FORKNI-L

FORKNI-L Digest - 1 Feb 2001 to 2 Feb 2001 - Special issue (#2001-37)

Fri, 2 Feb 2001

There are 27 messages totalling 1001 lines in this issue.

Topics in this special issue:

  1. Schanke and the boy (3)
  2. Valentine's
  3. Last Knight
  4. Ger on Robocop (3)
  5. Ger on Black Harbour
  6. Tracy and vampires
  7. Nat's birthday
  8. LK & James Parriott
  9. LC as Hannibal Lechter?
 10. Delurking...Who would you be? (2)
 11. Fwd: LK ending (2)
 12. Who would YOU be?  The Wish vs. the Truth . . .
 13. GWD & Benny Hill - just a Welsh thing for FK
 14. LK ending (5)
 15. Can someone help me out?
 16. George Kapelos
 17. Janette andLK

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:23:30 -0500
From:    Bonnie Rutledge <br1035@i.......>
Subject: Re: Schanke and the boy

McLisa wrote:
<snip>In a scene which was cut in the original U.S. airing, we see Schanke
> talking to Myra on the phone. He refers to "you and the kids."
>  So, yes, the intention in the picnic scene could have  been that the boy was
> Schanke's son. <snip>

Here's some more cheesy rationalizing:

It was also established in some episode that Schanke had a dog.

I've known couples and individuals that refer to pets as 'the kid'
or 'the kids,' even after they've added to their human brood.

Maybe Schanke and Myra's 'kids' are named Jennifer and Spot. :D

I also remember someone reasoning that the little boy might belong
to Stonetree.

<waves>

*****************************************************************************
Bonnie Rutledge..........<br1035@i.......>..........Single and Fabulous!
  "Hiya, Hun! I'm Home!" - Bit #11 that could have improved USA's 'Attila'

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 27 Aug 1956 14:49:48 +0000
From:    Jeannie Ecklund <jecklund@l.......>
Subject: Re: Valentine's

>why LaCroix was so easily fooled by Nick's speech. If he supposedly is
>connected to Nick in some way, wouldn't he know that he was lying?

I would like to think that no matter what bargain LaCroix made with
Nick, when he came down to it he would have let Nick give him an out.
This way he wouldn't have to make good on his threat.  He suffered so
much pain over losing Fluer that deep inside he wasn't going to put his
favorite child through that...

Jeannie

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:51:40 -0600
From:    "B. Stone" <STONEB@g.......>
Subject: Last Knight

One of the main reasons I got hooked on FK was that I couldn't figure out
how "they were going to write their way out" of the fix they'd put Nick in.
He wanted eternal salvation but could not die without damning himself
(in the eyes of the medieval Church) by committing suicide. (Keep in
mind that I came in about the middle of 3rd season & had missed all
of Nick's close calls: Near Death, (K?)night in Question, Fever.)
Much as I enjoyed FK, I thought it would be cruel to have poor Nick
condemned to help people for eternity with no rest in sight.
Naturally, I would have liked to see him become mortal, although I
supposed a "happy ending" might not be aesthetically pleasing.  For
me, LK, though incredibly sad (and, yes, a bit hard to swallow in the
character development department), was ingenious.  Nick not only dies
without committing suicide, he gets the opportunity to forgive LC and
to persuade him to take back his evil gift.  And it is noteworthy
that the forgiveness comes first.

Nick promised in Last Act that he would not die by his own hand.  And so he
does not.  Asking LC to do the deed for him is not so much tempting LC to sin
as it is requesting him to do a good deed.  Besides, can a being who is already
dead commit suicide?

In Near Death Nick says that he learned that he must find forgiveness and
salvation among the living.  By the time LK, much has changed.  He has saved
many more people (countless people in Black Buddha) and he has learned that
it is never enough and that no matter how hard he tries more people die
because of him.  He has learned that he cannot save himself through his acts
alone.  Instead he must have faith that there is something beyond even for
him, that God has the power to forgive even him.  Perhaps what makes him see
this is that he discovers that he has it in his power to forgive LC, the
ultimate cause of all his sins and all his self-hatred and remorse.

So LC was supposed to walk into the sun!!  Wow.  I had always wondered what
he'd do with himself after Nick's death.  This actually makes sense to me:
Nick shows LC the way to salvation.  (Ending one's own unlife is not the
same as committing suicide.  LC would only be accepting the fate he was
meant to have endured in 79 A.D.)

What about Janette?  Was she "still out there" at the end of the original
LK script?

        B. Stone
        stoneb@g.......

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:44:51 -0700
From:    Angela Gottfred <agottfre@t.......>
Subject: Re: Schanke and the boy

When I watched the credits, I couldn't help noticing that 'George Kapelos'
was there. I automatically assumed that John Kapelos' kid was playing the
role of Schanke's son. I just checked, and Dorothy Elggren's episode guide
(www.loftworks.com/FK/Episodes/Season_1/112.html) credits George Kapelos
with the role of 'Arthur'. I don't recall if that was the kid or somebody
else. I'm sure somebody out there knows the answer, though.

Awhile back, I decided to go for the cheesy explanation that it was the kid
of another cop, whom Schanke knew well and perhaps was even taking to the
picnic because his parents couldn't.

Your humble & obedient servant,
Angela Gottfred

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:32:37 EST
From:    DanaKnight@a.......
Subject: Ger on Robocop

In a message dated 1/20/01 5:01:00 PM, LISTSERV@l....... writes:

<< RoboCop: Resurrection, in which Ger plays one of the main villains.  It
was funny to see him dressed mainly in black, and with short, spiky, bleached
white hair (shades of first season Lacroix <g>!).  >>

There is a picture where he actually looks like Nigel as LC.

<<She starts bleeding, and takes the blood and throws it in Ger's face.
Ger then wipes the blood off his face with his finger, puts some of it
in his mouth, and with a glint in his eye says, "ah ha, it still tastes so
good!">>

LOL. Very Nick like, or LC like.

Okay... when do we US folks get to see this?  ::impatiently taps foot::

Judy

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:35:39 EST
From:    DanaKnight@a.......
Subject: Ger on Black Harbour

In a message dated 1/20/01 5:01:00 PM, LISTSERV@l....... writes:

<< >next weekend it will start re-airing Ger's program Black Harbour.>

I've actually caught two eps of this show -- only one with "Nick."  I
couldn't get a good sense -- what's his character like in this show??
 >>

He was sorta like Nick Knight but without the vampirism, and not quite as
angsty and definitely not as guilt ridden. He and his wife were having
problems, but he definitely loved his kids and had a good relationship with
them. I can't really describe it because I haven't seen the eps too many
times.

One nice thing is we get to see more of him - shorts and t-shirt, a scene
with champagne in bed.

Judy

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:42:27 -0500
From:    Gwenn Musicante <gwennm@h.......>
Subject: Re: Schanke and the boy

Angela Gottfred wrote;

George Kapelos
with the role of 'Arthur'. I don't recall if that was the kid or somebody
else. I'm sure somebody out there knows the answer, though.

Arthur was the name of the forensics technician at the beginning of the
episode who was gathering information in the Fiore's home.  (Actually,
Schanke gave him a little bit of a hard time, but Nick was nice to him)

Gwenn Musicante

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:44:42 EST
From:    DanaKnight@a.......
Subject: Re: Tracy and vampires

In a message dated 1/20/01 5:01:00 PM, LISTSERV@l....... writes:

<< I agree that there may have been some juicy gossip going around, but since
there was no proof vampires existed, no one took any of it seriously. >>

Remember when Schanke was doing some detective work on Nick. He'd found the
old driver's license, he'd seen Janette's old fashioned picture of the three
of them. He put together the clues and it was a female officer that joked
"sounds like you're looking for a vampire" which lit up the lightbulb in
Schanke's head.

What I can't believe is in that ep he never went to talk to Nick's doctor.
The one who Schanke believes is romantically involved with Nick. The one
who's made comments like "close" when Schanke mentioned Nick acting like a
zombie (Faithful Followers), and other comments she's made over the years. I
would've thought Schanke would've headed straight to the morgue to question
Nat, then gone to see Janette (and done the rest of the stuff he did that ep).

Judy

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:51:09 EST
From:    DanaKnight@a.......
Subject: Re: Nat's birthday

In a message dated 1/21/01 5:00:55 PM, LISTSERV@l....... writes:

<< McLisa wrote:
>The Apr. 14th thing is a continuity glitch. Apparently nobody caught the
>fact that Nat's birthday had already been established, not even people whom
>we know had had access to the discussions on the list.

C'mon, Listmommy, we all know that wasn't a continuity glitch; it was
deliberate to prove that LK was an hallucination! ;-)
 >>

I have to agree with Stephanie!  Also, I believe it was Ger who said that not
everything was as it seemed. I believe he was hinting at the fact that it was
all a dream. The strange peach speech, the fuzziness/waviness of the picture,
the oddness of it all. A bunch of us met with Ger at the second weekend with
him, a few weeks after LK first aired. And that was the first topic of
discussion.

Judy

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:39:19 -0800
From:    Klytaimnestra <lbowman@c.......>
Subject: LK & James Parriott

My problem with LK is that it is not true to the characters, or to the show.
The show was about hope and struggle in the face of adversity; about 'how we
live in captivity', as Nick says; about keeping the faith.  And as someone
else said, the characters weren't romantic adolescent idiots; they were
adults who made the best choices they could and worked hard to live as well
as they could in the world they found themselves in.  LK betrayed the
characters, and the hope the series was based on.

Perhaps James Parriott simply saw the series very differently from the way I
and many other people do.  Maybe he didn't think it was about hope, faith
and courage.  Maybe he thought it was about death, defeat, weakness, and
manipulation, and  LK fit his view of the series.  If so, well, I disagree
and I'm sorry he could have been so mistaken about his own creation.

 But maybe LK is more about HIS loss of faith and hope - the series had been
cancelled, so he threw in the towel and was determined to kill everyone,
make all the characters lose faith too, and destroy the hope of the audience
also.  And if so, if that's what was going on behind McLisa's story about
the struggle over the filming of LK, then James Parriott should be ashamed
of himself.  Just because he was upset was no reason to kill the characters
off and make the rest of us miserable too.

It's bad enough that I see no way to get around the deaths of Schanke and
Tracy.  If I believed that Nick & Nat were incontrovertibly dead at the end
of LK, it would destroy all my pleasure in the series.
--
Klytaimnestra             lbowman@c.......
Fanfiction at http://members.home.net/lbowman

K

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:11:12 -0000
From:    Barbara Vainio <bevainio@w.......>
Subject: LC as Hannibal Lechter?

Has anyone else noticed the similarity of Sir Anthony Hopkins "Hannibal
Lechter" voice and Nigel Bennett's LaCroix monologue voice?  And wouldn't LC
be a wonderful Hannibal Lechter.  Fava beans & "wine" all in one meal :-)

Barb

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:18:07 -0500
From:    Marg Yamanaka <mytoronto@h.......>
Subject: Re: Ger on Robocop

DanaKnight@a....... wrote:
> Okay... when do we US folks get to see this?  ::impatiently taps foot::

If anyone desparately wants to see RoboGer and can't wait for the US
release, contact me off-list.

--
Marg, in Toronto, the City of the Knight  <mytoronto@h.......>
Please visit the Upper Canada Connection -
A Canadian Tribute to Geraint Wyn Davies:
http://members.home.net/gwducc/index.htm

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:40:56 EST
From:    Enid Rodriguez <LadyEnid512@a.......>
Subject: Re: Ger on Robocop

Hi all:

If they finally air RoboCop: PD in the US, they are going to cut it to death.
You know how American TV can be...especially cable stations.

--Enid
ladyenid512@a.......

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:52:05 -0500
From:    Emily Lacey <laceye@a.......>
Subject: Delurking...Who would you be?

I've been wondering...

If you had a chance to actually _be_ one of the characters, who would
you prefer to be, and who would you most likely end up being?

I've given this some thought while sitting in traffic while they are
repairing the bridges, and decided that I would like to be Lacroix,
because _no one_ is going to cross him, and he pretty much does what
he wants to do.
However, I would probably end up being Screed. (Libratsie, please
don't take offense...I sort of liked Screed.) Sort of on the fringes
of everything, not really "good enough" to be accepted by the rest of
the society.

Now I shall slink back into lurkdom and hopefully obscurity.

--
Emily Lacey
laceye@a.......

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:26:43 -0700
From:    Kyer <kyer@p.......>
Subject: Re: Delurking...Who would you be?

Emily asked:
> If you had a chance to actually _be_ one of the characters, who would
> you prefer to be, and who would you most likely end up being?

Oh, man.  What an interesting question.  Why did you ask and, even more, why
the heck am I answering? <g>

Nicholas on both counts.
Because I love my family while also passively rebelling against their wishes
for me to act as they---ocassionally flaring into a temper over this
situation, but almost always in private.  And although I hope for a
resolution, I see none in the immediate future which causes a lot of
isolationistic angst.
I also suffer from a seperate problem that must be kept hidden:  another
source of angst.  Humor blunts some of it.  And yet I am drawn to that angst
like it is an old friend.  Or, perhaps it is simply known and comfortable
and I fear leaving it.
And I have this really big thing on justice and honor while being terrified
and confused by the nuances of personal interaction.

That's Nicholas, isn't it?  Milord and brother angster, holding up in--and
onto--the prisons of our own making.

: )=
Kyer
Who wannts to thank this list for simply *being* there and giving her a
'social' outlet that isn't too overwhelming.  You all are sanity savers!

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:48:03 EST
From:    Julia Kocich <JKocich@a.......>
Subject: Re: Fwd: LK ending

Portia wrote (and I'm trying to redact and remove the double
angle brackets):

>  I *never* thought of LaCroix going for a tan, so to speak!

I can say that, intellectually, I could have accepted it, but
I suspect my emotional reaction to seeing it would have
been different <g>. I'm sorry that I wasn't given the chance.

>  I believed that Nick and Nat were dead, and I had
>  to come up with ways to justify the ending that would allow
>  them both to maintain the dignity, affection and
>  respect I have for both characters.

Perhaps due to my misspent life in opera and ballet, I see
no contradiction between classical heroic quests and
star-crossed romances and the "dignity" of the characters
involved and the affection and respect they elicit from me.

> I also had to justify why LaCroix would have complied
> with Nick's request.

Um ... because Nicholas was that important to LaCroix,
and there might be more than one star-crossed romance
in FK <g>?

> I saw Nat taking a big gamble prompted by extreme
> sadness and frustration -- it seemed as though she
> had reached a point of "all or nothing," and the
> gamble didn't pay off in the manner that she hoped.

Well, I think that Nat was often used and misused for
plot purposes throughout the series (as were the male
characters, but somehow less obviously, to me, anyway).
But the combination of the arc of death that kills off
so many of the other characters and Janette's (highly
implausible) mortalization do set Nat onto that path.

> By allowing her to pass over into death, he was
> entrusting her and himself to the faith that there was
> something beyond, and that it would be worth
> that faith.

That's also the underlying assumption in star-crossed
romances and tragedies (which I think FK was, in part,
inherently). Those who don't find what they seek on this
world at least find peace in another. Or a tragic hero
meets and surmounts his ultimate challenge, and dies.
(Unless someone can rewrite FK so that Nick is Ulysses
and Nat a reincarnation of his Penelope, that's my view and
I'm sticking to it.)

<snip of good stuff>

I look at LK and what led up to it in light of the changes that
had been mandated to season three, and Parriott's emotional(?)
reaction to having his program, his characters, his dramatic
structure taken away from him in such a lurching way. I can
understand him chosing to poison the well, rather than have
a Very Brady Forever Knight pop up somewhere, sometime,
with a VH1 cast and soundtrack (no disrespect meant <g>).

> As for LaCroix -- I tried to picture it from his
> point of view and from what I imagined of his
> character.

Well <g> ... if there was a Ulysses-Penelope relationship
in FK (aside from Schanke-Nick and Nat-Screed), I guess
it would be the triangle of Nick, LC, and Janette. With Divia
finally gone, and Janette out of the original frame of
reference and relationship to LC, at least, that leaves Nick
as the most important person in LC's unlife.

> <various snips> If [Lacroix] did kill Nick, it had to be out
> of some prompting of love, and there had to be no
> other recourse -- he had to *know* that *nothing*
> else (for whatever reason) could be done.

I think love is certainly part of the mix. If his dispatching of
Nick were followed, as initially planned, by his own death,
it would have shown the depth of Nick's importance to LC,
that there was much more than a sadistic cat-and-mouse
game in that relationship. Again, I wonder how I would have
reacted to such an ending.

<snip of two nifty paragraphs with which I agree>

> Man, this is all making me sad -- and *very* behind
> in my work! <sad smile>

But but ... isn't one of the two things that something called
"art" is spozed to make us do it to laugh or to cry, or, at its
best, to do both?

(I'm not directing this directly to any single poster, but I feel,
reading some of these posts, that I'm the only person who
agrees with Hobbes (no, not THAT one) about life being
nasty, brutish, and short in a room full of folks who think
that life is just a bowl of cherry-flavored Prozac. Life is hard,
then you die is an underlying truth, even in the realm of FK
vampires as we were shown it. Recall that LC faced his eventual
assumed demise after the meteor with Roman (she's NOT gonna
say "sangfroid" about a vampire, is she?) stoicism, but face it he
did.)

What's wrong with being saddened by the loss of fictional
friends?

Best,
Julia
jkocich@a.......
UF list cobra
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.
It's the transition that's troublesome. --Isaac Asimov

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:03:10 -0500
From:    Portia <portia1@m.......>
Subject: Re: Fwd: LK ending

> Perhaps due to my misspent life in opera and ballet, I see
> no contradiction between classical heroic quests and
> star-crossed romances and the "dignity" of the characters
> involved and the affection and respect they elicit from me.

I suppose I felt the need to "justify" the means of Nick and Nat's death b/c
of the general outcries that it was out of character, that Nat and/or Nick
was selfish, that it was stupid, etc.  If you've read my other rambling
posts of this week, you'll note that I've made arguments for the "heroic"
nature of Nick's death.
>
> > I also had to justify why LaCroix would have complied
> > with Nick's request.
>
> Um ... because Nicholas was that important to LaCroix,
> and there might be more than one star-crossed romance
> in FK <g>?

Good dig for the UF, Jules! "g"  I believe, too. "g"  But why kill him, why
not make him wait until it blows over and so protect Nick from his
"temporary insanity"?  Having seen such questions, I again felt the need to
justify his reasons.

> That's also the underlying assumption in star-crossed
> romances and tragedies (which I think FK was, in part,
> inherently). Those who don't find what they seek on this
> world at least find peace in another. Or a tragic hero
> meets and surmounts his ultimate challenge, and dies.

Excellently well put!!

> a Very Brady Forever Knight pop up somewhere, sometime,
> with a VH1 cast and soundtrack (no disrespect meant <g>).

Now that is *truly* a scary thought!!! brrrrr!!!!  (Would LC have to adopt
the Mike Brady afro? LOL!)

> > Man, this is all making me sad -- and *very* behind
> > in my work! <sad smile>
>
> But but ... isn't one of the two things that something called
> "art" is spozed to make us do it to laugh or to cry, or, at its
> best, to do both?

Oh, yes -- I wasn't complaining, just commenting.  It makes me sad to think
of all of these wonderful characters passing away -- of the sun rising and
the curtain falling on all of their destinies and one of my favorite shows.
And I've never said I didn't appreciate LK -- again referenced in an earlier
post.  It definitely was chathartic, as opposed to how frustrated I would
have been if they'd left the show hanging!!

Portia, glad the list Cobra could come out an play!

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 2 Feb 2001 00:27:54 -0600
From:    Sami Swan Thompson <angels2@f.......>
Subject: Re: Who would YOU be?  The Wish vs. the Truth . . .

Emily Lacey wrote:
> If you had a chance to actually BE one of the characters, who would
> you prefer to be, and who would you most likely end up being?

   I'd prefer to be Jeanette, always elegant and in perfect control,
with all eternity to travel, experience, study, and savor life,
completely free of human rules and restraints.  I do want to live
forever, without pain and sickness and suffering - and without having
to wear a bra, because I'd wanna look like Jeanette, too!

   But I'd most likely end up being a hopeless crusader like Natalie,
working late every night, eating dinner from a vending machine,
putting my personal life on hold while struggling to solve forensic
puzzles, trying to find justice for victims that the rest of the
world had already started to forget.  Hopeless crusader + wonderful,
understanding cat + container of ice cream - it all adds up.

But I'd still rather live forever - how about as an eternal Room Mother?
"She was brought across in Grade One . . . sworn to P.T.A. by
summer's end . . . Band and Soccer Practice sent her to her
knees . . . but she rose again, becoming . . . the Tireless
. . . Forever . . . Mom . . ."

Hey, it could work.  If I weren't so sleepy, I'd work up a
"Forever Nun" paragraph.  Somebody else wanna do it?

Sami
angels2@f.......

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:18:47 -0600
From:    Sami Swan Thompson <angels2@f.......>
Subject: Re: GWD & Benny Hill - just a Welsh thing for FK

Casting T. F. Stone wrote:

> GWD looks a lot like Benny Hill.
> If they make a movie version of Hill's life, GWD ought to get the part
> (he'd have to gain weight).

Now, now, nothing to fear.  It's a regional thing.  Welsh men
are naughty; it makes them all the more adorable.  They can't
help it; it's genetic. They also have wonderful senses of humour,
tell grand stories, and make the best lovers in the world.

You all know the old saying:
"Lucky's the girl who snags herself a Welshman."
{Where did I hear that? Why, from my husband, Jim,
whose mother's family is Irish, & father's family is Welsh}.

Incidentally, while I'm blithering on, Nigel is English, not Welsh, right?
Keep in mind that I'm thoroughly medicated and shouldn't be operating any
machinery - or probably even be out of my cage - right now.

Now I'm having visions of LaCroix, dressed in a well-cut purple tutu,
storming through a Benny Hill sketch, roaring, "Nicholas!"  Ewww ...
this isn't gonna be pretty.  Cue the penguins!

Sami
angels2@f.......

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:29:06 +0200
From:    Lucia Nicolau <lnicolau@p.......>
Subject: LK ending

Lucie
delurking for a moment, happy to discuss some of the mindboggling LK issues

Wow,
I had no idea that Ger went out of his way *that* much to save some of the
ending. Way to go! (hopefully) and: naughty, naughty!   He did have quite an
attitude there, luckily for us.
> He was  planning to present JP with a fait accompli after it was too late
>to re-edit.....[...] JP put the cuts back. Ger took them out again. "<

regarding Julias very well put words:
>You re not the only one who agrees with Hobbes <
That s what is so good about the show: in this Hobbes'ian world,  Nick tries
to make a difference even though deep inside he knows that he is doomed.
That he finally makes the leap of faith, faith that he might be saved after
all is the cherry on the pie, his personal achievement in this quest.
Don t get me wrong, I want them *all* to live ! Just desperately trying to
explain everything so that I can sleep at night. And I m also an incurable
optimist, just going tru a Nick-Angst period.

Has anybody ever mentioned that somehow Nick is the Faustian type ? (No
idea, kind of a new lurker around here). Wanting mortality like Faust wanted
knowledge, meeting love -that ends tragically- on the way but because of his
love reaching redemption in the end ?
Well, Faustian in some few aspects not all... How about LC as Mephisto ?

Thinking of Nick as a tragic character I agree it would probably have fit to
have him try to atone after Nats death and do good deeds afterward, forever
wanderer lilke the eternal Jew, kind of like QL as someone said before. Not
*wanting* such an ending, mind you, just rambling.

> it would have shown the depth of Nick's importance to LC,
> that there was much more than a sadistic cat-and-mouse
> game in that relationship.

Having LC stake him puts a lot of faith in the old one, too. Nick is
actually asking of him that what he himself couldn t do with Janette. (am I
rehashing without knowing again).

So : Nat has faith that love conquers all (or in God, but still, faith),
Nick has faith in Nat, ultimately LC does (not real, not real!) stake Nick
and should be following him by going into the *sun*.
So where does that leave LC ? With faith as the ultimate solution to his
predicament?

I rather see LC as the one living forever to tell of the feats of the
wonderful knight (in tone with the shows intro: "he was brought across...")
as befits a tragic hero, secretly wishing he could have that faith. Darn it,
that was Greek culture with the blind man singing about the deeds of the
hero.Was that what JP had meant when he wanted LC to speak the last words as
the sun came up ?.

"A glooming peace this morning with it brings./The sun for sorrow will not
show its head./Go hence, to have more talk of these sad things" Shakespeare

Ultimately, whether LC would have acted out of despair, love, selfpunishment
or anything else (I admit, faith is kind of hard to believe) he would have
ended up as a follower of Nick and Nat ???!? Provoking here and runnning....

Lucie
whose collected ramblings went overboard with her
lnicolau@p.......

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 2 Feb 2001 07:43:35 EST
From:    Marel Darby <Frostsaint2@a.......>
Subject: Re: LK ending

>  <snip> Those who don't find what they seek on this
>  world at least find peace in another. Or a tragic hero
>  meets and surmounts his ultimate challenge, and dies.

This is what I find so difficult, in that (to me) he has not surmounted
his challenge, but dies after yet another failure. Especially since
his failure was occasioned by such a shabby weakness: his greed.
Even his affection for Natalie wasn't strong enough to prevent him from
taking too much blood. Unless you meant that his willingness to surrender
his life was the goal he achieved. But some classical philosophers seem
to have felt that to die under the pall of grief is too easy, and dishonours
the dead.

>  (Unless someone can rewrite FK so that Nick is Ulysses
>  and Nat a reincarnation of his Penelope, that's my view and
>  I'm sticking to it.)

Well, after his long travails  Ulysses was re-united with Penelope
in *this* world. Unfortunately, Nick's actions, in LK, seem closer to those
of that classical dunderhead, Orpheus, whose precipitousness was
responsible for Eurydice being stuck in the infernal regions.<g>

Although, come to think of it, Orpheus' prolonged grief so enraged
the Maenads that they tore him to pieces. If Lacroix had refrained
from killing Nick immediately, as he requested, a few months down
the line his progeny's guilty whinings about Nat might have finally
driven him to it. <g>

Marel

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:08:28 -0500
From:    Melinda Hughes <Melinda_Hughes@v.......>
Subject: Can someone help me out?

Hi all-
First off:  Anyone who sent e-mail my way within the last few days, please be
kind enough to re-send since my server went ka-put!  Many Thanks!

Second:  Can someone out there send me the digest for both 1/31 and 2/1 since my
computer still seems to be having fits?
Again- Many Thanks!

-Mindi
(Who really needs to just take a sledge hammer to her computer and solve all her
problems in one easy step! *G*)

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 2 Feb 2001 05:28:39 -0800
From:    Lisa McDavid <cecily1349@y.......>
Subject: George Kapelos

> He's John's brother. I seem to recall that he's not an
> actor but was given a cameo as the evidence tech whom
> Schanke upbraids, as an in-joke.
>
> The blooper reel which we steadfastly insist we do not
> have <g> shows the time John's mother came to visit
> the set without his knowledge. Someone put her up to
> walking into the scene John was doing. The results are
> hilarious.
>
> McLisa

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 2 Feb 2001 05:39:00 -0800
From:    Lisa McDavid <cecily1349@y.......>
Subject: Janette andLK

>What about Janette?  Was she "still out there" at the end of the original LK
>script?

I have never heard that Janette was mentioned in the
original script. I know she wasn't in the script
that was finally filmed.

So as far as canon goes, she might be still out
there.

McLisa


------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:54:54 -0500
From:    Brenda Bell <webwarren@e.......>
Subject: Re: LK ending

At 09:29 AM 2/2/2001 +0200, Lucie Nicolau wrote:

>Has anybody ever mentioned that somehow Nick is the Faustian type ? (No
>idea, kind of a new lurker around here). Wanting mortality like Faust wanted
>knowledge, meeting love -that ends tragically- on the way but because of his
>love reaching redemption in the end ?

Yes, but not in that matter. Nick made the Faustian deal almost 800 years
ago, to live forever. (Nick: "He offered me ten thousand lifetimes -- what
you  offer me?" Guide: "I offer you the choice." --Queen of Harps)

>Well, Faustian in some few aspects not all... How about LC as Mephisto ?

Definitely -- especially as regards his possessiveness of Nick.

>Thinking of Nick as a tragic character I agree it would probably have fit to
>have him try to atone after Nats death and do good deeds afterward, forever
>wanderer lilke the eternal Jew, kind of like QL as someone said before. Not
>*wanting* such an ending, mind you, just rambling.

In some ways, Nick's a bit of a Bunyan-style Pilgrim, using good deeds to
atone for his sins, and losing steps every time he falls back (kills,
drinks human blood, uses his vampire skills, etc.)

>So where does that leave LC ? With faith as the ultimate solution to his
>predicament?

With an honorable exit after having failed in his responsibility to protect
and preserve Nick [as a vampire]

Brenda F. Bell   webwarren@e.......   /nick TMana     IM: n2kye
Arctophile, computer addict, TREKker, stealth photographer...
         UA, PoCBS, FKPagan; Neon-Green GlowWorm
HugMistress of the Ger Bear Project https://members.tripod.com/~TMana/
Gerthering 3 Photos:  https://members.tripod.com/~TMana/gertherng/
Visit the Fiendish Glow at http://home.earthlink.net/~webwarren/glow/

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:46:20 -0500
From:    Portia 1 <portia1@m.......>
Subject: Re: LK ending

Forever Knight TV show <FORKNI-L@l.......> wrote:
> Even his affection for Natalie wasn't strong enough to prevent him from taking
too much blood. <<

Unless you perceive that it was his excessive passion, his extreme desire to be
joined with her, to *know* her, that prompted him to get carried away.  In that
case, his affection for her was *too* much.  I could suspect that that was why
before he never let the passion game go very far with her -- he knew he was
likely to kill her.  Why did he go for it this time?  Well, Nat, overwhelmed
herself, put him on the spot -- "do you really love me? prove it!" basically --
and it happened to coincide with a time when he was very vulnerable.  Once she
was on the brink of death or vampirism, I believe that he perceived he had a
committment to link his destiny with hers, either way.  And no way, in heaven or
hell, was it going to vampirism.  And I think we have to recognize that he
believed that he was choosing to have faith that he was not condemning them to
death, but to *true* eternal life.

Nicholas wasn't Orpheus, looing back into the depths of death and so condemning
his love to darkness, but a man (as I think he perceived it)looking into the
light of eternity, and gathering all of his courage (this creature of night) to
step into it with his beloved.

Portia

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 2 Feb 2001 10:22:10 EST
From:    Marel Darby <Frostsaint2@a.......>
Subject: Re: LK ending

In a message dated 02/02/01 04:49:17 GMT Standard Time, JKocich@a.......
writes:

>  <snip> I feel,reading some of these posts, that I'm the only person
>who agrees with Hobbes <snip>about life being nasty, brutish, and
>short in a room full of folks who think that life is just a bowl of
>cherry-flavored Prozac

I doubt that you are the only one who has some leanings
towards Hobbism. But I'm not sure how you are applying it to LK. To
me, Nick's death (too easy when in the throes of grief), is a cop-out
from this 'brutish' life, and it would've taken more guts to live. Especially
when death, in this episode, is getting such a very good write-up. (Death
is just a bowl of cherries?)

>Life is hard, then you die is an underlying truth, even in the realm
>of FKvampires as we were shown it. Recall that LC faced his eventual
>  assumed demise after the meteor with Roman <snip>stoicism,
>but face it he did.)

But isn't LK an episode about choices? LaCroix, who might well
have agreed with Hobbes' principles,<g> faced the prospect of his
extinction with dignity and fatalism since his death seemed inevitable.
Even then, he demonstrated an inclination to stick it out to the bitter
end and cling to life as long as he could, even after he acknowledged
he'd be grief-stricken at the loss of Nick and Janette.

Winston Churchill once gave a speech at an American institution
which consisted largely of the phrase:'Never give up' repeated over
and over. I always felt that this was LaCroix's mantra too.

Marel

------------------------------

End of FORKNI-L Digest - 1 Feb 2001 to 2 Feb 2001 - Special issue (#2001-37)
****************************************************************************