Home Page How I Found Forever Knight Forkni-L Archives Main Page Forkni-L Earlier Years
My Forever Knight Fanfiction Links E-Mail Me


FORKNI-L Digest - 15 Aug 2002 to 16 Aug 2002 (#2002-243)

Fri, 16 Aug 2002

There are 12 messages totalling 341 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Who's to Blame in LYtD? (3)
  2. blood wine??? (5)
  3. FORKNI-L Digest - 12 Aug 2002 to 13 Aug 2002 (#2002-240)
  4. Forever Knight Musical
  5. Blood drinking
  6. Blood in the Stomach


Date:    Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:01:49 -0700
From:    Beverly Gordon <gordonb@r.......>
Subject: Who's to Blame in LYtD?

Well, here I am out of lurkdom as this question has gnawed at me (and not
merely as a result of my unabashed Cousinly perspective <bNAg>) from
previous viewings and was even further reinforced from last evening's
viewing yet again of LYtD.  Why does Nick and Janette and by extension,
presumably some of the fans, see Nick's taking and killing of Sylvaine as
being the result of LaCroix's "little joke"/deceit or, indeed, anything
that LaCroix has done when it is *entirely* the result of Nick's own actions?

In typical Nick fashion, he puts himself and everyone around him through
his "I'm so evil and repulsive" routine and comes to the also typical hasty
conclusion that Sylvaine is impure and thus, she should die simply because
she is foolish enough to love him since he knows as a certainty for himself
that no one who is pure could possibly love anything that is so evil and

"Don't. Don't love me. How can you? ... It's not possible, it isn't. ...
How can you be anything but repulsed by me?  Purity cannot tolerate evil.
How can it love evil?  Unless, it isn't purity.  Then, I will take you."

Yeah, I know the story that LaCroix had arranged to have the two men
(possibly vampires) exiting from her room in order for Nick to see them and
to thus, make the inference that she was a whore.  I have this vague
recollection that there is a scene in the Canadian version that was edited
out that makes this scenario more apparent and you can actually see the
bearded man standing to the side of LaCroix (especially in freeze frame)
when Nick turns on him and he says "We wanted to bring you back." just as
the flashback is cut to.

But, nonetheless, the issue of whether she was or wasn't a whore had
*absolutely* nothing to do with Nick's decision that Sylvaine was impure
and thus, she should die.

Agree or disagree?  Discuss.



Date:    Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:17:21 -0400
From:    Portia Eins <portia1@m.......>
Subject: Re: Who's to Blame in LYtD?

I think Nick's very well aware that he is the one who is responsible for
Sylvaine's death -- what he may blame LaCroix for is twisting the facts,
goading him into hasty and violent action, and mocking his conflicted state.
Once again, LaCroix has proved that Nick can not trust him with his feelings,
his inner most self, so to say. At least, that is my off the cuff



Date:    Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:23:12 -0700
From:    Victor Roscetti <dragonslair_08060@y.......>
Subject: Re: blood wine???

Another point that should be made here, Vampires do
not have a heartbeat, so logically their blood doesn't
circulate through their bodies (they have no pulse). I
think that they digest blood just as we would food but
some how it goes directly into their blood stream
through the stomach (same as us). And somehow their
body movement and intake of new blood makes it
circulate throughout their blood stream, which is just
a very slow river compared to humans.

    Also I love the "Paint thickener" line that Nick
uses on Schanke, explaining the bottles of blood in
his fridge! Has anyone ever researched if that really
was a practice at some point in time, or was it just
invented for the show?

             Vic Roscetti


Date:    Thu, 15 Aug 2002 18:54:43 -0700
From:    Nathalie <kleinemaus@c.......>
Subject: Re: Who's to Blame in LYtD?

I think Nick takes the responsibility for killing Sylvaine. He knows he
killed her, it's another source of guilt for him. I just don't see how blame
could fall on LaCroix for anything other than a little nudging. One thing
that has always bothered me about this episode is that Nick just doesn't
seem to be *himself* in a way. He makes a very hasty decision in killing
Sylvaine, and I have never really felt that LaCroix was just being *bad* in
this episode. He nudges him, but I've always felt that Nick had the choice
of talking over what he just saw with her. In fact, I think we've seen that
in other episodes. Or maybe I'm just imagining things.

As for whether she was or wasn't a whore having something to do with Nick's
decision . . . I think when he looked at Sylvaine he felt he was looking at
everything he wasn't. He felt she was pure and beautiful, and that was the
image of her that he created. To have that image shatter was just
heartbreaking for him, and to have it be her who was shattering it . . . he
feels disappointed and betrayed and very angry. This idea of her being a
whore marred the very image of purity and virtue he saw her as. His rage
took over, and he basically said to himself, well, if she's not what I want
her to be, if she's not what she seems to be, then what am I saving her for?
Might as well take her. He wants to anyways.

He's not really saying, well, you're impure, and for that you should die. He
wants to consume her, she seems to no longer be the paragon of purity he
thought she was, so he simply does what he wanted to anyways.

The thing is that he finds out that LaCroix had arranged those two men to
come out of her room. And there I think we have some displaced anger. He's
angry at himself, but LaCroix nudged him, so naturally, he gets some of the
blame too. After all, you can't say LaCroix is blameless -- is he ever
blameless -- but I don't think there can be so *much* blame placed on him.

Anyways, that's my $.50. I know I've been rambling terribly, so I hope this
is understandable. Have a good day, ya'll!



Date:    Thu, 15 Aug 2002 23:30:16 EDT
From:    DanaKnight@a.......
Subject: Re: FORKNI-L Digest - 12 Aug 2002 to 13 Aug 2002 (#2002-240)

In a message dated 8/13/02 5:00:49 PM, LISTSERV@l....... writes:

<< Subject: off button

> I think I should shut off my brain but I can't
> find the button. I am soooo warped.    :)

My brain does that too - But brains do that >>

Especially when they're feeling neglected. Imaginations like regular work
outs or they get cranky and even more overactive, and can get nasty too.



Date:    Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:02:05 -0400
From:    Brenda Bell <webwarren@e.......>
Subject: Re: Forever Knight Musical

At 10:28 PM 8/12/2002 -0500, you wrote:

>Hmmm,  someone who can do filk could probably do a version of "Show Me,"
>for Nat to sing to Nick.  (i.e. - Quit telling me you don't want to be a
>vampire; show me!)

Not familiar with that one, *but* the concept of "show me" reminds me of
something from "Annie Get Your Gun"... with a twist. Consider Lacroix or
Janette singing to Nick:

"Anything mortals do, vamps can do better
Vampires do everything better than men."

"No they don't"
"Yes they do"
"No they don't"
"Yes they do"
"No they don't"
"Yes they do -- so do you!"

Brenda Faith Bell       webwarren@e.......
Consultant, The Web Warren      http://www.webwarren.com/



Date:    Thu, 15 Aug 2002 21:02:32 -0700
From:    Beverly Collins-LaCroix <beverlylacroix@w.......>
Subject: Blood drinking

<<But Nick drinks it through his mouth
which means it goes into his stomch
Blood dosen't do much good in the stomch you can't burn it for energy>>

He probably sucks it through the fangs so it digests, and he can use it
for his needs.

Maybe because he doesn't have to bite, the fangs don't need to descend.



Date:    Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:16:32 -0400
From:    allison <smilewithviolets@n.......>
Subject: Blood in the Stomach

i may be totally wrong, English major here... but, i seem to remember
learning long ago that blood was not digested in the stomach, in regards to
humans, but just absorbed into the stomach lining.  This might be more
plausible concerning vampires too - considering digestion would
hypothetically create waste... and i don't really want to think about the
rest of that statement and what the waste of a few pints of blood might look
And i'm not sure if it was a question or just part of a statement, but a
bite to jugular vein would keep the blood pumping into the vampire's mouth
until the heart stopped beating.  As with any large veins.

Here's a bit of thought sparking for everyone.  As the traditional vampire's
fangs are located, the canine teeth (Nick and Co.) they would not be able to
bite the way they do.  The teeth would cause more of a tearing effect than
two puncture marks.  In order to get the puncture marks they would have to
have a jaw that would dislocate like a snake's in order to have a large
enough bite reach, i guess you could call it.  Much more effective would be
the Nosferatu like fangs, with the front to teeth being the fangs.  But
this, IMNSHO, doesn't create as alluring a smile.

Cousin extraordinaire dwelling in a UF universe


Date:    Fri, 16 Aug 2002 06:48:20 -0700
From:    Laudon1965 <Laudon1965@c.......>
Subject: Re: blood wine???

 From: "DPHEIL" <dpheil@a.......>

> But Nick drinks it through his mouth
> which means it goes into his stomch
> Blood dosen't do much good in the stomch
> you can't burn it for energy

Maybe *we* can't, but I would assume that there's
a physical transformation involved in becoming a
vampire, something that changes what the system is
geared to process.  And when they bite and drink
"straight from the source", where does it go but to their

Laurie of the Isles
"You know I love my family, but there is no reason why
I should have to acknowledge them in broad daylight."
Hyacinth "Keeping Up Appearances"


Date:    Fri, 16 Aug 2002 06:57:58 -0700
From:    Emily <emilymhanson@y.......>
Subject: Re: blood wine???

Well, mosquitos ingest blood into their stomachs.  Why couldn't vampires do the
FK vampires are also fictional, so I'm sure there is a bit of literary license

Emily M. Hanson
Homepage - http://www.starbase-eprime.us
My Web Graphics - http://www.galaxyofimages.us


Date:    Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:04:51 -0400
From:    Lisa McDavid <mclisa@m.......>
Subject: Re: blood wine???

On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:23:12 -0700 Victor Roscetti
<dragonslair_08060@y.......> wrote:

> Another point that should be made here,
> Vampires do  not have a heartbeat,

Actually, FK vampires do have one heartbeat about every ten minutes. This was
established when Nick brought Nat's brother across. The monitor flatlined and
Nat said, "My God, you've killed him!" Just then the monitor showed a beat.
Nick told her, "he'll have one of those every ten minutes or so." With human
physiology, this should be impossible, but but FK vampires apparently have a
whole 'nother system. :)

BTW, James Parriott once said the fangs were hollow and could be used both for
drinking and for injecting the vampire's blood, thus accounting for the
accidental bringing-across. You could extend this to imply that the blood FK
vampires consume goes directly to their veins. OTOH, they _do_ have blood of
their own. Those two lines in the Emily Weiss episode that say they don't were
admitted almost at once as being a mistake and were reported to be on the FK
Wall of Shame, along with "You still owe me for the Battle of Hastings."



Date:    Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:36:47 -0400
From:    Libratsie@a.......
Subject: Re: blood wine???

In a message dated Fri, 16 Aug 2002 11:04:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,
mclisa@m....... writes:

> BTW, James Parriott once said the fangs were hollow and could be used both for
> drinking and for injecting the vampire's blood, thus accounting for the
> accidental bringing-across.

So, in other words, "pre-mature a'vampy makin'" in Screedspeak.



End of FORKNI-L Digest - 15 Aug 2002 to 16 Aug 2002 (#2002-243)

Previous digest Back to August's list Next digest

Parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/