll hyd yw ~~
Listowner, Middle Ages Life ~~ http://members.aol.com/Lizbetann/mypage.html
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 15:56:27 -0700
From: Amy R. <akr@n.......>
Subject: "Ms. Snarl Hiss Thud"
From: Cynthia Hoffman <choff@v.......>
>You know what? This is going to sound strange, but I think you're both
>right. I just watched FtB again recently, and the actress who played the
>human in that episode also played Ms. Snarl Hiss Thud in SoB.
Really? Oh, I'm so pleased! Singing, "Continuity, continuity," to a
happy little tune from Sesame Street.... Clearly, this woman -- "Eve,"
did someone say her name was? -- got brought across sometime between FtB
and SoB! That's probably only to be expected for someone who hangs around
the Raven on a regular basis, and I *thought* I'd seen that actress in
Raven crowd scenes on a few occasions as well. Oh, but this is fun!
Think about the difference in her demeanor between FtB and SoB; does this
bear on the everpresent question of vampirism's effect on a personality?
Almost as good, there's the question of whether she recognized Nick from
the FtB incident when she propositioned him in SoB!
***** Amy, Lady of the Knight (akr@n.......) *****
"Behind the problem of evil, the problem of good./...
tree after tree, inexplicable, yes inexplicable,/
never mind your principles of physics." -- L. Fargas
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 14:58:46 -0800
From: Muldy Sculler <ffbmh@a.......>
Subject: Re: Where do we go from here?
Gee, you ought to be a knightie--you know how to heap on that guilt.
barbara
=========================================================================
Knight graphics and parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/
