FKSPOILR
Logfile LOG9605 Part 2
May 1, 1996
File: "FKSPOILR LOG9605" Part 2
TOPICS:
SPOILER: Jane Doe (5)
SPOILERS: JD (cut line?)
SPOILERS: Jane Doe; Companionship (2)
SPOILER; Jane Doe; Companionship
Jane Doe Spoilers (2)
SPOILER: Jane Doe & LC's Buddy
SPOILERS: Jane Doe (ep 19) Take 2
SPOILER: Jane Doe, HF, FI
Jane Doe/Burning the Sketch
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 13:24:06 -0400
From: Dotti Rhodes <dottir@w.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe
At 07:26 AM 5/1/96 -0700, you wrote:
>
I'm gonna jump in here for a quickie...
>Oh, and do you think he would sit idly by if Nick were in real danger
>of dying?
>
No, I don't, not at all. Above all else, he loves Nick and with the
exception of threatening to kill him during BMV, I don't believe he'd allow
anything to happen to Nick.
>And you nicely avoided my question: what could LaCroix do, other than
>die, that would make you speak favorably of him? Inquiring minds want
>to know! :-)
>
Fortunately, I do talk favorably of LaCroix because I think he is a
remarkable and facinating (sp) character. I don't agree with some of his
methods as I don't agree with some of Nick's moves, however, I certainly
don't see him as pure evil, I did at first, but I don't believe that
anymore. If he were to release Nick from his bargain regarding loving a
mortal - that would be the best thing he could do for Nick, so Nick could
relax and be with Natalie openly, even if it can't go very far right now, as
it began in BMV. That would make me write a love poem about him!! :)
Dotti R
Knightie 4-Ever
dottir@w.......
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 13:34:47 -0400
From: Allison Percy <percy91@w.......>
Subject: SPOILERS: JD (cut line?)
Still recovering from the "Taming of the Shrew" weekend and trying to wade
through all the FKSPOILR digests...
Would someone please enlighten me as to what was the "cut line" everyone
is talking about? I must have missed it somewhere in the din of
discussion about this episode. You can e-mail me off-list.
FWIW, when *I* heard the "affiliations" line, I quite literally fell of
my chair and started rolling on the floor laughing my elbow off. And
there were witnesses present. Personally, I don't doubt that Mr. Bennett
knew exactly what he was saying and what it had to do with fandom. And
if I do manage to make it to Syndicon East, I hope one of us gets a
chance to ask him! :^)
Um, other than that, I guess the thing I liked best about this episode was
the fact that it brought up, but did not answer, a moral quandary -- is it
"right" to kill someone you know or believe is evil? I don't think anyone
has a sure answer to that one. Hence the huge pile of FKSPOILR digests in
my mailbox discussing this issue.
* Allison Percy, Petruchian (new affiliation!) percy91@w....... *
* Shrewthering info: http://assets.wharton.upenn.edu/~percy91/shrew.html *
* (The Shrewthering page now has copies of press coverage of "Taming"!) *
* "After all, when you're almost 2,000 years old, you're definitely *
* looking for something to relieve the ennui." Laurie C. Fenster *
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 13:34:48 -0400
From: Dotti Rhodes <dottir@w.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Jane Doe; Companionship
At 07:44 AM 5/1/96 -0700, you wrote:
>What it was in Nick that attracted LaCroix and made him decide to bring
>Nick across as an eternity-long companion?
>
Hmmm - At first I believed he was merely indulging Janette. In "Near Death"
while she's waiting for him to come back she's looking down at him like she
could devour him right there and says "Oh, I WANT him!!" so I'm assuming
that's probably what prompted it. Then I felt that once he had seen Nick,
saw what he was, that light that was in him - that not only would it be a
great coup to bring across a Crusader for God, but someone with some spirit
who might make the eternal trip interesting. And then he began to love him
as his son, his companion, his friend. And to have him turn against
everything they'd shared together, the gift he gave him, his affection for
him just blew him away. I actually feel for LaCroix quite often, and feel
for Nick as well in this situation because everyone makes fun of his
"brickishness" when it comes to opening up about his feelings for Nat, how
about for LaCroix? He knows deep down he can't discount the relationship
they had together before, the love he must feel - but he's caught between
what he feels is right and wrong and he is denying what he is but also what
he needs on one side, and trying to be regain what he isn't and still
denying what he needs on the other.
Oops - different tangent. Sorry. Anyway, that's why I think he brought him
across. :) Okay, I'm ready - rip me to shreds!! BWAHAHAHAH
Dotti R
Knightie 4-Ever
dottir@w.......
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 11:12:58 -0700
From: AKR <r@w.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER; Jane Doe; Companionship
On Wed, 1 May 1996, LC Fenster wrote:
> LC's musing in Jane Doe about why he would consider bringing someone
> across, and any answers might also refer to that episode -- which
> obviously makes it a spoiler question.
Indeed. We've gone the rounds with this question before, but here we are,
lucky enough to have something *new* to factor in. :)
The big trait I've always thought LC was searching for in Nick and Janette
was the essential adaptability that has allowed them to move through the
centuries psychologically intact. That is a trait LC wouldn't have found
in Hitler -- already too rigid. On the other hand, LC has brought across
many people without really adding them to his Family. Did he intend to
rank Hitler alongside Nick and Janette? Or was he just yanking Nick's
chain? If he did indeed intend to add Hitler to his entourage, as he
said, then he must have seen/felt something in him that matched his
requirements.
The possibility that it was the capacity for evil, as supported by what
Janette said to Nick the night he came across ("Now you know that the
Light will never satisfy you," etc, DBTLOTM) I will leave to others.
The possibility that interests me just now is one that came up in private
discussions with Sandra. As I've noted, JD gives us our first real
indication that the psychic empathy our vamps share can indeed extend to
humans. Sandra, who wants them to be *less* empathic than I've been
hypothesizing, put forth the idea that Hitler was simply a very good
"projector," and that they wouldn't be able to "read" most mortals. That
seems logical to me, and it bears on the "why'd LC pick Nick" question in
this way:
In QoH, especially without the magic music sound-effects, Nick
demonstrates an awareness of Gwyneth: some sort of psychic awareness.
Therefore, it may be assumed that Nick himself, as a mortal, had a notable
level of psychic potential. Perhaps *that* is a trait LC was looking for?
*** Amy, Lady of the Knight (AKR) r@w....... ***
"Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore,
So do our minutes hasten to their end" -- W. S. Sonnet 60
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 12:25:43 -0500
From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe
At 07:29 PM 4/30/96 -0700, Dianne Therese De Sha wrote:
>LC doesn't operate with "good" and "evil" as metaphysical concepts
>the way Nick does ... LC operates on a "good for me"/"not good for me"
>basis. Selfish? Yes. Self-centered? Oh, yes.
>"Evil"? I just don't think the word even works in this context.
There are an awful lot of people in the world who operate on a "good for me/"
"not good for me" basis. As a result, a lot of very bad things happen to
other people. Is all of this to be excused as simply selfish?
To me, LaCroix is evil for exactly that reason. LaCroix doesn't really
have to kill humans to survive. He kills for his own pleasure. That
pleasure takes away the lives of others, but he doesn't care.
Margie (treeleaf@i.......)
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 11:23:29 -0700
From: AKR <r@w.......>
Subject: Re: Jane Doe Spoilers
Celeste wrote:
> at all, until it was confirmed later on by Nick saying "If you'd done
> as I'd asked..." This exchange does not make Nick look good.
As this line was cut, I believe we may either include it in or
discard it from our interpretations at our discretion.
> When Mr. Serial Killer Author (Mr. S.K.A.) says to Captain Reese, "Well,
> they've teamed you up with an Aryan this time!" and Nick sort of looks around
> to see who the heck the guy's talking about. "Who? Moi? Aryan?"
Yes! I was wondering if anyone else saw that the way I did. It
was a perfectly lovely counter-manifestation of the Brick. I love it when
Nick's innocent. :) Like when he lost his memory and called her "Dr.
Lambert"... :)
> The fact that someone in props aged the paper the drawing Hitler did
> was on to a lovely brown. Someone was *thinking*!
Though I noticed and appreciated that the drawing was poor (Hitler
notoriously unable to get the proportions right on people) I did not
notice that the paper had been aged... though I suspect I would have
noticed and complained had it not been. How to convey applause to
whomever got that right?
> M+B+D+T+K
Celeste, Laurie, Jane.... and counting. <g>
*** Amy, Lady of the Knight (AKR) r@w....... ***
"Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore,
So do our minutes hasten to their end" -- W. S. Sonnet 60
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 15:15:23 -0400
From: Deborah Menikoff <menikoff@p.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Jane Doe; Companionship
LC Fenster asks:
> >What it was in Nick that attracted LaCroix and made him decide to bring
> >Nick across as an eternity-long companion?
the hair extensions? No? Oh all right...let's see - what called out to LC
and said "That one over there. Yes, bring him across."?
I don't believe that LC added to his "family" in order to simply indulging
Janette though I am sure that the fact that she is pleased at the choice
made the whole plan more easily accomplished. I think LC was looking
about for a son. What Roman worth his salt, didn't have a son after all :-)
But we end up in the same place - why Nick?
Ok, this is where the Deb-babble starts and I start assuming things:
So why Nick? Because he was a Crusader? Maybe, but there were tons of them
about at the time so why this one? Perhaps it needed to be a particular
kind of Crusader. One who is not necessarily there to serve God and who
isn't filled with an overwhemling religious purpose. Someone like that
might very well welcome a chance to "walk into the light" (Near Death)
Nick was there as a result of a punishment (QofH), not a deep desire to
serve God and country. And furthermore it was a punishment for a crime
he didn't commit so doubts about the fairness of the world and justice in
general were probably not unknown to Nick. So there you have Nick, young,
disillusioned. Willing to try different things - after all, he left home
to go and find adventure so he isn't timid or fearful. Timid and fearful
would be less than stellar qualities in a vampire.
Still, a young, brave slightly disillusioned Crusader couldn't have been
all that difficult to find. Perhaps it needed to be one with a darker side.
Not necessarily an obvious darker side (because after all, if you're LC
and you've seen all sorts of things in over a 1000 years you want
something to keep it interesting and where is the challenge in mentoring
someone all too ready to leap into fray.) Nick can be dark, the potential
must have been there at least enough for LC to see and to reach out to.
Nick has done some outstandingly awful things for what seemed to be the
fun of the thing - the kidnapping of the Dauphin (Blood Money) comes to
mind.
So that all is a long way of saying that I don't know why LC would pick
Nick becasue we didn't se very much of Nick in his pre-vamp days or here
LC explain what he looks for in a fledgling and that all I can do is
guess that Nick was in a state to be receptive to what LC had to offer
and LC saw that and played upon it.
____________ Deborah - first cousin once removed _____________
I know. You know I know. I know you know I know. We know Henry
knows and Henry knows we know it. We're a knowledgable family."
___________________ menikoff@p....... ____________________
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 14:46:16 -0600
From: Kathryn Johnston <johnstka@c.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe & LC's Buddy
Hello, all!
A friend of the family once worked as a psychologist for the State of
Ohio, at their hospital for the criminally insane. Her job was to
interview arrested people, and determine if they were competent to stand
trial. In her work, she interviewed murderers, rapists, and all sorts of
dangerous people--but she had no qualms about conducting the meetings behind
closed doors. But one day, they brought a man in for a misdemeanor who had
so much anger and hatred radiating from him, that she asked for an armed
guard the whole time. He was not "crazy" enough to be Baker Acted, and had
not committed a serious crime, so he had to be let go, despite her
certainty that this man would kill.
A few years later, this man, Thaddeus Lewingdon, was brought before
her again when he was arrested (and later convicted) for the serial murders
known as Ohio's 22 Caliber killings.
Our friend wondered if there had been anything that she could do to
have prevented these deaths, but in our society, you cannot lock or execute
people for crimes that they have not yet committed...
Nick probably feels tormented by the same thoughts, even though it
would have been wrong to kill Hitler before he had become--or even
planned--genocide and world war.
Kathryn
"Let the wild rumpus start!" Sendak, "Where the Wild Things Are"
Kathryn A. Johnston
Purdue University-Calumet
Hammond, IN 46323-2590
(219) 989-2679 FAX (219) 989-2070
johnston@c.......
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 15:51:05 -0400
From: Lisa Prince <Moonlight@g.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe
Howdy All :)
I wrote:
>>Here's a guy who kept women locked up in his dungeon while he
>>slowly killed them one sip at a time.
Sandra wrote:
>And LC kept a girl (in better circumstances maybe) that he was
>fattening on wine and honey.
Yes, BUT, who actually killed her? LC, think not. Nick did. And,
what was his excuse? "I was only trying to protect her." Good job
Nick, very effective. If she's dead, she's certainly safe from LC.
Too bad no one was around to keep her safe from you.
Also, LC wasn't keeping this girl in a dungeon or locked up. She
was in a very nice room with a gorgeous view, a nice comfy bed, and
seemed to have the ability to leave if she wanted to. She did open
the door to let LC in afterall. Certainly, beats being chained to
the wall with nothing to rest on but a bed of straw.
Sandra wrote:
>Would you have preferred that Nick go on nightly killing runs? Or
>would you have liked it better if Nick had been "nicer" to his
>victims like LC was with Miss Honey Veins?
Actually, all I'd like Nick to do is stop being so judgmental.
It's a particularly nasty character flaw. No one likes a
hypocrite, and, no matter how much anyone would like to argue to
the contrary, Nick is not exactly a Saint -- present day or past.
Take another look at the scene on the train. Here's a poor sick
gypsy and both LaCroix and Nick are looking down their elitist
little noses at him. It's not like they would catch whatever the
gypsy had. They were both being arrogant and unfeeling in that
scene. Oh, but maybe no one ever told Nick that humans are
supposed to have compassion for the sickly.
Also, when LaCroix does mention bringing Hitler across, Nick *does*
tell LC to kill Hitler instead. Does Nick make any attempts at
warning the Corporal like he did Miss Honey and Wine as you called
her? Why not, I might ask, not pretty enough? :)
Sandra:
>Mind you, I found that scene creepy. But Nick was trying to raise
>Andre in his own home. He was probably just trying to avoid any
>(or too much) public suspicions arising about him.
You can justify that scene!!!!! He had women locked up in his
basement! In chains! Unconscious because of loss of blood!
Killing them slowly! Besides that, if you're trying to keep a
secret from someone who lives with you, it makes much more sense to
keep that behavior outside the home.
Sandra:
>Besides, that was when Nick was under a century old, long before
>he decided that killing humans for food was wrong.
Oh, well, then it's okay for him to act like a cruel, inhuman
monster. How stupid of me.
Sandra:
>Perhaps. But suicide is the easy way out of problems. I admire
>Nick for trying to deal with his problems in a better way.
Right, by being a hypocrite. He's redemning himself from his
vampire sins by using his vampire powers. He wants to be mortal,
but he can't refrain from using his extra skills.
Me:
>>His attempts at a cure are half-hearted at best.
Sandra:
>I don't know if I agree with that. He doesn't have much patience
>with long, drawn out cure attempts, but he's shown no hesitation
>to try any number of different things.
Impatience -- another *little* character flaw :)
Sandra:
>Is there some unwritten rule that whatever cure he finds *has* to
>be long and/or difficult, with much sacrificing on his part?
Wait a minute, wait a minute. If he wants a cure, he should be
willing to stick with something long enough to find out whether or
not it could actually work. Do you take one dose of Nyquil, decide
that it tastes bad and give up on it? Or do you stick with it
because you know that it could help you get better? Besides that,
redemption involves self sacrifice. If he wants to be truly
redemned, he's going to have to give up an awful lot more than he
has so far -- the most important of which is his attitude and
self-pity.
Me:
>>He is more concerned with justifying his continued existence than
>>in redeeming himself for his sins, IMVHO.
Sandra:
>Well, everyone needs some purpose in life. :)
But, isn't his purpose in life supposed to be redemning himself? ;)
Sandra:
>At least Nick in his current job is doing some good for society.
>LC, otoh, may have upped the suicide rate in Toronto with his
>radio show. :)
Personally, I find his show quite soothing :) He makes his
listeners realize that they are not alone. Afterall, he is the
Nightcrawler, and, in his own way, he loves them all :)
Sandra:
>Nick's loaded enough to not have to work at all. He probably
>considers what he's doing as "penance" (since he was raised
>Catholic).
On that note: If he was in fact raised Catholic, he should know
that the only thing he needs to do to attain redemption is ask for
it. In order to do penance, one has to ask for forgiveness and be
willing to accept his/her behavior and forgive him/herself. The
worst of murderers can receive God's grace as long as they ask for
it at or before the time of their deaths. So, technically, all of
Nick's pretensions to salvation are pointless -- Get thee to a
priest.
Amy wrote about the concept of evil:
> Ah, the cultural relevancy argument. I don't agree with
>that, in a broad sense. Some things are simply wrong
By whose standards? Yours? According to certain cultures, cows
are sacred. We eat them quite freely. They would perceive us to
be doing wrong. Are we all evil then? No, if we view our behavior
through our own belief system.
Amy:
>However, while it is probably never useful to label a *person*
>evil, I am willing to label individual acts evil,
Again, evil, acts or people, is an individualized point of view.
What I perceive as evil, you may not perceive as evil. That is my
fundamental problem with the label. It is inadequate in expressing
the situation. Would you argue that all things you label evil are
evil in the exact same way? I doubt it. Evil is used as a
catch-all term for those things, people or acts, that we,
individually, view as wrong, bad, horrendous, unspeakable,
horrific, sinful, etc. etc. etc. I don't understand your
perception of evil, you don't understand mine, others don't
understand either or ours. It is an overused, useless term.
Amy:
>Because I believe in Good, I find myself compelled to believe in
>Evil.
Of course, polar opposition -- you can't have a belief or
understanding of one without the acknowledgement that the other
exists. However, the belief in the concept of evil is far
different from the label used to define something as evil.
Goodness, for that matter, is just as subjective.
Amy:
>I'm pretty sure LC doesn't agree with me. <g> But in the context
>of this belief system, which Nick shares, it is entirely
>consistent to consider LC as acting evilly a great deal of the
>time.
From Nick's and your point of view. Does LC consider his actions
evil? Or does he consider them to be jokes and punishments for
Nick? Was he paying lip service to bringing over Hitler simply to
get a rise out of Nick as some others on the list have suggested?
When reading Manning's book, LC seems to be rather disgusted. Is
that because of the poor writing or because of the content of the
book? Does LC view Manning's behavior as wrong? If so, wouldn't
he view others who enact what he perceives to be the same type of
behavior, including himself, as doing wrong? He doesn't appear to
view his own behavior as *evil* or wrong, so why do we label it
such?
Also, while these vampires may exist within the confines of human
society, they do not bind themselves to human mores -- both LaCroix
and Janette have expressed this idea. It would seem to me that
Nick's belief system is atypical -- perhaps caused by his quest to
regain his mortality/humanity.
You'll had enough yet :)
Mercenary Cousin Lisa
Dedicated to Truth, Justice and the Difference of Opinions :)
The Forgotten L
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 16:27:22 -0400
From: Deborah Menikoff <menikoff@p.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe
> At 07:29 PM 4/30/96 -0700, Dianne Therese De Sha wrote:
> >LC doesn't operate with "good" and "evil" as metaphysical concepts
> >the way Nick does ... LC operates on a "good for me"/"not good for me"
> >basis. Selfish? Yes. Self-centered? Oh, yes.
> >"Evil"? I just don't think the word even works in this context.
to which on Wed, 1 May 1996, Margie Hammet wrote:
> There are an awful lot of people in the world who operate on a "good for me/"
> "not good for me" basis. As a result, a lot of very bad things happen to
> other people. Is all of this to be excused as simply selfish?
Dianne was not looking to excuse it at all. She was, I believe and she
will correct me if I am wrong <vbg>, explaining why in her opinion the
word "selfish" was a more appropriate word to describe LC than "evil".
This is obviously not your opinion which, if I may infer from the
paragraph below, is that selfishness is evil.
> To me, LaCroix is evil for exactly that reason. LaCroix doesn't really
> have to kill humans to survive. He kills for his own pleasure. That
> pleasure takes away the lives of others, but he doesn't care.
To me that seems a fairly tame definition of evil but then, I have
frequently found definitions of "evil" as a concept wanting. To describe
it as "bad" or "selfish" or even as "something that brings sorrow
or distress" is oversimplification as I see it. Anyway, that's what I
think Dianne was trying to say. Dianne?
____________ Deborah - first cousin once removed _____________
I know. You know I know. I know you know I know. We know Henry
knows and Henry knows we know it. We're a knowledgable family."
___________________ menikoff@p....... ____________________
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 15:26:49 -0400
From: Phillip Anderson <panderson@c.......>
Subject: Re: Jane Doe Spoilers
I would like to propose an entirely different interpretation as to why LC
didn't kill Hitler. Granted for the moment that vampires develop
metaphysical powers slowly over the course of their extended lifetimes.
Granted that LC picked up disturbing "vibes" from Hitler, that were
either empathic in nature or merely based upon 2000 years of studying
body language, as well as having dealt with some of the worst humanity
had to offer. I would like to propose that perhaps, just perhaps, LC
(fangs extended, ready to chow down on Hitler) had his first experience
with yet *another* metaphysical ability.... perhaps he had a glimpse of
what the future held for Hitler (or Hitler for the future). If this were
the case, one could argue that LC was shaken, humbled, or just unsure as
to whether interfering, or not, would best serve his "purposes". I can
see this knowledge placing LC at extreme cross purposes with his self
image. He wouldn't want to do something that would benefit humanity as
this contrasts with his mental image of himself, but he wouldn't want to
be outdone in the "Biggest, baddest" (pick your own favorite term, if you
know LC you know what I mean) category either. Rather than defend this
idea any further (I suspect people will either love it or hate it), I'll
just ask that those with tapes play back the scene in question, and
consider if LC's reaction is not perfectly consistent with having
received a sudden, totally unexpected, image of what Hitler would do,
just before attacking him. He is then placed in the same position we
have been in for the past few days, with one further constraint. What if
you knew *exactly* what Hitler would do and had the power to stop him....
but had only seconds to decide what we have been arguing for days? Only
instead of having to decide which course of action is right and which is
wrong, LC had to decide which was most consistent with his self image, vs
his personal interests. And I don't think he knew what to do (for once).
Comments?
Oh, the monkey? No strong opinion on this one, but I was left with the
impression that even a "monster" can unthinkingly perform an act of
kindness, when it costs him nothing. Kinda profound, but not necessarily
what the writers intended.
And am I the only one that had trouble reconciling LC's raised eyebrows
over the pycho's poem, with the LC in TG that welcomed another mass
murderer back to a computer chat session? Something may be a bit
inconsistent here (or perhaps we have hit on another facet of LC's
personality.... he secretly writes poetry and hates competition :-) ).
--------------
FoolKiller
panderson@c.......
CSI
"Often what we term an angel is but a demon that chooses to stand between
us and our enemies." - Severian of Nexus
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 16:27:37 -0400
From: Phillip Anderson <panderson@c.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Jane Doe (ep 19) Take 2
Sandra Gray asks:
> Then why is testimony obtained by a "wire" admissable?
Ray responds:
> Usually (but not always), a court order and the consent of the person
>wearing the "wire" is required. In this case, however, Reese was in
>violation of a court order by being close enough to Manning to obtain hair
>samples.
The law holds that as long as *anyone* involved in a conversation wants
it taped, it is legal to do so. (Yes, that means you can legally tape a
phone conversation you have with anyone else, although some areas require
a tone be sounded about every 10 (?) seconds when doing so, to alert
savvy individuals and politicians :-) ) "Illegal wiretapping" would be
when an outside party taps into a conversation between two or more
individuals. A court order is required to make this legal, and hence
admissible. I assume something similar applies to "wearing a wire", as
it merely allows the wearer to confirm what he has heard. ( i.e. It is
passive, not intrusive.).
The deal with Reese is a bit different. Consider: the hair that Reese
obtained (illegally due to the restraining order) was *not* the
incriminating hair.... the hair under the corpse's fingernails *was* (and
it was obtained quite legally). A lot of places (and the US military)
rule that you cannot refuse to give DNA samples (hair, blood, whatever)
if asked to do so (granted, asking MR. S.K.A. wouldn't have been too
politic after he brought charges), much as is the case with fingerprints.
They want 'em, they take 'em. I think the justification is that giving
them cannot harm an innocent individual, but that depends on your
feelings about needles IMHO. Two US servicemen were just court-martialed
and kicked out for refusing to supply DNA samples (I don't know in what
form, but it wasn't even in the course of an investigation). Sucks IMHO,
but them's the breaks.
--------------
FoolKiller
panderson@c.......
CSI
"All that is necessary for stupidity to triumph is for intelligent people
to do nothing" - FoolKiller (paraphrasing wildly, and with great abandon)
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 14:32:59 -0700
From: AKR <r@w.......>
Subject: SPOILER: Jane Doe, HF, FI
On Wed, 1 May 1996, Lisa Prince wrote:
> Nick is not exactly a Saint -- present day or past.
Given, and gladly. But, in the present, 1992-1996, Nick is a good man. A
better one than he's ever been in the past. As Nat noted in HF, "he
always tries to do the right thing." Sometimes he fails. But he does
try. That's what I like about him. He has done some serious backsliding
this season, probably prompted by the memory loss followed by the demonic
possession, but JD is not an episode in which the present-day Nick does
anything to be ashamed of. Flashbacks usually turn on things he's done
wrong in the past. Isn't that natural? Don't all of us spend much more
time reliving the things we regret than what socks we've worn over the
years? :)
> Oh, but maybe no one ever told Nick that humans are
> supposed to have compassion for the sickly.
Fair enough. In that time period, Nick's innate arrogance,
long nurtured by LC, combined with his lack of patience to allow him to
be annoyed by a man with a constant cough.
But LC is the one who made him leave.
> You can justify that scene!!!!! He had women locked up in his
> basement! In chains! Unconscious because of loss of blood!
I assume you meant, "*can't* justify that scene."
You're right.
That is exactly why Nick remembered it, imo. When he looked up
into Andre's eyes, he suddenly became aware of the horror he was
perpetuating. His fantasy was shattered. He was made to see his own
depravity, and I think it was an important turning point in his
existence, one of those things which have slowly added up to make
*today's* Nick so different from *yesterday's*.
> On that note: If he was in fact raised Catholic, he should know
> that the only thing he needs to do to attain redemption is ask for
> it. In order to do penance, one has to ask for forgiveness and be
> willing to accept his/her behavior and forgive him/herself.
Well, yes and no, as I understand it. Yes, the willingness to
accept God's grace is exactly what Nick is lacking, and yes, it's all he
really needs. However, that is somewhat modern in application. Nick
would have been raised to believe that the penance is more important than
the reconciliation. That doesn't excuse him, but that seed must still be
there in his mind.
I wrote:
> > Some things are simply wrong.
Lisa wrote:
> By whose standards? Yours?
Lisa, you are the one who likes moral relativity, so, *yes.* :)
Please consider my premise. Nick (like me, and some other people)
believes in absolutes. People who believe in absolutes believe that, as
per the definition, absolutes apply to everyone, everywhere, everywhen.
Ok? It doesn't matter what a particular culture or individual believes,
or why they believe it, because, when you believe in absolutes, you
believe that beliefs may be Right or Wrong. You see? People may be
well-intentioned, and yet mistaken. They may be kind and good and holy,
and yet still be *wrong.*
I am not here attempting to argue the nature of absolutes, but merely that
it must be at least as valid to believe in them as not to. That is where
I'm coming from when I use the words good and evil, right and wrong. That
is where I believe Nick is coming from when he jumps to moral conclusions.
We share this insane view that objectivity is possible. :)
> LC doesn't appear to view his own behavior as *evil* or wrong, so why
> do we label it such?
Because it is. Certainly not all of his behavior, and most
probably not even a majority of his actions, but some. If he does not
consider those acts evil, then he is mistaken, as per the view discussed
above. :)
> It would seem to me that Nick's belief system is atypical -- perhaps
> caused by his quest to regain his mortality/humanity.
Of course. :) Nick's belief system is neither typical of vampires, nor of
the majority of this list! <g> And it has been shaped by his quest. But I
assert that most of the force runs the other way; Nick's quest has been
prompted and driven on by his belief system.
*** Amy, Lady of the Knight (AKR) r@w....... ***
Knightie, Light Cousin, Fleur-Booster, (Im)Mortal Beloved
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 17:48:46 -0400
From: Gehirn Karies <SoulDebris@a.......>
Subject: Re: Jane Doe/Burning the Sketch
Ray wrote::
> Nevertheless, I winced when LaCroix set the sketch aflame (why save
>something so carefully for 50 years and then destroy it on a whim?)
That's what a whim is for. So, why not?
To me it meant, "Well, I'll not think about that little run in anymore."
It was afterall, just a chance run in with a vile
and distasteful mortal. It was no big bloody deal, not at the time.
Art is in the eye of the beholder. It was better art to me, to watch it
burn, although I understand many peoples hesitancy to swallow it.
Art has gotten away from the people, become untouchable in many
ways. Artists books, installations and altered objects have been bringing
art back into the hands of the masses.
He was not desecrating someone elses property, or a piece of art that
would add beauty to this rotting planet. He burned a nasty little sketch,
and it was a pleasure for him, and for me.
You truly winced? I truly chuckled with glee. <wcg>
If anybody really wants to get into this off list, you know where to find me.
Brutal Cousin Karies, stumbling gleefully into @#$! LaCroissant
affiliation!
SoulDebris@a.......
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 15:32:42 -0700
From: LC Fenster <lucienlc@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe
Marge wrote:
>To me, LaCroix is evil for exactly that reason. LaCroix doesn't
>really have to kill humans to survive. He kills for his own pleasure.
Okay, I'm curious. Who has LC killed in this century for mere
"pleasure"? In fact, apart from killings to protect the vampires'
secret (Dark Knight, Stranger Than Fiction, e.g.) and the killing at
the end of Love You to Death (which I discount since it was really a
dramatic plot device -- a calling card for Nick -- that was never
followed up), whom has he killed in recent times? I'm not sure his
body count for this century is very different from Nick's.
Yes - we have the line about "being discreet" in one of the early third
season eps that I won't rewatch. But that could apply as easily to
*sipping* as to killing. Indeed, we have far more evidence against
killing. The point is made again and again that vampires do not kill
in the current epoch, at least not our friends in Toronto. LaCroix in
Dark Knight: "Who needs to kill?" Janette in several episodes -
"nobody would be that stupid" (as to kill randomly). I agree this is
the result of expedience as much as anything else, but the fact
remains.
As for the past - even Nick once killed for pleasure. Don't tell me he
wasn't having a grand old time in the larder in Fallen Idol.
>That pleasure takes away the lives of others, but he doesn't care.
But vampires are NOT human. They are a different species altogether,
Nick's pathetic attempts to prove otherwise notwithstanding. We humans
take the lives of cows, and sheep, and pigs, with nary a thought. We
don't angst over the feelings of our dinner. We're in no position to
be "holier than thou" and criticise a "higher" species for doing
precisely what we do, just because the shoe is on the other foot.
In addition to which, when LaCroix was brought across and options were
nonexistent, to have allowed himself to care about his "food source"
would have been suicidal. It was a self-protective mechanism to think
of humans as "cattle"; he could hardly have done otherwise without
quickly going insane or walking into the sun.
Just mnshco, as usual. <g>
Cousin LaurieCF
M+B+D+T+K
=========================================================================
Knight graphics and parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/
