FKSPOILR
Logfile LOG9605 Part 6
May 3-May 5, 1996
File: "FKSPOILR LOG9605" Part 6
TOPICS:
JD Spoilrs/Flowers/agnostics
Need to be removed from list (apologies for posting here)
SPOILER: Jane Doe
SPOILER: Francesca (4)
Vampires killing
SPOILER: Francesca(therapy)
Jane Doe <SPOILER> (2)
Spoilers: Francesca
Spoilers: Francesca -- eyebrows
ARRRGH!!! Francesca Doe? (2)
SPOILER:Francesca
SPOILER: Nick's Epiphany/TGVP
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 21:23:32 -0400
From: Diane Shea <KerrRaven@a.......>
Subject: JD Spoilrs/Flowers/agnostics
Bonnie writes about the "cotton flowers";
>>So, what were they? Why, single-flower hollyhocks (Althaea
rosea)<<snip>>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.<<
Thanks greatly Bonnie! I for one, really thought that scene was very
meaningfull because of the flower revelation. When I saw them at first I
thought, "Wow, those are nice. Too bad Nick can't choose something that
pretty for Nat!" Then when we were told what they were supposed to be, I got
this shiver, like I had been praising something evil without knowing it.
Since it made such an impression I wanted to know if they really were cotton
flowers or not. You've done a good job of disproving that and I'm happy to
know the reality of things. At least it's a plant in the same family :)
And Margie wrote about agnostics in reply to Michelle;
>>I think this does a disservice to atheists and agnostics. I think you'll
find that most atheists and agnostics have a moral code very much like that
of believers on major issues. <snip> Being an agnostic does not, IMHO,
explain or excuse LC's behavior.<<
As what you could probably consider an agnostic myself, I do feel a certain
affinity for LC's beliefs or lack there of. My own motto is simply "I just
don't know, and until you prove it to me, I can't believe it." This goes for
vampires, ufo's, all religions, everything. Certified sceptic all the way :)
Anyway, I believe LaCroix could be an agnostic, if not a true atheist. Of
course, if that is my idea then I'd have to say he is one of the most
stubborn agnostics in the world! I mean, if I were to be repulsed by crosses
and holy water I think *I* would start believing in the existence of God, or
certainly some higher power (seeing as how the knife in Black Wing did
something similar to Nick? I never actually saw that ep.) True that the
value system that I conduct my life with is probably run on the simple
principle of "Try not to do things that hurt others," whereas LaCroix's own
system does not resemble that in the least. But the basic scepticism in a
biblical version of God is still there, despite the differences in values.
Whatever LC may be doesn't really excuse his behavior, no, but it might
explain it in some small way. There can be good *and* bad agnostics.
Did I have a point here? Oh right, that was my point. I think I'll go back
to thinking superficial things now. Hey, how bout Tracy's hair this ep?
That shallow enough for you?
--Cousin Diane (once again back on digest!)
Eternal Seducer
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 11:23:01 -0400
From: Virginia Eveland <tyliena@i.......>
Subject: Need to be removed from list (apologies for posting here)
Apologies for sending this to the list at large, but I need to be
unsubcribed from this list as soon as possible! My webmaster is less than
pleased with my amount of e-mail so I have to cut the list. Again, sorry
for posting this to the list at large.
Virginia Eveland
____________________________________ ____________________________________
|I've got a question for you guys... | X-Phile |
| Can you beat sensitivity into | XF-Relationshipper |
| someone? | |
| Mr. Armstrong |Forever Knight and Babylon 5 Junkie |
| Music Teacher | SYX & AGML Member |
|____________________________________|____________________________________|
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 13:50:19 -0500
From: MS LYNNE R ACKERMAN <GNBV32C@p.......>
Subject: SPOILER: Jane Doe
My take on the "cotton flowers" was that they were >made< of cotton -
you know, like "silk" flowers, only these were "cotton" flowers. It
never crossed my mind that the flowers were >cotton< flowers, that is,
were flowers that came from a cotton bush (tree?). (Hey, I'm a born
and bred Canadian, we don't grow cotton up here, all I know about
cotton is that they make thread out of it <g>.) Also (and I'm sure
I'm not the only Canadian who would feel this way) the whole blacks-
picking-cotton connection didn't even occur to me until I started
reading stuff about it on the list. In fact, I couldn't even
understand the line at all when I first heard it in the episode - I
don't think most Canadians would make the connection immediately
either, because it was never a reality in Canada. (Or else I'm just
hopelessly naive or "colour-blind" about certain things, I guess <g>.)
We never had cotton plantations here, and if we ever did have slavery
(which I don't think we did, but then history was always one of my
worst subjects so I could be wrong in that), it was outlawed long,
long before the Civil War in the U.S. After all, the end destination
of the "underground railroad" >was< Canada, because of its lack of
slavery and discrimination of black people.
So I couldn't really understand (until a day or so later) the disgust
Reese felt. I just thought it was because the flowers were fake, not
real. But of course, it makes sense when you remember that Reese is
presumably American (since his brother fought and died in Viet Nam),
and so he'd have a totally different take on the "cotton flowers"
thing. In other words, the script is true to the story, and for
Americans watching the show, they'd pick up on it immediately. I'm
just not so sure that most Canadians would...right away...until they
thought about it for awhile. And presumably the same would be true
for people in other countries who see the show, who also don't have
the background of slavery and the Civil War.
A message from Lynne Ackerman in Toronto (or, as we like to call it,
"Hollywood North"!) Via Internet: gnbv32c@p....... (preferred
address) or be028@t.......
*** Help save Forever Knight! Ask me how. ***
http://members.aol.com/CuznJamiMR/SaveForeverKnight.html
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 15:35:13 -0400
From: "Margaret L. Carter" <MLCVamp@a.......>
Subject: SPOILER: Francesca
Lots of neat things about this ep! Why are they hitting their stride just
when the end is in sight? The only element that I really objected to was the
therapist breaking confidentiality that way, an action that I don't believe
would be considered proper ethics unless the patient had actually, explicitly
confessed to the murders. And I'm not sure even then. Well, maybe Frank's
crime of breaking into her office is held to justify her going to the police.
Maybe. But on the scale of FK suspension-of-disbelief stretchers that's
relatively minor. And at last we have a therapist who isn't wacko herself --
huzzah!
I enjoyed Vachon's conversation with Tracy. Why on Earth don't they let
Tracy know the truth about Nick? The way she's going, she's likely to
blunder onto the truth by accident, with the risk of endangering his secret
unwittingly.
This one has some of the sexiest scenes I've noticed in the entire series.
I'm thrilled that finally the psychic significance of blood-drinking is made
explicit. THIS is what vampirism is all about (to me), blood as a symbol of
the ultimate intimacy. And the sensuality of Nick's manner when explaining
this intimacy to Nat -- brrr! Why does Nick (oh, yeah, because he's a
world-class self-castigator) assume that this total knowing of the other has
to be evil? Sure, the way most vampires do it, as a form of rape, it's evil,
esp. when they kill (quite unnecessarily, since one's whole life is in "every
drop of blood" -- unless they are specifically seeking the rush of
experiencing the victim's death, which is -- again -- EVIL). But it could be
a process of sharing, with a willing donor. If Nick could restrain himself
to a few gentle, erotic sips, as well as get over the guilt that clouds his
mind in every consideration of his vampire nature, he could enjoy this
intimacy with a human lover and do no harm.
If the soul is in every drop of blood, even if drunk out of a cup instead of
the human body, is it still there in a bag of whole blood from the blood
bank? Or do the anticoagulants and the freezing process destroy the "life"
in the blood? I kinda think so, because we don't see the vampires at the
Raven going all enraptured over their drinks.
What do you make of Nat's expression when Nick is telling her all this?
Sensual fascination, carefully masked revulsion, or a therapist's
nonjudgmental attention? I watched her intently and couldn't decide. The
way she kind of shakes her head at the end suggests some kind of fascination,
whether attracted or repelled. And how about Nick's line RE "a hard habit to
break"!
I want to see some more balanced vampire tell Nick, as Saint-Germain tells an
arrogant young vampire in "Cabin 33," that it isn't the pain and terror,
"it's the touching." Never happen outside of fanfic!
Evil again: I find the argument that vampires are exempt from human morality
because they're a "different species" rather odd, even if they WERE a
different species: If dolphins turn out to be intelligent, would we be
justified in mistreating them because they aren't human? If we meet an alien
species through interstellar travel, will we be exempt from any moral duties
to them because they aren't human? Isn't it the presence of intelligence
(or, dare we say it, soul) that matters, not the shape it wears?
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 17:41:26 -0500
From: Stephanie Babbitt <stephanie.babbitt@g.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Francesca
Margaret wrote:
>Lots of neat things about this ep! Why are they hitting their stride just
>when the end is in sight?
I agree about the ep being full of neat things. But I found the acting to
be very perplexing. Nick seems like a beaten man; his sense of humor is
gone, he's so gawdawful *serious*, and he seems depressed. Vachon has lost
his teasing, I-find-everything-you-say-amusing tone and is also deathly
serious in his scenes with Tracy. Am I the only one who sensed this? Is it
because all the actors were pooped? Is it because the shows were shot out
of sequence?
>I'm thrilled that finally the psychic significance of blood-drinking is made
>explicit. <snip> And the sensuality of Nick's manner when explaining
>this intimacy to Nat -- brrr!
Oh, yeah! Has he *ever* opened up to Nat like that before? I was
practically yelling at Nat: say thank you for the insight, or give him a
hug, or at least squeeze his hand. The poor man looks like he's stranded
all alone on an island somewhere, and that's probably how he feels.
>If the soul is in every drop of blood <snip> is it still there in a
>bag of whole blood from the blood bank?
It seems to me like the blood has to come *fresh* and warm from a living or
very-recently-dead body to carry the soul. Once the intangible soul has
left the body, presumably it has left the blood as well.
>What do you make of Nat's expression when Nick is telling her all this?
>Sensual fascination, carefully masked revulsion, or a therapist's
>nonjudgmental attention?
The scientist, through and through. I think she is fascinated, and touched,
but she's protecting herself by holding up the scientific front. I couldn't
believe her comment that made it sound like she thinks Nick is evil as a
vampire and may continue to be as a mortal! Talk about kicking a man when
he's down!
Other questions about this ep:
Why wasn't LaCroix more upset about Francesca's death?
Why did LC and Nick have to leave Paris in such a hurry?
Where's Janette supposed to be while all this is going on?
Stephanie Babbitt
Perplexed Vaquera
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 17:27:36 -0500
From: "J.S. Levin/Stormsinger" <wabbit@e.......>
Subject: Re: Vampires killing
On Thursday, 2 May 96, Margaret L. Carter <MLCVamp@a.......> posted (cut and
pasted for comments):
>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.
Hoo-rah! Been saying this for *years* now! It is counter to species
survival for a vampire to kill *every* time they feed. Too dangerous, too
wasteful, and -- if they goof and create another vampire -- *entirely* too
procreative. A successful predator does not outrun its food supply. If it
does, other environmental factors *will* slap it back down. "Unfavorable
attention" is the least of these, to be sure.
>I, too, wish Nick would come to terms with his vampirism, but I don't want
>him to abandon his morality.
Actually, I'd like to see him come to terms with his vampirism by developing
a morality he can actually live with, rather than a standard not built for
his circumstances. He's like the kid who must not only do well in class,
but whose standards are so far above even the teachers that he makes himself
sick or crazy trying to live up to them. And Natalie, BTW, needs to back
off and *let* Nick develop that standard. She's bought into his
perfectionism, and their relationship may not be the only thing it's killing.
>He would have to develop confidence in his ability to exercise self-restraint
>while feeding.
Yes, please! Mr. Extremism needs a happy medium. Someone else compared
feeding to sex, and killing to orgasm. You can have a lot of really good
sex without orgasm, and a lot of really good feelings without sex. But if
you believe you *must* have an orgasm every time you have sex, you get so
hung up on it that you miss everything *else* sex is good for -- cuddling,
building relationships, relaxing, having fun, enjoying the company, being
creative, being silly, making someone else happy...
Storm
wabbit@e....... (J.S.Levin/Stormsinger)
FOREVER KNIGHT:SciFi Channel Mon, 7 & 11 pmCT Let 'em know we're watching!
If you practice being fictional, you discover that "characters"
are as real as people with bodies and heartbeats...
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 15:29:26 PST
From: June Russell <Kat@g.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Francesca
Margaret Carter wrote:
The only element that I really objected to was the
:therapist breaking confidentiality that way, an action that I don't believe
:would be considered proper ethics unless the patient had actually, explicitly
:confessed to the murders.
From my understanding about patient confidentiality (and it comes from
Washington and Oregon States, and things like this do vary from state to
state, country to country) is that if you have a patient who is likely to
be known to be in the process of committing crimes of the sort where it
might recur (serial rape, murder, child abuse), you are required by law to
report them.
In the show she stated that the murders she had heard about sounded like the
ones her patient described. That would be enough to justify her going to the
police. In some cases (such as child abuse) we're required to report even a
possibility (even if we don't really think it is).
:I enjoyed Vachon's conversation with Tracy. Why on Earth don't they let
:Tracy know the truth about Nick? The way she's going, she's likely to
:blunder onto the truth by accident, with the risk of endangering his secret
:unwittingly.
Didn't you love the look on Vachon's face when he realized he wasn't going
to get Tracy to stop worrying at this like a terrier on a bone. But I think
you're right that Vachon should suggest to Nick that he "have a little talk"
with Tracy before she gets Nick into trouble.
:Why does Nick (oh, yeah, because he's a
:world-class self-castigator) assume that this total knowing of the other has
:to be evil?
I didn't get the impression that he thought the sharing was evil. He seems
to think that being a vampire is evil, that it has made his soul evil. I
don't believe that he thought the sharing by consenting vampires was evil,
just overwhelmingly seductive. (Sort of like alcohol to an alcoholic.)
: If Nick could restrain himself
:to a few gentle, erotic sips, as well as get over the guilt that clouds his
:mind in every consideration of his vampire nature, he could enjoy this
:intimacy with a human lover and do no harm.
Nick has had a problem with the control and he's not willing to risk Nat.
(Although from the look on Nat's face until he mentioned the addictive
nature of it, I thought she was going to ask then and there for him to bring
her over. She was *fascinated*!)
By the way, isn't CD looking great the last few episodes! To paraphrase:
whatever it is you're having, I want some.
: Sensual fascination, carefully masked revulsion, or a therapist's
:nonjudgmental attention? I watched her intently and couldn't decide.
I think she was definitely fascinated. It was as if she was being seduced by
the idea.
I thought it Natalie's line about LaCroix being evil, then her "oh, sorry",
was a little nudge at all of our spoiler discussions on the subject. (If
not, it was an amusing coincidence that we have spent so much of the past
year discussing the subject.)
Kat
Kat ( June Russell )
pacifier.com!grendal!kat kat@g.......
Heu! Tintinnuntius meus Sonat!
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 19:05:30 -0400
From: "Margaret L. Carter" <MLCVamp@a.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Francesca(therapy)
About the therapist reporting her patient to the police, you're probably
righter than I am. I did not look up Maryland law on this. (Not kidding --
I work for the General Assembly and therefore have easy access to the code
books -- but I haven't been to work since viewing the ep.) My understanding
of the law about confidentiality is that it's a potentially pernicious double
standard: Professional communications are privileged *unless* the topic is
"suspected child abuse," no matter how vague the suspicions are. And the
result of reporting this suspicion is a complete suspension of the "innocent
until proven guilty" principle. Oh, well, off topic; disengaging rant mode.
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 19:11:49 -0400
From: Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsd@u.......>
Subject: Jane Doe <SPOILER>
My two cents worth on "Jane Doe"
After so many weeks without an original episode of Forever
Knight, it was admittedly a let down that "Jane Doe" was much more
of a cop story that a vampiric one. Because of this it, wasn't til
my second viewing of "Jane Doe" that I was able to appreciate it
on its own level. Given that, this was a very good story about
evil incarnate and the missed opportunities to destroy it.
Good Things
Joe Reese: One of the things that I've always liked about Reese
from the beginning is his simple down-to-earth manner. Blu
effectively convened Reese's guilt and rage over his failure to
kill Manning when he was a beat cop only to end up years later
watching him profit from his "fictional" book of a serial killer.
It was a bit disconcerting, however, to watch Reese walk the fine
line between diligence and obsession in his pursuit of Manning.
Reese's instant belief that Manning was responsible for Jane
Doe's death immediately called into question his objectivity and
his stupid roughing up of Manning at the bookstore made him an easy
target of Manning's frame-up of him. By the time Reese met
Manning at the warehouse, I was beginning to wonder if Reese was
loosing it altogether.
Flashback:
Like many others, I knew that the young officer was Hilter almost
immediately. The interest for me was in watching and listening
to Nick and Lacroix's reaction to him. It speaks volumes about
the nature of their relationship that Nick is immediately
repulsed by the officer while Lacroix is fascinated by the hatred
in him.
Natalie:
Here we see just how good at her job she is. Not that there was
any doubt of this, but in many ways, Tracy's presence enable Nat
to teach her (and us) some of the inner workings of her
profession. Also in previous episodes, there was a not-so-subtle
hint that Nat was becoming quite weary of being a pathologist and
maybe her life in general. (The fact that we haven't once seen
her at home this season may have something to do with it.) It
was reassuring, therefore, to watch her instruct Tracy with
some enthusiasm and to hear her say that "the real detective work
begins here."
The Tag:
So there is a limit to how much evil Lacroix can take.
Interesting that his fascination with Hilter couldn't survive the
aura of his vileness. Given that, why didn't Lacroix just kill
him? If being contaminated by Hilter's vileness through his
blood was a concern, certainly Lacroix is quite capable of
killing without bitting. Was it because he was concerned about
discovery? (The train was a very enclosed area and it was
obviously quite crowded); was he so intimidated that he even
feared killing him? Or did he allow him to live out of respect
for the kinship he felt with the man? Who knows.
Bad Things
Cop Story:
As I said in the beginning, this was a cop show with very little
"vampire" involved. As such it was a bit of a let down.
Tracy:
I know, I pick on her all the time. ;) Well she really wasn't so
bad, but her squeamishness and fainting was just another reminder
of how ill-suited she is at being a homicide detective.
Admittedly if it was anybody else, I probably won't have care (I
might even had found it amusing). But it wasn't anybody else.
It was Tracy. And it got on my nerves.
Miscellaneous
Ironic that Joe's attempts to warn his superiors and "whoever
else would listen" of Manning's evil fell upon deaf ears because
of the very racism that Manning perpetuates.
Nice edit job of the scene with Nick standing next to the open
window/door of the train, obviously needing some fresh air after
being around all that evil; then the very next scene of Joe
telling Nick he needed to go outside to get some air - pretty
much for the same reason.
Finally, I like Nick's hair. He looks sexier. (If that's
possible. :) )
But that's just my two cents worth.
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 21:20:01 -0400
From: Janette Z <Janette92@a.......>
Subject: Re: Jane Doe <SPOILER>
Hello all!!! And you thought you'd gotten rid of me!! Well, I didn't
realize how much I'd miss you all until the new eps started! I can't STAND
not talking about them, so I'm back until Last Knight, and then I'll return
WHEN the 4th season starts! Now comments:
By the time Reese met
>Manning at the warehouse, I was beginning to wonder if Reese was
>loosing it altogether.
Ditto!!! I was convinced Reese really WAS planning on killing him!
>Here we see just how good at her job she is. Not that there was
>any doubt of this, but in many ways, Tracy's presence enable Nat
>to teach her (and us) some of the inner workings of her
>profession.
Alright, I'll admit that's one of the few things, actually, I think it's
the ONLY thing I like about Nat :-) she's professional. And I really liked
the way she talked to Tracy, and managed to calm her down.
; was he so intimidated that he even
>feared killing him?
This was a problem I had with this ep, LaCroix saying he was intimidated.
I don't think he would be. LaCroix just doesn't seem the type to be
intimidating by ANYTHING, including Hitler.
> Well she really wasn't so
>bad, but her squeamishness and fainting was just another reminder
>of how ill-suited she is at being a homicide detective.
She didn't faint, did she? I know she felt sick, and ill, but she didn't
faint. And, to be honest, I think she handled it better than I would have
:-)
>Finally, I like Nick's hair. He looks sexier. (If that's
>possible. :) )
Yes, it's possible, and I too loved Nick's hair!!!
Ravenette, Immortal Beloved,
Seducer, CO-CFW for Evil
MacLeod, Richie Reservist,
Janette92@a.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 21:12:57 -0700
From: Valery King <kingv@u.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Francesca
On Sat, 4 May 1996, Margaret L. Carter wrote:
> relatively minor. And at last we have a therapist who isn't wacko herself --
> huzzah!
Yes! I also noticed this. I think she's the first one!
> What do you make of Nat's expression when Nick is telling her all this?
> Sensual fascination, carefully masked revulsion, or a therapist's
> nonjudgmental attention? I watched her intently and couldn't decide. The
I thought it looked a lot like -- naked longing. Bravo to Nigel the
director for lingering on Natalie as Nick is explaining all of this. The
woman is in love with Nick, and here he is telling her (probably for the
very first time) all about the intense intimacy of the blood exchange.
She longs for this intimacy, imho. And Nick either cannot see this
longing (which would *really* make him a brick, and I don't believe he's
as clueless as some do) or he is ignoring it deliberately hoping she
won't press him about it (which I think is more likely; however, either
explanation would fit). Perhaps we'll hear from Nat in the next two
episodes on this; perhaps she'll use reasonable and logical--and
medical-- arguments when and if she tries to get Nick to get intimate.
> Evil again: I find the argument that vampires are exempt from human morality
> because they're a "different species" rather odd, even if they WERE a
> different species: If dolphins turn out to be intelligent, would we be
> justified in mistreating them because they aren't human? If we meet an alien
This is my feeling on the matter. Vampires killing humans is evil
because, unlike cows and pigs and other animals humans eat, a human is
sentient. I have no problem, and neither do most other Westerners, with
killing animals for food but I'm horrified at the though that all those
whales and dolphins that have been butchered by humans might have a
higher intelligence approaching sentience. High-minded philosophical
arguments aside, it feels *wrong*.
Obviously, *Nick* believes it is evil; there's no sense wishing he'll
"accept his vampire nature" because he won't so long as he's thinking
clearly (in the heat of the moment, or during one of his "to hell with it"
phases brought on by too much guilt, it's another matter).
And as potential vampire victims, how can we honestly disagree? If Lacroix
decided to make a meal of you (and make you dead!) are any of us going to
give in gracefully because it's "part of his nature?" I really don't
think so.
Cheers!
Valery
kingv@u.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 23:18:47 -0500
From: Sarah Welsh <welshkin@d.......>
Subject: Spoilers: Francesca
So what does this reincarnation thing mean for Nick? Even if he comes
back across, he's doomed to be reincarnated and go after LaCroix? What
does this do to the door-in-Death-Valley theory of what happens when we
die/undie? Did Francesca have a third option: not become a vampire, not
enter the door, but wait 200 years and be reincarnated? (And where has
she been for the last 200 years?) Was she really reincarnated, or did
she just exist in some "spiritual" way and find herself able to influence
Frank? (Hey, we've had the "possession" angle before, i.e., SoB.)
Favorite line: "I don't appreciate it by killing it!"
Second favorite line: "...and Harry Houdini had a nifty trick with
handcuffs and a tank of water."
Anyone else get the impression LaCroix came up with Nick's latest alias
on the spur of the moment? "Nicholas... Chevalier." After all, they
just left Paris in rather a hurry; they wouldn't want to use the same
names they just ran away from. Speaking of names, how come Francesca
got to call LaCroix by his first name, when Janette and Nick never have?
Did Francesca know Janette? Just how old is she? We know she's older
than Nick but by how much? Also, there was such a different dynamic
between her and LaCroix than between either Janette or Nick and LaCroix.
He let her have her own life, so to speak, more so than Janette and Nick
ever seem to have been allowed. Adds a new wrinkle to the discussion as
to why Nick and Janette as "unlifelong companions." What makes those two
different from his other children? (Besides, of course, the fact that
Deb and Ger were regulars.)
So very "Dead Again." Particularly the end tease about Tracy. I would
have liked it a lot more if her dreams and deja vu had to do with her
subconscious feelings about Vachon. She is so very comfortable with him
on the outside. That scene with the two of them drinking their own
personal beverages of preference: Nat still isn't that comfortable with
Nick (even first-season Nick and Nat).
Speaking of Vachon -- how odd to see him again. I haven't been watching
the reruns so it seems like a long time. It amazes me how very much we
can do with the character on the fiction list while TPTB can't do a thing
with him. I did love the react when Tracy asked about Nicholas
Chevalier. But I keep reaching Apache's subtexts into Ben Bass'
performance. Makes it a lot more enjoyable.
Also liked Tracy and Nick's separate reactions on the info about Frank's
past life.
I think Nat was very uncomfortable with that first exchange in the morgue
("we need a beating heart"). Nick has very much backslidden in recent
seasons; using the "we" seems to distance him from her. I think it was
definite fascination and a bit of a turn-on when he was telling her about
being able to share a person's life through their blood. I got the
feeling when he asked her to imagine the temptation that he was trying to
explain why he had a hard time being around her.
Don't like Nick's hair. Too puffy. Might be a good thing that there's
no next season or he might have to join Hair Club for Vamps. Dear Ger,
adorable as he is, is *not* immune to the aging process.
At the end when Nick killed Francesca for the second time -- Anyone else
reminded of the Hitchhiker Trilogy, when Arthur Dent kept killing that
one being over and over again? Poor Nick -- he is rather like Arthur
after all. So very hapless.
Sarah
welshkin@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 23:21:28 -0500
From: Sarah Welsh <welshkin@d.......>
Subject: Spoilers: Francesca -- eyebrows
Forgot to say --
Thank you, Nigel, for the eyebrows. They looked... normal. Not alive.
Not like caterpillars. Did giving him the director's chair result in this?
Sarah
welshkin@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 00:57:52 -0400
From: Dalton Spence <dalton.spence@f.......>
Subject: ARRRGH!!! Francesca Doe?
Here I am, trying to tape "Francesca" when suddenly, half way through,
they start showing the last half of "Jane Doe"! <very long string of
expletives deleted> <sigh> I think I'll just lie back now and go quietly
crazy. <beat> What the hell, I never do ANYTHING quietly! 8^(
Dalton S. Spence, B.Sc. <ag775@f.......>
Home Page: http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ag775/home.html
<WAAAAAHHH! Someone PLEASE tell me how it ended!>
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 01:56:46 -0400
From: Janette Z <Janette92@a.......>
Subject: Re: ARRRGH!!! Francesca Doe?
In a message dated 96-05-05 01:00:06 EDT, you write:
>Here I am, trying to tape "Francesca" when suddenly, half way through,
>they start showing the last half of "Jane Doe"! <very long string of
>expletives deleted> <sigh> I think I'll just lie back now and go quietly
>crazy. <beat> What the hell, I never do ANYTHING quietly! 8^(
REALLY?!!! Yikes, and I thought my syndie was mean!!! What'd they come
back as Jane Doe when it really was Francesca they meant so show? I'm going
to see Francesca in exactly 45 minutes, so if I get a chance I'll tell how it
ended as soon as I see it!
Ravenette, Immortal Beloved,
Seducer, CO-CFW for Evil
MacLeod, Richie Reservist,
Janette92@a.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 01:25:03 -0700
From: Sherri <sherric@e.......>
Subject: SPOILER:Francesca
I really like this episode. I think it is one of the best ones this year.
Sidenote: Catherine Disher looks great in this episode!
Anyone else notice how pale the Comtesse looked compared to Nick & LaCroix? She
out vampired them... I didn't catch her name, but I thought she did a very good
job...
Anyway, my question is about the autopsy results...I don't know a lot about
medical stuff - is it *really* possible to do an autopsy and say "he had a
steak, pate, and a Merlot??" Can you really tell what kind of wine?? Wouldn't
the stomach acid destroy it?? I can understand being able to identify steak...
but Merlot??
Sherri sherric@e....... Founding Member, SFKS
Save FK: http://members.aol.com/CuznJamiMR/SaveForeverKnight.html
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 04:26:12 -0400
From: Marcia Tucker <ScFiMarci@a.......>
Subject: SPOILER: Nick's Epiphany/TGVP
From: AKR <r@w.......>
>>Just curious, but would the Cousins and Dark Knighties and such really think
that Nick had reached a mature epiphany if he quit his job, made up with LC,
and went back to feeding on human blood?<<
Dark Knightie here
I don t know that Nick would *have* to quit his job. (He doesn t in my
upcoming, hopefully soon to post fan fic "Transitions".) It all depends on
whether feeding on human blood again would change his ability to interact so
closely with mortals. My premise is that it actually might make it easier
for him because he s not so tempted if he s already drinking it from a
bottle. It has to be HARD for Nick now, not drinking human blood (okay, not
on a steady diet of it) and to walk into the precinct house and be around all
that tasty-smelling human blood that he can t have. Like if I was to work in
a pizza kitchen and never be able to have any. I d go nuts! I think it s
astonishing he has the self-control he does have. I also think it s hurting
him a LOT. We ve seen major backsliding this season. Even in the most
recent eps, I think Nick looks a little, no, a lot frazzled. And I could add
another note to that in regards to "Francesca", but I don t want to insert
spoiler space right here!
Mature epiphany? Anything will be better than his current self-torture.
He s a VAMPIRE and highly likely to remain one, and desperately needs to
deal with it. He won t suicide, so he has to accept it and find a balance
with which he can live (living as a good person - not killing - stop beating
himself up psychologically and emotionally). I don t believe a vampire is
intrinsically evil, and that a vampire can be a good person and function as
such in mortal society or at least on the fringe of it.
Make up with LC? I point to "The Games Vampires Play". I don t think he s
so far off that right now. He s going to LC for advice or information as he
once did with Janette. The Nick/LC scene in TGVP spoke volumes to me,
especially the look on Nick s face when LC disappears so precipitously.
Not that I think Nick and LC would be bosom buddies. There s far too much
pain between them on BOTH sides for that. But I think a caring regard is
possible. Call me a Light Cousin (ohmigod, did Marcia REALLY say that?) but
I see LaCroix as extremely complex and capable of ANYTHING, even to giving up
tormenting Nick, which I see as his way of expressing his pain at Nick s
rejection of him.
I explore all this quite a bit in "Transitions". Sorry I ve made people wait
on this, but I m writing the really GOOD stuff now in it. The Valentines
will be pleased!
Marcia Tucker
scfimarci@a.......
"Transitions" - the IB/Valentines story you ve been waiting for hope you
like it! Chaining myself to my keyboard today, in fact, to complete three
chapters!
=========================================================================
Knight graphics and parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/
