FKSPOILR
Logfile LOG9605 Part 4
May 2, 1996
File: "FKSPOILR LOG9605" Part 4
TOPICS:
Jane Doe/Uniquely Evil Geniuses
LC, Nietzsche, and evil.... (2)
Apology to Apache
SPOILER: Jane Doe (3)
Spoiler: Jane Doe (2)
SPOILER: JD, HF, Body Count (2)
Jane Doe Spoilers (4)
Predators; species (2)
SPOILER: Jane Doe (off top.)
SPOILER: JD, HF, Bod
Vampires killing
SPOILERS: JD & evil (2)
LC, Nietzsche, & evil
Spoiler: JD, Nick-ping/LC-pong
Spoiler: Jane Doe, Struggle
Spoiler: Jane Doe, Flowers
SPOILER: Jane Doe, HF, FI
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 01:44:58 -0400
From: Apache <lf@c.......>
Subject: Re: Jane Doe/Uniquely Evil Geniuses
On Wed, 1 May 1996, Karen Kasting wrote:
> I believe that it is an error to think
> of Hitler as a unique monster. His ideas were not his own alone; some had
> been around for a while.
>
> Hitler was carefully groomed by others. The clothes, the speeches, the Nazi
> regalia, the carefully staged presentations--did not erupt from Hitler's
> unaided brain. He had help. He was perhaps the first media-oriented
> politician with his "Wings over Germany" campaign designed to make him look
> modern and forward-looking.
>
> What Hitler did have going for him was his speaking ability.
I find this post fascinating. Fill in the names Jack Kennedy or
Ronald Reagan and you have wholly appropriate descriptions of political
leaders who fortunately did not harbor genocidal manias.
Ap.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 00:44:16 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: LC, Nietzsche, and evil....
Laurie writes:
>The murder of a Nazi might be viewed as murder by the Nazis, but as
>an honorable, justifiable act by the Allies or the Resistance.
I wasn't talking about wartime killings. I was just talking about
murder in general in normal everyday society.
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 00:59:20 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Apology to Apache
I did not mean to term *you* twisted, Apache. I'm sorry and I hope
you will accept my apology. I just thought the idea you came up
with based on the cut line was twisted.
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 02:24:24 -0400
From: Apache <lf@c.......>
Subject: Re: LC, Nietzsche, and evil....
On Wed, 1 May 1996, Michelle Mark wrote:
> 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
> There is no one truth but many truths,
> and no system of belief is neccessarily better than another.
> Morality, good.. evil...all of it is arbitrary.
I've reached the point in life where I am willing to say that
barbecuing live children is wrong in all places at all times,
and that I would uniformly make an effort to stop it. After that, of
course, it gets murkier.
> I think if you look at LC from an existentialist point of view, you
> will see that he is not, and cannot be evil. He simply has his own moral
> code which may be different from others, but is nonetheless, what he wills
> for himself, and what he is ultimately responsible for.
If he "cannot" be evil, the word 'altruistic' wouldn't really
have much meaning for him, would it?
Actually, one of the things I enjoy most about Lacroix is that he
is *constantly* thinking about issues like this, and I don't ever feel
persuaded that I've heard his final answer. That wry joke about his
altruistic streak, and how he hopes it will pass... is in fact one of
those 'tell the truth with a smile' jokes -- (from a Latin poet, in fact,
Horace -- ridente dicere verum, or something like that).
I would never put it past Lacroix to do good. I think he would
be chagrined if he couldn't find a self-serving, or even rather "cruel,"
pretext for doing it, but then again... he just might be caught out in
the open. For God's sake don't write back about how he does lots and
lots of evil. Granted -- whatever evil is.
Which of course is where we started. (Can you tell I've only had
10 hours sleep in the last 3 days?)
Cheers,
Ap.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 00:16:01 -0700
From: Dianne Therese De Sha <maeve@g.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe
Deb writes:
> 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?
Well, since you asked... yes, Deb clarified just what I meant (thank
you, Deb... check's in the mail! ;-)
Lisa wrote:
> Why can't we forgive LaCroix? Because he's not torturing himself?
and AKR wrote:
> Exactly. <g> I'll forgive LC everything he's done the moment he feels
> bad about it. :) He needn't actually go so far as to seek mortality, or
Oh no... <shudder> ... what a horrible thought! That's actually one of
the things that bugs me *so* about Nick-- he feels *so* bad... yet he
keeps slipping. IMNSO he gets more satisfaction from beating himself
up than from actually behaving in the first place. Given some of the
stuff he's done, the browbeating-and-hairshirt approach generally just
p*sses me off. A favorite quote from Dead Again: "Decide what you are
and then *be* that." Nicky-boy can't make up his mind... or rather, I
tend to think he's made up his mind to be a waffling, self-torturing,
"trying-to-be-mortal" _vampire_ and, in his own "twisted" <g> little
way, is quite happy where he is.
(This is all, of course, my NSHO... without doubt linked to my own
personal experiences and baggage... and the basic reason that, whatever
faction I may ever waffle toward, I will *never* in my heart be a
Knightie...
...although many of my best (misguided) friends are, and-- as long as
they pay well and promptly... <vwg>)
<Nick-bashing tirade over... <sigh> what I wouldn't give to thwup that
boy upside the head now and then...>
Celeste writes:
>Gozer the Gammy-legged Cat & Mad Max have brought home several dead/
>almost dead/not very enthusiastic birds a piece already this spring.
>They do not eat them, but have a great time playing with them.
(well, at least my two have decided upon Q-tips as their prey of
choice... <sigh>
...oh no! Drat! Deb, Celeste, et al.... I didn't mean that like
_that_.... oh, shoot... and Cousins _pay_ so darn well too... <g>)
Sandra writes:
> and snakes as "gifts" (she laid them in front of the door). Pets are
> fed by their owners so maybe don't feel much need to eat what they
> catch. For a wild animal, what they catch *is* their food. I suppose
Whoa... did that bit of logic make Gozer *"evil"* because he hunts for
sport not food? Hold on a minute, you can call me six kinds of demon
from hell, Sandra, but thou shalt *not* call the gimpy FK-charity cat
"evil"! You take that back now! <frowns sternly>
<***HUMOR ALERT*** For the humor-impaired amongst us, please be aware
that the above paragraph is a *joke*! (well the part about Sandra
intending it that way is, not the part about defending Gozer ;-)>
Dianne
(back on-line after taking the holiday off... and probably partying too
hard if this post is any indication <g> *Happy (belated) Beltane all!* ;-)
Dianne la Mercenaire... -*- <cat.goddess@p.......>
-*-"We must be powerful, beautiful, and without regret."-*-
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 07:53:58 EDT
From: Lisa McDavid <D020214@u.......>
Subject: Spoiler: Jane Doe
Yes, Nick does fly inside, but we don't see it often. In the missing scenes
from the first season Canadian episodes, we see him a couple of times
brooding in an upper window of his loft. The only way he could have gotten
there is to fly.
I thought that line about "my battle" was really cheesy. In the first
place, "my struggle" is a better English equivalent. In the second place,
Hitler didn't get mixed up with radical reactionaries until after his
return from the war, so it's unlikely he was thinking that way at this
time.
Cousin Lisa -- "That will be trouble."
Lisa McDavid
mcdavid-lisa@s.......
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 05:58:12 -0700
From: LC Fenster <lucienlc@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: JD, HF, Body Count
Sandra wrote:
>Laurie Fenster writes:
>>And he killed the guard in DK to protect the vampires' secrets.
>
>What vampire secrets? LC was in the museum to steal a Mayan cup.
Yes, but HOW he got in, and how he would have gotten away might have
compromised the vampires' secrets. (Can't you just imagine the guard:
"The guy just flew out of here!" <g>)
>For all the guard knew, LC could have just been a common theif.
Right - until he flew out of there <g>. And remember Nick talking
about how there *really* was no other way in except the skylight?
>And really, for an intelligent guy, I thought he really bungled
>things.
I wholeheartedly agree. Well, not bungled, but it was extremely lazy
of him.
>With his vampire hearing, he could have waited until the guard was
>out of range before breaking the case and setting off the alarm.
Yes, but LC has never been one to wait patiently when mere mortals
interfere with his purposes. If the guard hadn't been in the room at
the time, I'm sure LC would have ignored him; since he wasn't, he had
lunch.
And are we sure that the guard wasn't a special guard on duty to watch
that special exhibit? If that's so, then he would have been in that
room all the time, and it would not have been possible for LC to wait
for him to leave.
>Instead he waits and watches until the guy is in sight of him and
>*then* breaks the case.
Well, we don't know that. For all we know, he could have waited
five-ten-fifteen minutes, seen the guy was still there, and said
"That's it. You're lunch."
>Or, for that matter, why not have snuck up on the guard and knocked
>him out? Or even try to hypnotise him when he'd been seen? Or
>*fly* away at great vampire speed so the guy would have seen nothing
>or at most an unidentifiable blur?
I think the last would have been far too dangerous for the vampires'
secrecy, but knocking him out and/or hypnosis were certainly reasonable
alternatives. However, have we EVER seen LC knock someone out? And he
doesn't seem as convinced of the efficacy of hypnosis as his son.
>Nope, just plain sloppy. I think LC just wanted to kill the guy.
It is, of course, also possible that LC killed the guy as part of his
control thing with Nicholas. He wanted Nicholas to know that he (LC)
had the cup, and when Nick saw the evidence at the Mususem, he would
immediately know LC was responsible for what had happened. (Of course,
this also led Nick to assume that LC was responsible for the three
other killings, which he was not.)
Cousin LaurieCF
M+B+D+T+K
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 09:16:46 -0600
From: Deb Rowland <drowland@a.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe
I hate to interrupt the Nick is responsible for WWII, the Black Plague,
Vietnam, Watergate, et al orgy that is going on but if I might return to a
question we were addressing a few days ago... Re: Nick and LaCroix on the
train. Someone ( sorry, my disk space is very limited) thought they were on
the train because it's never been established that vampires can fly long
distances. I think it has been established at least inferentially. Remember
in Black Buddah? Nick was on the Titanic when it went down. I really doubt
we was ready to risk sitting in a lifeboat waiting for rescue that could be
days away if ever. I'm sorry I don't remember just how far out the ship was
when it went down but it was definitely not close to shore.
Deb Knightie with strong Cousinly urges
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 10:27:03 -0500
From: Stephanie Babbitt <stephanie.babbitt@g.......>
Subject: Re: Jane Doe Spoilers
FoolKiller wrote:
>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.
Another possible take on the monkey: It seems to me that Hitler hands the
monkey back to the woman with disdain. Is she supposed to be a gypsy? If
so, given Hitler's determination to build an Aryan "master race," maybe the
monkey symbolizes Hitler's belief that gypsies and other "non-Aryans" are
among the lower, less-evolved, more monkey-like examples of the genus.
Or maybe I'm just seeing symbolism where none is intended. <g>
Stephanie Babbitt
Vaquera anxiously awaiting this week's ep...
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 09:20:24 -0500
From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe
Deborah Menikoff wrote:
>Dianne was not looking to excuse it at all. She was ... explaining why ...
>the word "selfish" was a more appropriate word to describe LC than "evil".
>This is obviously not your opinion which, if I may infer ...
>is that selfishness is evil.
I'm not saying that selfishness in and of itself is necessarily evil. It
depends on the results of the selfishness. In LaCroix's case, the result
is that peoples get killed. He kills them. The killing is evil. Just
because LaCroix is selfish doesn't make the killing not evil.
Margie (treeleaf@i.......)
N&NPacker
The Unnamed Faction
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 09:45:21 -0400
From: Phillip Anderson <panderson@c.......>
Subject: Re: Jane Doe Spoilers
Stephanie Babbitt wrote:
>Another possible take on the monkey: It seems to me that Hitler hands the
>monkey back to the woman with disdain. Is she supposed to be a gypsy? If
>so, given Hitler's determination to build an Aryan "master race," maybe the
>monkey symbolizes Hitler's belief that gypsies and other "non-Aryans" are
>among the lower, less-evolved, more monkey-like examples of the genus.
>Or maybe I'm just seeing symbolism where none is intended. <g>
I didn't notice the disdain, I seem to recall indifference ( I would
think disdain would have been shown by stepping on the toy and walking
on, ignoring the lady).... but I concede the possibility and will review
the tape. Stephanie may be exactly right; however, I keyed on the act of
picking up and returning the toy, not the toy itself. I assumed we were
being shown that it was a toy, not that it was a monkey, and that it was
a monkey by chance, in that the props people probably didn't have access
to too many toys consistent with the period that would survive being
dropped and retrieved. But as previously stated, I have no strong
conviction on this... Stephanie may be perfectly correct. Script,
anyone?
--------------
FoolKiller
panderson@c.......
CSI
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 09:44:01 -0500
From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject: Re: Jane Doe Spoilers
Phillip Anderson wrote:
>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
It is a bit inconsistent, but I think the inconsistency is on LaCroix's
part, not on the writer's part. (Who says people, or vampires, are
necessarily consistent?) The evil of Jordan Manning or Hitler is so
great that even LaCroix is repelled by it. And, I think LaCroix finds it
disturbing that he is repelled by it. After all, as far as LaCroix is
concerned, he is not supposed to care. But I think he does.
Margie (treeleaf@i.......)
N&NPacker
The Unnamed Faction
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 11:18:54 -0400
From: "Margaret L. Carter" <MLCVamp@a.......>
Subject: Re: Predators; species
Are vampires (the FK type, trad. Undead) "a different species"? Not IMHO -- I
hold with those who emphasize the previous humanity of the vampire. A
vampire is a transformed human being, retaining the memories of his/her human
lifetime, and presumably retaining free will and the power of moral choice
(vampires who are completely demonized, instantly transmuted upon "death"
into mindless feeding machines, as poor Lucy is assumed to be in Stoker's
novel, don't interest me at all). Therefore I believe it is right for a
vampire to recognize his connection with humanity and come to terms with it,
even if he doesn't choose to do "good" as I see it.
I love stories about vampires who truly are "a different species," naturally
evolved -- THE VAMPIRE TAPESTRY, FEVRE DREAM, etc. That scenario brings up
the whole set of ethical questions that have been proposed. Dr. Weyland in
VT has quite a lot to say about his attitude toward his "livestock" (us).
Nevertheless, in the end, quite against his own wishes, he grows to care
about some people, because the inevitable consequence of play-acting humanity
so convincingly is that he takes on some characteristics of what he pretends
to be.
True, predators in the wild probably kill only for survival. Also true that
well-fed domestic predators hunt for fun, exercise, etc. From what I've read
about cats, though, I think calling them "cruel" is unwarranted
anthropomorphizing. They don't "play with" the half-dead mouse out of
cruelty in the human sense. Their perceptions, I understand, don't respond
efficiently to motionless objects. When the mouse stops moving, they think
it's dead, so they lose interest. When it starts wiggling again, the cat
realizes her mistake and whaps it with a paw to keep it from escaping.
There's a lovely scene in VT where Weyland chases down a deer, although he
has long since (maybe millennia ago) lost the ability to digest animal blood.
In the excitement of the chase he isn't thinking rationally. At the last
moment, when he's about to bite the deer, he abruptly "remembers" that it
would make him sick, so he lets it go (unharmed, apparently). He chastises
himself for "wasting food" by squandering energy in a useless chase, but then
he rationalizes that "strength is meant to be used....speed is meant to be
used." In other words, predators need to exercise their skills.
Absolute evil and good? Mustn't get into that! My short answer would be
that I do believe in absolute values, but that the vast majority of moral
questions human beings get hung up on fall into the relative, not absolute,
category. Read THE ABOLITION OF MAN, by C. S. Lewis, and then talk about it.
What would a truly "different" moral system (as opposed to disagreements
about one wife vs. four or what groups of people are to be included as one's
"neighbors") look like? It would be simply unrecognizable as human.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 11:36:02 -0400
From: Nancy Fralic <fralic@m.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe (off top.)
This is actually not a spoiler and off topic but...
On Thu, 2 May 1996, Deb Rowland wrote:
> Remember in Black Buddah? Nick was on the Titanic when it went down.
I just remembered that I had seen a Highlander recently where Tessa kids
Duncan about last needing to get his tuxedo cleaned after the Titanic
disaster (or words to that effect.) Does this mean they were both on the
Titanic? As young, eligible wealthy men they would have had to have met,
at least over the gaming tables - has this been addressed in fanfic?
Nancy Fralic
fralic@m.......
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 17:38:50 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <tmar@o.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: JD, HF, Bod
Amy wrote:
Ra> Just curious, but would the Cousins and Dark Knighties and such really
Ra> think that Nick had reached a mature epiphany if he quit his job, made
Ra> up with LC, and went back to feeding on human blood?
Yes. :)
Oh, I should elaborate? It's just what I've said all along: Nick needs to
accept himself for what he is. And he's, well, a vampire. Drinking cow blood
really doesn't seem to do much for him; I suspect if he went back to
drinking human blood he'd be in a better mood. I mean, it isn't like he has
to go around killing people for it.
(I am suddenly imagining this scene: Natalie being quizzed by her boss.
"Natalie, how many bags of blood did you say you misplaces this month?" :)
- Marina. (tmar@f.......; Richie's CFW; Dark Knightie)
\\ "...the 'undergound network' of fan-to-fan communications often //
// made the CIA look like a bunch of amateurs." - Leonard Nimoy. \\
... Kirk doesn't wear dresses when admirals arrive for lunch.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 09:01:32 -0700
From: LC Fenster <lucienlc@i.......>
Subject: Re: Jane Doe Spoilers
Margie wrote:
>>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?
>It is a bit inconsistent, ...
Or perhaps there is a difference for LaCroix between carrying on an
intellectual discussion with a brilliant psychopath, as in Trophy Girl,
vs. someone whose motivation for killing is race hatred???
Laurie
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 12:16:08 -0400
From: "Margaret L. Carter" <MLCVamp@a.......>
Subject: Re: Vampires killing
I see no need why a vampire should have to kill for food, and I intensely
dislike fiction in which they routinely do, unless the author devises a very
good reason and writes well enough to convince me of it. Killing attracts
unfavorable attention, to begin with.
I, too, wish Nick would come to terms with his vampirism, but I don't want
him to abandon his morality. There are probably plenty of ways he could get
human blood without killing and without even taking it from unwilling
victims. If he wanted something fresher than bagged blood now and then, he
could find plenty of willing donors. I bet the Raven is full of them. True,
he would have to develop confidence in his ability to exercise self-restraint
while feeding.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 12:16:40 -0400
From: Allison Percy <percy91@w.......>
Subject: SPOILERS: JD & evil
Warning: there is also a small spoiler for The Human Factor toward the
bottom of this message.
My mind continues to boggle at the depth of discussion that this episode
has engendered. Considering that many people didn't seem to particularly
like the episode when they first saw it (according to some of the early
comments posted here), it has sparked a quite astonishing debate on the
nature of good and evil.
I've only been on the spoiler list for a few months -- does this happen
often?
My favorite part of this episode, as I said earlier, was that it raises
but *does not answer* a moral quandary -- is it right to kill someone who
you know or believe to be evil? The question is unanswerable, IMO. I can
think of a few evil people in the world right now, but I'm not going out
to buy a gun to do them in. In fact, the people who *do* buy guns or
bombs to kill those they consider evil are called murderers and terrorists
-- the Unabomber, the perpetrator(s) of the Oklahoma City bombing, those
who blow up abortion clinics.... They probably all thought they were
doing the right thing, too. On the other hand, just how many deaths were
Hitler, Pol Pot, Jim Jones, etc. responsible for? And if you could go
back in time, would you poison *their* Kool-Aid when they were youngsters?
But then again, it's not a question of going back in time, is it? It's a
question of guessing *ahead of time* which people who strike you as evil
will actually end up perpetrating particularly evil deeds, as opposed to
those who will live their lives without doing any real harm (or who
change and in fact do many good deeds before they die).
Let's see, Reese *didn't* kill Manning when he was a young vice cop, and
Manning went on to become a serial killer. Nick *did* let Serena kill the
XYY chromosome guy (can't recall his name) on the CN tower in Baby, Baby,
and we think it was "wrong" that he allowed this (although we know the guy
was a murderer). Nick *didn't* kill Jack the Ripper in the flashback from
Bad Blood, and who knows how many people died because he let the barber
live (and become a vampire). Janette *did* kill the two arsonists at the
end of The Human Factor (right?) -- they were killers, too, but many call
this an immoral act of revenge. Or was it right? Maybe what was wrong
about it was that she left the vampire bites visible for evidence?
Can anyone tell me how all this scores on the "Right vs. Wrong"
scoreboard? I have no idea. Too complex.
I'm a Knightie. I think I'll angst about it for a while. <g>
* Allison Percy, Knightie & Petruchian percy91@w....... *
* Shrewthering info: http://assets.wharton.upenn.edu/~percy91/shrew.html *
* "Why, there's a wench! Come on, and kiss me, Kate." Petruchio *
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 12:18:49 -0400
From: Michelle Mark <Raindance2@a.......>
Subject: Re: LC, Nietzsche, & evil
Sandra writes:
<<So what does *LC* term evil? If he has his own moral code, then
doesn't it follow that he has decided for himself that some things
are "good" and some things are "evil"?>>
I imagine he does, like everyone else. I never said he didn't have a moral
code. Although, I wouldn't call it a "moral" code...just a code. Don't we
all have our own ideas of what is good or evil, culturally and individually?
Why should he be any different? The problem occurs when there is a conflict
between what one person thinks is good and evil and what another person
thinks. You can't impose your standards on someone else. To look at LC and
say, "well, according to my criteria, you are evil" is wrong. (IMHO) His
evil may not be the same as your evil. To each his own. I think LC is
agnostic (ex: AMPH). Therefore he doesen't base his code on the foundation
of religion, but on whatever he feels is right for him. And he is certainly
not concerned about what others think of him or what he does. He is master
of his own destiny. He is what Nietzsche calls the "Ubermensch" or "Overman"
A person who creates their own values
on their OWN terms. Ok, I'll quit rambling for now :)
PS-What is with AOL?? It told me I double posted on this list and then came
back with another message saying it didn't actually send it after all...
Arrrghhhh!
Cousin Michelle~CSS~Truly Depraved~Thong Snapper~Seducer~
SKL: "Faciemus ut Dewus Mountainus e Tuo Nasone Exeat!"
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 12:28:43 -0400
From: Carrie Krumtum <CKrumtum@g.......>
Subject: Re: Predators; species
> Read THE ABOLITION OF MAN, by C. S. Lewis, and then talk about it.
An excellent reference and very appropriate to the discussion of moral
systems and world view.
IMHO, the difference in species is a nominal factor. All vamps were, at one
time, human (except dogs and the like). They change in morality is not really
a matter of nature, but one of indoctrination. LaCroix tells Nick in the
flashback of KI that he is pledged to Nick as his eternal teacher, to teach
him all there is to know about vampirism (of course, he DIDN'T). It is
encumbant upon the new convert to assimilate the new values. Some cannot, as
Nick hasn't been able to.
If there is a possibility of redemption for the vampire, I believe it will be
more closely related to the issue of moral standing with the soul of a
vampire than any other factor.
Humbly,
Carrie, Slovenly Knightie
CKrumtum@g.......
It's hard to judge someone when you're blinded by your love for them.
--Mother Teresa
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 12:17:17 -0500
From: Vicky Bratton <vickyb@e.......>
Subject: Re: Spoiler: JD, Nick-ping/LC-pong
On Wed, 1 May 1996, Jamie Melody Randell wrote:
> Nah. Nick was just jealous. "I don't WANT a new baby brother, Daddy..."
> That's what I think was going on at the time. Any and all discussions of
> Hitler and his evil are/were merely 20/20 hindsight.
I don't think it was jealousy in this case, I think it was more
fastidiousness. He just didn't like the nastiness that was displayed.
Vicky Bratton
vickyb@e....... or kethriveri@a.......
Save Forever Knight - see the web site below for information
http://members.aol.com/CuznJamiMR/SaveForeverKnight.html
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 11:18:11 -0700
From: AKR <r@w.......>
Subject: Spoiler: Jane Doe, Struggle
On Thu, 2 May 1996, Lisa McDavid wrote:
> I thought that line about "my battle" was really cheesy. In the first
> place, "my struggle" is a better English equivalent.
I'll have to check to be sure, but I thought that he *did* use the word
"struggle." I recognized the blatant reference to Mein Kampf, and I don't
think I would have caught it if he'd said "battle" -- my German is several
years out of practice, but I don't think I've ever heard it translated as
anything *except* "struggle." Either way, they were really driving it in,
weren't they? Nobody gets out of this theatre without recognizing the
villain....
**** Amy, Lady of the Knight (AKR) r@w....... ****
"For how do I hold thee but by thy granting?" --W.S. Sonnet 87
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 11:30:18 -0700
From: AKR <r@w.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: JD, HF, Body Count
On Thu, 2 May 1996, LC Fenster wrote:
> It is, of course, also possible that LC killed the guy as part of his
> control thing with Nicholas.
Since I didn't see DK until well after I was familiar with LC, I've
always assumed that the murder was a carefully chosen challenge to Nicholas.
(Oooooh -- can't you just tell when you're looking at things from LC's point
of view? You get these uncontrollable urges to call Nick "Nicholas"! <g>)
> (Of course, this also led Nick to assume that LC was responsible for
> the three other killings, which he was not.)
That connection probably didn't occur to LC, did it? I think he
wanted the message to Nick to be quite clear, but he was new in town, wrapped
up in his own vendetta, with little reason to pay attention to the
sensationalism in the media, and was probably slightly annoyed that this
mortal situation muddied his "I'm back" declaration.
ObSpoiler: Regarding the Monkey Toy
I like the suggestion that, in addition to demonstrating the
innocuous banality of evil, and in addition to showing that even the worst of
people is not always bad, the monkey was an evolutionary allusion that linked
the flashback scene to the psycho-author's statement that he liked Reese
"even though he was an inferior life-form." (Did he really say "life-form"?
Do I recall that correctly? Maybe the psycho was an alien.... <g>)
**** Amy, Lady of the Knight (AKR) r@w....... ****
"For how do I hold thee but by thy granting?" --W.S. Sonnet 87
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 11:58:00 -0700
From: AKR <r@w.......>
Subject: Spoiler: Jane Doe
Phillip wrote:
> >over the pycho's poem, with the LC in TG that welcomed another mass
> >murderer back to a computer chat session?
Margie wrote:
> It is a bit inconsistent, but I think the inconsistency is on LaCroix's
> part, not on the writer's part.
Someone mentioned this before, but I think it deserves to be said again. It
is the nature of the (what I would call <g>) evil which makes the difference
for LC. Recall what he says to Nick in the flashbacks of CL, about the nature
of vampires and possession. The sicko in TG, who tries to posess, and seems
aware of his own condition, has much in common with LC; the sicko in JD, who
merely hates, and rationalizes his hate, has nothing in common with LC.
**** Amy, Lady of the Knight (AKR) r@w....... ****
"For how do I hold thee but by thy granting?" --W.S. Sonnet 87
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 13:29:25 -0700
From: Bonnela <callalily@l.......>
Subject: Re: Spoiler: Jane Doe, Flowers
Well, as a Botanist -- you didn't think the 'callalily' part of my address
had anything to do with Vachon, did you? <blink, blink> -- I could hardly
let this go without adding my idle comments.
On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, D Echelbarger wrote:
> No, I noticed that immediately. They were gladiolas.
Amy replied:
>Of course, in Real Life, florists just don't sell cotton flowers... :)
Very true, my dear girl. And why don't florists sell cotton flowers? The
flowers just plain don't last -- they open mid-morning and begin to *wither*
the *next* day, turning from white to pink, blue, and finally purple before
falling off the stalk. Also, cotton is a commercial plant, not grown much
for ornamentation -- its natural blooming season is generally the warm
months of late summer, early fall. And it was very much *winter* in TO in
this ep -- is this the first snow we have actually seen in an ep?
Now to the actual flowers used in the ep. They were most certainly *not*
cotton flowers; the stalks were much too thick and herbaceous (cotton has
thin woody stalks). And, sorry Diane <wave>, but they were not gladioluses
either (glads have larger lanceolate buds, while the ones in Reese's bouquet
were small and bulbous). So, what were they? Why, single-flower hollyhocks
(Althaea rosea), which are quite easy to grow and are commonly found in
flower shops almost year-round.
So, had Reese completely lost it? Um, maybe, but it is more likely that
Reese, like most of the rest of us, has never in his life seen an actually
cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) plant in bloom. It is highly possible that
where ever he grew up hollyhocks was also called 'cotton flowers' (or
perhaps it was a quaint name used by a grandparent or older relative) --
especially since cotton and hollyhocks are in the same family 'Malvaceae,'
also referred to generally as the mallow family.
Questions? Comments?
And that concludes our Botany lesson for today. Please read chapters 12 and
13 in your text, and be prepared for a quiz when next we meet. <g>
Bonnie (callalily@l.......)
-- "I bled for Ger"
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 16:33:06 -0400
From: Dotti Rhodes <dottir@w.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe, HF, FI
Bravo Amy, everything you said, Bravo! I couldn't have put it any better.
Thank you with all of my Knightie bones!!
Dotti R
Knightie 4-Ever
dottir@w.......
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 13:33:22 -0700
From: LC Fenster <lucienlc@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: JD & evil
Allison wrote:
>My mind continues to boggle at the depth of discussion that this
>episode has engendered. <snip> it has sparked a quite astonishing
>debate on the nature of good and evil.
>I've only been on the spoiler list for a few months -- does this
>happen often?
Not recently, but last year it used to happen all the time <g>. And
one of the reasons it is happening, imo, is that so many "old-timers"
are once again posting, as the end approaches. :-(
>My favorite part of this episode, as I said earlier, was that it
>raises but *does not answer* a moral quandary -- is it right to kill
>someone who you know or believe to be evil?
Precisely the sort of thing that FK has always done effectively. Which
is one reason why even "ordinary" episodes of FK, like Jane Doe, can
provide such fascinating food for thought.
A lot of excellent metaphysical discussion snipped, most of which I
agree with.
>Nick *did* let Serena kill the XYY chromosome guy (can't recall his
>name) on the CN tower in Baby, Baby, and we think it was "wrong" that
>he allowed this (although we know the guy was a murderer).
I think it would be more accurate to say that the "Knighties" by and
large thought this was "wrong". If I remember the spoiler debate on
Baby, Baby (and yes, it was heated <g>), there were many people, myself
included, who felt that Nick had done precisely the right thing in
turning his back.
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/
