FORKNI-L
FORKNI-L Digest - 27 Oct 2000 to 28 Oct 2000 - Special issue (#2000-333)
Sat, 28 Oct 2000
There are 23 messages totalling 1004 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. A Moral LaCroix? (14)
2. Halloween Kickstart the Knight Reminders
3. guns in Canada (was: question for fanfic)
4. What Happened to LEXX (2)
5. Vampires on Stage
6. Knight School - Ep108 - Cherry Blossoms (2)
7. A moral LaCroix?
8. Admin: Quote and sig limit reminder
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 21:20:28 GMT
From: Gwenn Musicante <gwennm@h.......>
Subject: Re: A Moral LaCroix?
<<I really understand that the times were different, and maybe somehow
countless murders and brutality solely for the pleasure>>
Lib wrote;
<I may be wrong, but I don't recall LaCroix ever killing "solely for the
<pleasure." He was feeding, getting revenge, etc. Well, there was the
<case of a "look, he looks like my father" torture scene, but I think
<that was an "issue" with LaCroix's psychological makeup - or he was
<trying to toughen or scare Nick.
What I meant by brutality solely for pleasure was LaCroix's mention of
having the eyes put out of the artist that sculptured his bust, and his
enjoyment over the artist thanking him all the while. Also the mention of
what he encouraged his soldiers to do the towns and people after they
conquered them. These were done in his mortal life with his moral code.
Gwenn
Great responses thank you. Believe it or not this is helping me to
understand the different faces of LaCroix.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:29:00 EDT
From: Meliss9900@a.......
Subject: Re: A Moral LaCroix?
In a message dated 27-Oct-00 4:27:03 PM Central Daylight Time,
gwennm@h....... writes:
<< Also the mention of
what he encouraged his soldiers to do the towns and people after they
conquered them. These were done in his mortal life with his moral code.
>>
It was also pretty much the moral code of the time. Witness the events that
took place in the coliseum
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:29:40 +0000
From: Kristin <kris1228@s.......>
Subject: Halloween Kickstart the Knight Reminders
Hello everyone!
The month's almost over! Please be sure to participate in all the events
below to insure that this Halloween we get what we want... The Return of
Forever Knight!!
**URGENT! Very Important Request! :
Kickstart the Knight wants to maximize the impact of our latest Hollywood
Reporter ad by making it a *full page* ad for the first time in KtK history.
Our recent online auction has raised nearly two-thirds of the money we need
for a full page ad. We just need to raise another $1,000.00 to make our
first full page ad a reality. We know there are a lot of Forever Knight fans
out there who want the original FK series to return to television; who want
FK merchandise such as videotapes, novels, etc.; and who want new FK in the
form of FK movies.
In order to help achieve these goals, KICKSTART THE KNIGHT NEEDS YOUR HELP!
Between now and November 25, 2000 KtK wants to raise $1,000.00 to make a
full page ad a reality. It will again be a custom designed beautiful
original artwork, as our other recent ads have been. And it has the ability
to make a HUGE impact on The Powers That Be. The recent full page ad for
Lexx caused a major stir in the industry, getting the attention of E!
Online, Cinescape, SFC's Bonnie Hammer, and others. We really feel that now
is the time to really go after The Powers That Be with a full page ad. We
need your contributions, of whatever amount, to make the ad a reality. If
just 200 FK fans would contribute $5.00 each, we would have enough.
PLEASE HELP US DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO GET FOREVER KNIGHT BACK TO THE FANS!
If Lexx fans can raise $3,700.00, there's *no reason* why we can't raise
$2,695.00!
To contribute via credit card, please click the PayPal icon on the KtK
website which is at http://members.aol.com/ktkpage
OR to contribute via Cashier's Check or Money Order (no personal checks
please), please make the CC or MO payable to HOLLYWOOD REPORTER (please *do
not* make them payable to KtK) and mail it to: Kickstart the Knight, P.O.
Box 1914, Racine, WI 53401-1914.
We want to help *you* make more FK a reality!!!!
*Blitzing for the Knight! October*
This entire month we are focusing on the four powers that be, Tristar,
Sci-fi, TNT, and now CBS!
A lot of FK fans have wondered why we don't approach other networks about
possibly reviving the series. Well, we decided to include along with Sci-fi
and Tristar for this month a blitz to TNT along with CBS to test the
waters!!
E-mail: tnt@t.......
(and place in the subject line: "To The Attention Of The Vice-President of
Programming")
You also may call TNT's Viewer Comment and Question Line at (404) 885-4538,
however we ask that any phone calls be in addition to letters and e-mails.
For snail mail, send to:
Vice-President of Programming
TNT 1010 Techwood Drive, NW
Atlanta, GA 30318
CBS Mail Form: http://cbsnews.cbs.com/now/feedback/0,1611,412,00.html
For snail mail, send to:
Leslie Moonves
President,
CBS Entertainment
7800 Beverly Blvd.
Los Angeles,CA 90036
and...
CBS
51 West 52nd St.
New York, NY 10019
Its going to be a big dose of e-mails from each of you the fans that would
love to not only have FK back on Sci-fi's schedule, but want to make sure
everyone knows that we are want more FK with the original cast in new
episodes and or movies!! So, what do you say? Are you ready to sit down,
take that few minutes and send off three e-mails? It could make all the
difference in the world!
Remember, say a little or say a lot, but say it!! We can make more FK
happen!!!
For the "whole" month of September, we are asking everyone to blitz the
feedbacks!!! For the month, you can re-use the e-mails you did before, or
write new ones. They can be long, or as short as just saying, "Bring Back
Forever Knight."
Important info to add in your letters: Sunday July 16, at 9:00 pm, ET/8:00
pm CT, SciFi aired a monthly program focussing on sci-fi movies and tv shows
that have become "cult" favorites among fans. The program's called
"SCIography", During this current blitz, we could ask that an upcoming
"SCIography" ep feature FK! So far, they plan to do eps on "Battlestar
Galactica", "Quantum Leap" and "Sliders", so asking them if they plan to do
a "SCIography" ep about FK can't hurt.
Also, Sci-Fi will be airing "Sci-Fi World", which is a 6 hour block of
sci-fi programs with a different theme each day. It's also possible to ask
them if FK will be a part of the "Sci-Fi World" programming block! So, be
sure to include these new ideas in the summer blitzes!
ALSO REMEMBER!! Sci-fi will be changing its schedule around again in the
fall.... lets make sure that we get Forever Knight on!!!
Sci-Fi's E-mail: feedback@w.......
Sony/Tristar Mail Form: http://www.spe.sony.com/spe/help_feedback_index.html
When e-mailing TriStar,(especially) give as much personal info as you
can...rather than just an e-mail name. A bit more personal carries more
weight with TPTB.
*Phone Blitz*
In an effort to add to our Halloween *Fangs Project* and regualr e-mails
blitz we will be doing a phone blitz for October!!
We all want to be heard by TPTB dont we? Well, now is your chance!!
For this entire month, we are asking everyone that is able to, to pick up
the nearest phone and make a call to the programming department at Sci-Fi !
Say a little, say alot, but let them hear you say "We want more FK!"
(212)-408-9100-for Sci Fi
(212) -413-5000-programming dept.
(note these are New York #'s......)
Now we would like to have an idea of the amount of phone calls we can count
on being made.
So we at KtK are asking that whoever wants to participate in this,to please
contact Kristin at: kris1228@s.......
She will place your name on a very special list, and you will be sent
reminders/updates of the approching time to make that call :)
We sincerely hope that we are able to get hundreds if not more of you to do
this!!!
*Get Forever Knight on DVD*
This is a NEW online petition: "Get TV Shows on DVD!" Sign it to get FK on
DVD! Every signature helps!
Go Here: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/dvdtv/
Well those are the big events for October! And feel free to sing our victory
song this Halloween...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trick or Treat!!
Give us something good to see!
We do care, so do it right!
Just by Bringing Back the Knight!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Long Live the Knight!
Kristin
http://members.xoom.com/forever_nick/Forever_Knight
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:49:37 EDT
From: Marel Darby <Frostsaint2@a.......>
Subject: Re: A Moral LaCroix?
In a message dated 27/10/00 19:21:37 GMT Daylight Time, gwennm@h.......
writes:
> I really understand that the times were different, and maybe somehow
> countless murders and brutality solely for the pleasure was not as bad as
> incest, but all this was coming from a man/vampire who had no morality-
> except for this?
To quote Hartley: 'The past is a foreign country: they do things differently
there.' In Roman society compassion was not deemed a virtue; philosophers
proclaimed that to exhibit pity was a mark of moral degeneracy.
By Roman standards of public and private morality, his actions through the
centuries might be accounted honourable. But I have to agree, the notion
of a LaCroix with outraged sensibilities is a bit hard to swallow. <g>
In the tomb he seems to be wary of her and doesn't it take place a full
twenty years after Pompeii? Perhaps in those years he has watched with
pain as every trace of the child he loved gradually vanished, devoured and
replaced by the 'thing' she has become.
Marel
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 18:08:03 EDT
From: Marel Darby <Frostsaint2@a.......>
Subject: Re: A Moral LaCroix?
In a message dated 27/10/00 22:30:25 GMT Daylight Time, Meliss9900@a.......
writes:
> It was also pretty much the moral code of the time. Witness the events that
> took place in the coliseum
Exactly, 'moral' is the mot juste. For us, the brutal deaths in the arena are
evidence of a depraved, corrupt society. They saw it as a valuable lesson in
upholding public morality.
Marel
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 18:37:20 EDT
From: Libratsie@a.......
Subject: Re: A Moral LaCroix?
In a message dated 10/27/00 4:21:32 PM Central Daylight Time,
gwennm@h....... writes:
> What I meant by brutality solely for pleasure was LaCroix's mention of
> having the eyes put out of the artist that sculptured his bust, and his
> enjoyment over the artist thanking him all the while.
Although that did strike me as "OOOOO! NASTY GUY!" in his eyes (pardon the
pun) he might have been doing something naughty, but as a Roman General, he
had the right to do so. I don't remember the exact dialogue, but I seem to
remember him saying why he did it - was it so the artist could not create a
better work??? Shoot, an excuse to pull out the videos this weekend! But once
again you are applying modern Western "values" (I don't like that word
either) to ancient Rome. It just doesn't work.
Go see if your local library has some recent history books on the society of
ancient Rome - the more thorough, the better. There's some great ones out
there.
Also the mention of
> what he encouraged his soldiers to do the towns and people after they
> conquered them. These were done in his mortal life with his moral code.
That was QUITE common at the time. He saw nothing immoral about it - neither
would LaCroix's peers at the time. That is what happened to the enemy. Common
practice. Sadly, it STILL happens. It happened in Bosnia. It happens everyday
somewhere, probably. War is nasty stuff.
LaCroix would see nothing wrong at that. Neither would most if not all
military people of the time. It is a ploy to not only defeat the enemy
physically, but to do great damage mentally. Lower their status, ego and
spirit to such a point they can not and will not fight back.
--Libs
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 18:05:27 -0600
From: Angela Gottfred <agottfre@t.......>
Subject: Re: guns in Canada (was: question for fanfic)
My apologies if someone has already answered this; I'm on the digest
version of the list, so I'm always a little out of step.
Diane Harris asked:
>Do guns have to be registered in Canada?
Yes. For at least 30 years, handguns have been classified as "restricted
weapons"; the guns & owners must be registered, and the owners must carry
special permits and adhere to especially-stringent storage and transport
requirements. Few Canadians own handguns-- even criminals.
>Are just hand-guns kept on record, or is inclusive to all firearms?
Only restricted weapons (handguns) and prohibited weapons (automatic
firearms & other scary stuff) need be registered. (You can legally own a
prohibited weapon, but there is even more red tape than for restricted
weapons.) That will change next year, when the only legal unregistered
firearms will be reproduction flintlock muzzleloaders (and getting even
*that* exemption was a long, hard battle).
Canada has had some form of gun control from WWI onwards. For the last 30
years or so, all firearms owners have had to have a Firearms Acquisition
Certificate (FAC) before they could buy or even borrow any kind of firearm.
To get an FAC, you must undergo a police background check; five or six
years ago, a firearms safety course was made an additional requirement. The
FAC is now being replaced by the Possession & Acquisition Licence (PAL) and
Possession-Only Licence (POL).
A web site that answers almost every conceivable firearms question is the
Canadian Firearms Centre's site at www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca
Your humble & obedient servant,
Angela Gottfred
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 20:21:24 -0400
From: Sandra <sandragray@r.......>
Subject: Re: A Moral LaCroix?
Gwenn wrote:
>Now Divia
>should have been destroyed( a very evil child), but why was that the straw
>that broke the camel's back? I can't believe that LaCroix felt that this
>crime of hers was beyond all redemption. He overreacted don't you think?
I think he probably did overreact. But I think some of why he lopped off
her head had to do with his own upbringing. There are hints in the fb of
the radio ep(?) that LC had an abusive father. Perhaps this included sexual
abuse. He may have decided once out from under his father's influence
that he would not so abuse any of his own children. To have Divia *want*
what he may have perhaps viewed as an "improper" relationship with him
might have just made him think the "evil" his father perpetrated had passed
through him and into Divia.
Another view could also be taken. Suppose his father's abuse was
strictly of the beating sort because LC's *mother* had taken an incestuous
interest in her son? To then have Divia, his "mother", want to have a
sexual relationship with him would throw him back to the memories of
his relationship with his real mother.
Or maybe a third scenario is possible. Suppose LC, due to either of
the above scenarios, had actually wanted to have a sexual relationship
with Divia but viewed it as an evil in himself. To have Divia desire him
would then have seemed to have been the evil in him passed down to
her. He does make a point of saying she inherited his evil.
Or perhaps a fourth more vampiric view is possible. Suppose Divia could
not just ask, but *compel*, LC to enter into a sexual relationship with her.
LC might view this as Divia trying to impose her will on him and we all
know how much LC dislikes anyone having the upper hand over him.
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--sandragray@r.......
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 20:29:02 -0000
From: Barbara Vainio <bevainio@w.......>
Subject: Re: A Moral LaCroix?
Libs wrote:
> Can anyone else think of examples?
>
The example that immediately leaped to my mind was his solution to the
dilemma in "Father's Day". He could have eturned Don Constantine's grandson
to him, or killed him for that matter, but instead found what I've always
considered a very elegant solution. And one that really did exhibit, IMO, a
hihgh level of morality.
Barb
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 20:38:05 -0000
From: Barbara Vainio <bevainio@w.......>
Subject: What Happened to LEXX
I just checked the Sci Fi schedule and LEXX appears to be on some sort of
weird rerun schedule at odd times of the day. This runs through the
beginning of December. I thought I remembered someone posting that it would
return to its regular time in early November with 3rd season episode 5.
What happened?
Barb
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 20:29:24 -0500
From: "Nancy E. Kaminski" <nancykam@m.......>
Subject: Re: A Moral LaCroix?
> Gwenn Musicante
> What I meant by brutality solely for pleasure was LaCroix's mention of
> having the eyes put out of the artist that sculptured his
> bust, and his enjoyment over the artist thanking him all the while.
Am I wrong in recalling the artist was a slave? In which case LC was within his
rights to do anything he wished to him. But I'm not sure if I'm remembering
correctly.
Also
> the mention of what he encouraged his soldiers to do the towns and people
> after they conquered them. These were done in his mortal life with his
> moral code.
That was standard procedure well into the nineteenth century. Sacking, looting,
and rape were frequently the only pay the victorious soldiers received. In the
case of a siege, it was the reward for a long drawn-out battle combined with
revenge on the people who caused their misery. A byproduct of the rape was the
dilution of a nation -- if a generation of children in a town were half Roman,
they were considered less likely to be enemies, and eventually the enemy
disappeared.
Nancy Kaminski
nancykam@m.......
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:32:41 EDT
From: MRKKaye@a.......
Subject: Vampires on Stage
Perhaps instead of a TV movie, we should be asking for a Christmas play. What
with Nigel Bennet playing Scrooge in Halifax and Frank Langella doing A
Christmas Carol on stage in New York, ex-vampires doing Christmas plays seems
to be something backers are willing to put money up for. Any more out there?
Marla K.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:55:27 +0900
From: Raven Breena <raven@n.......>
Subject: Knight School - Ep108 - Cherry Blossoms
Knight School - Ep108 - Cherry Blossoms
[Just a side note, I've been in Japan 3 years, there's even a Cherry Blossom
Festival, so I think cherry blossoms are more Japanese than Chinese. I've
seen Cherry Blossoms and they only bloom for about a week or so here, they
come out before the leaves do and they really are beautiful. BTW, this is
my last episode before I leave Japan, so I guess it's poetic.]
In the interest of maintaining my sanity I have summarized the episodes as
best I could.
108 Cherry Blossoms
It's machine guns and flying bullets on some Chinese businesspeople in a
cab. Our two heroes, Nick and Schanke arrive to investigate and are
shackled with an investigator from Immigration. They find out one of the
people escaped from the cab, a woman that immigration wanted to prosecute
for something.
Back at the station, the immigration guy gives Stonetree a hard time about
the lack of movement on the case and suggests he help. Our heroes aren't
too keen on this idea, but they play along.
Nick decides to scope out the scene with his cool vampire senses and
discovers spots of the very lucky escapees blood. He follows it and flashes
back to a visit to china and a woman who tried to help him cure his
vampirism with of all things, acupuncture. A little serving boy brings them
tea or sake. Janette arrives then and he flashes back to the present where
he's being targeted by an old Chinese man. Our crusader explains the
situation and leaves his card.
The old man flashes back to seeing our hero cradling the now-dead woman. In
truth, we know Janette or LaCroix probably killed her, but of course, he
blames Nick.
The next day, Schanke and the immigration guy start working together and
tempers begin to flare. Our hero Nick arrives and reports his findings to
Stonetree, who tries to put Nick in charge of the case. Nick convinces
Stonetree that he'd do better on his own and to put Schanke in charge of the
case. Then he takes off to scope out the acupuncture shop where he thinks
the girl got treated for her injuries. When he gets there he follows the
old man to see if he can find the girl.
Back at the station, Schanke is taking charge. They decide to scope out the
situation and ask if anyone has seen their victim. He also mentions that if
immigration shows up to tell them to 'take a hike.'
The old man (followed by our hero) arrives beside the wounded girl and
examines her. Nick shows himself and explains that acupuncture probably
won't help a bullethole. Nick tries to convince them to go to a hospital,
but the girl is unwilling. Finally, Nick leaves after extracting a promise
that they will both be there when he returns.
Back at the station, immigration arrives and apologizes for acting so rudely
before. Stonetree tells him that they've found Nancy (the wounded woman)
and he tries to extract where Nancy is, with no luck.
Nick takes off to the morgue to borrow the only doctor he knows and trusts,
Natalie, and escorts her to the hiding place. A car apparently was
following them, we see that the immigration man is being held prisoner in
the back of the car, handcuffed and not very happy. Apparently, he's being
forced to give his information to the bad guys in exchange for the lives of
his family.
In the safe place, Natalie treats the girl and the bad guys try to break
into the safe area with guns. Nick beats them up, despite their bullets and
rescues Natalie from one of the bad guys, despite being shot several times.
The old guy arrives and stabs the other bad guy with an acupuncture needle.
He passes out and Nat is freed.
Finally, cops surround the place and take statements from all the people,
including the old man. Apparently, despite what he saw, he didn't tell
anyone of it. Nick is befuddled and asks the old man why he didn't tell
them about him. He says they were both fighting for the same woman and when
Nick turns away to get the car the old man sticks a needle in his neck,
effectively paralyzing him.
He wakes up on an acupuncture table. The old man is very adamant that he
will destroy Nick because of the death of his mother. Nick explains that
not only was he there, but Janette and LaCroix as well. He also divulges
that LaCroix was the killer of his mother. Despite this, the old man pulls
out a stake and almost ends our heroes' life. Nick stops him and asks him
to remember the beautiful woman who was also there. The old man remembers
her and Nick suggests that she speak in his defense.
Janette arrives, smoking due to the coming dawn. She almost grabs the old
man and kills him, but Nick stops her. She tells him that Nick is trying to
do good, that he has repented. She confirms Nick's story. Finally, the old
man remembers that it *was* LaCroix who killed his mother. He releases Nick
and Janette hugs him [Nick].
Back at the loft, Nick has just finished showing Janette his place. She
tries to convince him to give up his search for humanity for the umpteenth
time and he refuses. Despite this, they began to make out. Just when
things get hot and heavy (vampire style), Nat shows up and breaks up the
party, as it might have been. *sigh*
1. Do you think if Nick had done his thing with Janette (this time) it
would have changed the future episodes at all?
2. Do you think Nat was jealous when she walked in and caught Nick with
Janette?
3. Do you think the acupuncture needle paralyzed Nick because he is somehow
more 'human' than the other vampires due to his search for redemption?
4. Do you think the old man actually saw LaCroix, or that Janette helped him
'remember'?
5. Do you think Schanke enjoyed being in charge of the investigation,
despite the fact that he didn't turn up anything useful?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:51:04 -0400
From: Mickey <wench@a.......>
Subject: Re: What Happened to LEXX
At 08:38 PM 10/27/00 +0000, you wrote:
>I just checked the Sci Fi schedule and LEXX appears to be on some sort of
><snip>
Lexx and Farscape will return in January with new episodes. Because the SFC
begins their programming in the summer, as does SG-1 on Showtime (Ben Bass
was on there recently) they have their debuts over the summer when the main
channels are in reruns and then when the networks are debuting, they go
into reruns and resume again in January.
Annmarie
wench@a.......
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:32:09 -0500
From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject: Re: A Moral LaCroix?
At 08:21 PM 10/27/00 -0400, Sandra wrote:
>.... There are hints in the fb of the radio ep(?) that LC had an abusive
>father. ...
>Suppose his father's abuse was strictly of the beating sort because LC's
>*mother* had taken an incestuous interest in her son?
I seem to have such a different view of that episode (Dead Air?) from everyone
else. IIRC, Nick asks LaCroix how he can be so cruel, and LaCroix replies
something like, "It was bred in me."
I think that statement can mean that he was taught to be cruel, and it
could mean that he was taught that by his father.
My interpretation (Warning! Wild speculation ahead!) is that his father always
intended for LaCroix to grow up to be a general in the Roman army, and therefore
tried to instill in him the acceptance of cruelty that he would need. I think
his father was probably very cold and over-punitive as part of that "training".
Yet, somewhere, I think , LaCroix also experienced warmth. I know I'm in a tiny
minority here (a minority of one?), but I don't see LaCroix as cold. I get a
sense of a lot of warmth in LaCroix. The warmth could have come from someone else
who also had a part in raising him, a nurse or his mother.
(Careful! Speculation is getting wilder. You have been warned!)
I think it was with his mother that he experienced the warmth. His father may
even have tried to keep him away from his mother, eventually, because he thought
the mother's warmth towards LaCroix would keep the boy from growing up into the
cruel general that he wanted the boy to be. This might be the meaning of the
Oedipus reference, in that LaCroix loved his mother, but was not allowed to be
with her.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:45:29 EDT
From: Judith Lieberman <JudithL21@a.......>
Subject: Re: A Moral LaCroix?
This code continued for many centurys after Lacroix's mortality ended. Henry V
pillaged his way through France after Agincourt in 1415. Shakespeare wrote a
great play, but its not history. Lacroix was behaving as a Roman general.
JudyL (new to list)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:15:23 -0400
From: Bonnie Rutledge <br1035@i.......>
Subject: Re: A Moral LaCroix?
As several people have pointed out, LaCroix's behavior throughout the series is
acceptable in terms of the Roman Empire and the position he held as a mortal.
It amazes me how much the background suits the way the character acted. For
example, the 'just say no to love' speech from BMV isn't just a philosophy
LaCroix honed over two thousand years of existence, but a common litany given to
soldiers groomed for the Roman army. My amazement comes because there are plenty
of examples where TPTB had continuity errors, from Schanke's two mother-in-laws
to the Battle of Hastings and the Dauphin flubs. It makes me wonder how much
research they did as to the Roman mindset, or whether they just got lucky for a
change.
This leads me to wondering about some of the other characters. How do you think
any of the other characters reflected the values of the times they lived in as
mortals, if any? The list has discussed Nick, at least in terms of the Catholic
church. I'd love to hear more based on Thomas Aquinas or law around the time of
the crusades, two subjects I know little about.
And what about Janette or Vachon?
<waves>
*************************************************************************
Bonnie Rutledge........<br1035@i.......>........Single and Fabulous!
"Somebody stop him! He stole my strappy sandals!!!" - 'Sex and the City'
"If he questions us, our alibi is going to be 'We *had* it right, but
Bonnie bitched and moaned until we changed it.'" "Yeah! He'll believe that!"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 12:43:32 -0400
From: Luc D <lacroix@e.......>
Subject: Re: A Moral LaCroix?
That is some wild thought...but I think it works.
Luc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Margie Hammet" <treeleaf@i.......>
To: <FORKNI-L@l.......>
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: A Moral LaCroix?
> At 08:21 PM 10/27/00 -0400, Sandra wrote:
>
> >.... There are hints in the fb of the radio ep(?) that LC had an abusive
> >father. ...
> >Suppose his father's abuse was strictly of the beating sort because LC's
> >*mother* had taken an incestuous interest in her son?
>
> I seem to have such a different view of that episode (Dead Air?) from everyone
> else. IIRC, Nick asks LaCroix how he can be so cruel, and LaCroix replies
> something like, "It was bred in me."
>
> I think that statement can mean that he was taught to be cruel, and it
> could mean that he was taught that by his father.
>
> My interpretation (Warning! Wild speculation ahead!) is that his father always
> intended for LaCroix to grow up to be a general in the Roman army, and therefore
> tried to instill in him the acceptance of cruelty that he would need. I think
> his father was probably very cold and over-punitive as part of that "training".
>
> Yet, somewhere, I think , LaCroix also experienced warmth. I know I'm in a
> tiny minority here (a minority of one?), but I don't see LaCroix as cold. I
> get a sense of a lot of warmth in LaCroix. The warmth could have come from
> someone else who also had a part in raising him, a nurse or his mother.
>
> (Careful! Speculation is getting wilder. You have been warned!)
> I think it was with his mother that he experienced the warmth. His father may
> even have tried to keep him away from his mother, eventually, because he thought
> the mother's warmth towards LaCroix would keep the boy from growing up into the
> cruel general that he wanted the boy to be. This might be the meaning of the
> Oedipus reference, in that LaCroix loved his mother, but was not allowed to be
> with her.
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 13:07:30 -0400
From: Mary Combs <mcombs@e.......>
Subject: Re: A Moral LaCroix?
> Barbara wrote:
>
> Oh, BTW, do any of the Brit members of the list know of a
> "yorkie" (some sort of food item)?
Aaargh! I just flashed on my neighbor's adorable Yorkshire terrier, with
voice-over by LC "Dogs are for breakfast...."
Mary
mcombs@e....... N&Npacker
http:\\www.erols.com\mcombs
"RL=Real Life. It's that stuff that keeps happening that gets in the way of
that other stuff."--Sue Clark
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 13:22:56 EDT
From: Marel Darby <Frostsaint2@a.......>
Subject: Re: A Moral LaCroix?
In a message dated 28/10/00 06:07:10 GMT Daylight Time, treeleaf@i.......
writes:
> My interpretation (Warning! Wild speculation ahead!) is that his father
> always intended for LaCroix to grow up to be a general in the Roman army,
>and therefore tried to instill in him the acceptance of cruelty that he
>would need.
All Roman youths were reared harshly by modern standards, more so if
their families were rich or aristocratic, in order to train their off spring to
take their proper place in the forefront of the empire. Success in the army
was a springboard to political power...that was the reason Julius Caesar
persisted with a military career for so long. Lacroix's father wouldn't need
to instill an 'acceptance of cruelty' for such a notion would have no meaning
for them. To destroy the enemies of the state in whatever manner was
necessary was deemed an entirely honourable course of action.
> Yet, somewhere, I think , LaCroix also experienced warmth. I know I'm in a
> tiny minority here (a minority of one?), but I don't see LaCroix as cold.
> I get a sense of a lot of warmth in LaCroix.
I agree. That's why I find it hard to buy into the theory that LaCroix was
the victim of some sort of sexual abuse as a youngster. The man can be
quite tactile -- there are a number of occasions when he touches/strokes
people he has a fondness for. Someone can have a cold demeanour for a
variety reasons, but one is that the protective carapace hides a passionate
nature.
Marel
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 12:58:53 -0500
From: mclisa <mclisa@m.......>
Subject: Re: A moral LaCroix?
About that line in which he says he had the sculptor's eyes put out -- this
is only possible if the sculptor was a slave belonging to Lucius, which I
think the script either says or implies. There was no way he could do this
to a free man. Rome had law enforcement.
Note: that most Romans, including his own class, would have considered what
he'd done to be morally wrong, but it wasn't illegal. For one thing, a
slave could be forbidden ever to create another bust. A free man couldn't
be.
Maybe I'm reaching, but I've always thought the way Nigel says that line and
the somewhat forced laughter with which the others react can be taken to
mean that Lucius is making a joke in bad taste. Another thing I've wondered
about is whether it's a holdover from the first draft. After noticing that
John Kapelos (who directed Ashes to Ashes) kept referring to Lucius as "the
Emperor," I had a chance to ask him. The character was at first conceived as
a Emperor. Putting out a free man's eyes and getting away with it is
something Tiberius, Caligula or Nero might have gotten away with. If Lucius
was a man in his mid-forties, as he appeared to be, when brought across
during the Vesuvian erruption of 79 c.e., and had been the emperor, then he
would have had to be Titus. Titus is generally considered one of the best
emperors Rome ever had.
That little mistake would have made 1066 look like a mere stammer in a line.
:)
McLisa (Lisa McDavid)
"That will be trouble".
Listowner, Forkni-l and Fkfic-l
mclisa@m.......
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 13:09:25 -0500
From: mclisa <mclisa@m.......>
Subject: Admin: Quote and sig limit reminder
Just a refresher -- we have a 4 line quotation from the previous post limit
on Forkni-l . We also have a limit of 6 lines to a sig. This means
everything, starting with your name and including blank lines.
Here are the rules, from the list that's posted every Monday.
> 2. Please don't quote more than four lines of a previous post in replying.
If you have more than one point to answer, then you may quote the relevant
four lines for that point also.
> 3. Limit sigs to 6 lines. This includes all information, decoration
quotations and blank lines. Your name and address count as part of the
six. If you sign your name on a separate line above the
body of text, your name and the blank line or lines between count as part
of the six line limit. If you have one of those services that insists on
putting an advertising tag on the end of posts, don't worry. We realize you
can't control that and it doesn't count as part of your sig.
McLisa (Lisa McDavid)
"That will be trouble".
Listowner, Forkni-l and Fkfic-l
mclisa@m.......
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 13:27:45 -0500
From: mclisa <mclisa@m.......>
Subject: Re: Knight School - Ep108 - Cherry Blossoms
1. Do you think if Nick had done his thing with Janette (this time) it
would have changed the future episodes at all?
I think it might have made the undercurrents around the triangle of Nick,
Janette, and Natalie much stroner.
2. Do you think Nat was jealous when she walked in and caught Nick with
Janette?
I thought it was more embarrassment than jealousy, but yes, there was some
jealousy.
3. Do you think the acupuncture needle paralyzed Nick because he is somehow
more 'human' than the other vampires due to his search for redemption?
Maybe, but -- I read later in a vampire lore source that there is some sort
of paper spell or amulet which can be used against the Chinese equivalent of
vampires. I've forgotten the details. If I recall correctly, there is a
paper of some kind pinned to Nick with one of the needles. I've always
thought that was what was really wrong. He would be like LC when he was
staked and needed Nick to pull the stake out, helpless and immobilized.
4. Do you think the old man actually saw LaCroix, or that Janette helped him
'remember'?
I always thought he actually saw LaCroix but the sight was so horrible that
he repressed it. I like your theory, though. It makes sense and explains a
lot.
5. Do you think Schanke enjoyed being in charge of the investigation,
despite the fact that he didn't turn up anything useful?
Oh, yes. This was one of those episodes where JK did a lot by his acting to
tone down the fact that the writers were writing Schanke as a jerk.
McLisa (Lisa McDavid)
"That will be trouble".
Listowner, Forkni-l and Fkfic-l
mclisa@m.......
------------------------------
End of FORKNI-L Digest - 27 Oct 2000 to 28 Oct 2000 - Special issue (#2000-333)
*******************************************************************************
Parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/
