File: "FORKNI-L LOG9606D" Part 4 TOPICS: SPOILER: LK, AtA, Fran -- Good & Evil (long) (3) The Fix and mortality (was: Spolers: Blackwing) Nick, Nat and Janette; brief LK SPOILERS (2) A question of holy symbols New Screen Name for CERK Shirt Orders Congratulations! You are the First Visitor! NK and Janette Questions ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 04:47:53 -0700 From: Amy R. <akr@n.......> Subject: SPOILER: LK, AtA, Fran -- Good & Evil (long) (This response will include spoilers for LK, AtA, and Francesca.) (I'll be drawing on my personal spiritual convictions again, too.) (You have been warned. Bail out now if this bores you to tears....) From: Marcia Tucker <ScFiMarci@a.......> > - vampires are no longer human. I maintain that their transformation >when being brought across is so profound that they have essentially mutated >into a different species - and I apply this to their souls as well. Please flash to the TNG episode where Picard proves, in a trial, that Data is sentient: a being, not a thing. Got it? Now, I submit that any being who can be determined to be sentient by those standards has a soul. That includes, in our fantasies: vampires, werewolves, Disney's gargoyles, Marvel's mutants, _The Shy Stegasaurus of Cricket Creek_, Wookies, trolls, Vulcans, immortals, Moomins, Zentradi, Borg, and television executives (though I know that last one's a stretch). All souls are equal before God, their creator. And all souls are equally subject to the universals of Right and Wrong which transcend culture, time, place, and species. There are not a lot of universal absolutes, and I don't claim to be able to define them, but those there are apply equally to every being. Actions that defy them are, by definition, evil. Saying that a culture *functions* in defiance of these absolutes does not make it *good.* Existence is not its own validation. Nick has correctly identified murder as one of those universal absolutes, and he wishes to be free of the hunger which drives him to violate that absolute. This is good. However, Nick is still obliged to obey that absolute even while in the grip of his hunger. There is no special dispensation for vampirism, any more than there is for having had a bad childhood, or bad genes, or a bad-hair day. Evil is still evil; wrong is still wrong; and we are all accountable for ourselves. Vampirism is an especially heavy cross to bear, because of its instinctual compulsions, but the cross is still meant to be born, not yielded to. That, for me, is the power of Nick's quest. There is evil in him, as there is in us all. He struggles with it every day, as do we all. He *chooses* to be good rather than evil every day, as should we all. Nick's is a familiar drama writ large. >I don't go along with torture either, but I do think it points to a >fundamental difference in LaCroix's vampire point of view and Nick's. I agree that there is a fundamental difference between LC and Nick's points of view. As I said in my last post, I reject the idea that either is a "vampire point of view." They are two men -- two beings, if you prefer -- and their views are simply their views. Nick thinks reality runs more or less according to medieval theology. LC has always striven to appear as if he believes in nothing but himself, and his ability to mold his reality. Of course, AtA revealed to Nick and to us that LC's fierce, independent certainty has been, in part, a front, masking the pain and doubt of what he did to Divia, and what he might have done instead. LC lied when he said that he'd "seen too much" to have faith in anything beyond himself -- AMPH plays into that, as well as AtA. But that's my Light Cousin side speaking, insisting that LC may be redeemed. For this discussion, it is important to consider LC as he has behaved (and been perceived by Nick) for most of his existence. The torture in "Dead Air" is not excusable because of what happened with Divia, or his father, or anyone. It is evil, simply. The murder he committed in "Cherry Blossoms" was not for food; it was to taunt Nick, and it was evil. Setting up Sylvaine for almost-certain death in LYTD was evil... ... as was Nick's commission of the kill. >Hence, "murder" is simply an act of survival for a vampire. As has been pointed out, vampires can survive on the blood of non-sentient beings (I really think Nick should investigate pig). Therefore, the killing of sentient beings is wrong. What is instinctive is not necessarily good. Take sex, for example (and for the ever-present metaphor of vampiric feeding). Our culture might wish to remove morality from sex, but in my opinion, that can't be done (no, I'm not putting sex on a par with murder; don't be silly -- it's just a closer example of instinct and morality, and, coincidentally, the one at the core of the vampiric myth). And instinct is not an excuse for breaking the moral code. There are no excuses, only wrong, right, and reparation from one to the other. I wrote: >>Some things are, or ought to be, engraved on the souls of all.... Marcia responded: >Oh, I can hear Lisa now...;D Yes, "ought to be" - wouldn't that be great? >But some things are not engraved on the souls of all. If they were, we >wouldn't have wars, crime, etc. Lisa has said that before. :-) Always, it's a misinterpretation of my point. An action that violates a moral absolute is an evil action. There are evil actions, and there are evil people. If there was not a moral absolute, actions could not be evil, because all things would be relative to individual perception. Luckily, the universe is larger and better run than the insides of our individual heads; there is an absolute. Nick believes in absolutes. LC has always appeared to believe in relativism. >don't believe that being made a vampire automatically makes a person a >Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy, i.e. a human psycho/sociopath. Obviously not, or Nick would be the son LC always wanted. However, being a vampire drives one to kill, both for survival and for the "life" in the blood, as Nick described to Nat in Francesca. This compulsion drives vampires to commit acts which violate the moral law (murder) and damn them if they remain unrepentant. Most vampires give in to these compulsions, no doubt in part because they believe that they have somehow been freed from the moral law. There is always a choice, a free choice, which is why ND was so profound. Only in choice is there either sin or redemption. >we're both right on this because we have no way of knowing if a vampire's >soul can be considered human or not. Aside from my firm belief that there could be no difference between the souls of sentient beings, I would say that ND and Francesca are significant on this issue. In ND, Nick asks what will happen if he steps into the light -- a choice he is clearly being offered. The Guide tells him that he "will be reclaimed," "as a mortal," and that his soul "will be judged." Therefore, if you consider ND real (I do) and not a product of Nick's imagination (Jamie did, the last time I brought this up) then FK canon clearly indicates that vampire and mortal souls receive the same treatment. (Note: the reason Nick was "stranded" when he decided not to enter the light was because there was no one bringing him back at that moment, as LC did before. Nat takes a bit longer, so he made his decision relatively earlier the second time around.) In Francesca, we have a choice between reincarnation and possession. I maintain that canon can support either, though reincarnation was intended. Either way, we see it happen to *both* Francesca/Frank and Faubert/Tracy, indicating again that mortal and vampire souls are the same. In LK, Natalie believes, and Nick may come to believe, that mortal and vampire souls may move on together. Finally, outside the story, vampires are metaphors for us -- humanity -- and to tell us a tale of ourselves, they must be like us. And so they are. >As to "universal morality" - there ain't no such thing. Who decides this? God. Certainly not us. :-) >Who decides the dividing line between killing to live or to defend oneself >or not? Same as above. We aren't to judge, but that doesn't mean we won't be judged. >What of cultures which, because of their *different* value of human >life, practice ritualistic suicide and the like? Are they wrong? Evil? >I don't think we can say that. They're just *different*. I would need a more relevant example, of course, but yes, we can say that someone is wrong, and even evil. Read David Eddings? Priests of Torak, ripping the living hearts out of unwilling victims? That would be wrong, and evil, and it would be just fine to say so. That it was a part of their culture for thousands of years doesn't make it acceptable (I'm thinking of especially after the _Belgariad_ and before Eriond). The same goes for vampires. LC's comments at the end of the "three guys at the bar" scene in MBIAV indicate that he thinks traditional vampire behavior is still appropriate in the present day. Murder has always been a part of "vampire culture." But it was always wrong, and it still is. >Really, Amy, we *both* want our Nick to be happy. You want him to achieve >his cure, and I want him to accept what he is better. We want the same >thing, just different means of achieving that happiness. Actually, happiness isn't one of my primary goals for Nick. If I was his friend, I'd want him to be happy. As his "follower," I want him to be noble and repentant. Happiness.... It is more important to me how he reaches that emotion than whether he reaches it. In fact, Marcia, I want him to accept what he is, too. It's just that I don't think it's the vampire he's been rejecting. It's the man -- the good, human man that he doesn't feel worthy to be. **** Amy R., Lady of the Knight (akr@n.......) **** "Memory's/ like wine; it might keep, it might turn." -- LF ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 08:00:15 -0500 From: D Echelbarger <gryphon@e.......> Subject: Re: The Fix and mortality (was: Spolers: Blackwing) On Sat, 22 Jun 1996, Felicia Bollin <AriCon@a.......> wrote: >some? What about the anonymous female vamp whose neck Nick nearly tore out >in the Raven back room in "Feeding the Beast", minutes after having met her? That wasn't a vampire, that was a mortal. Which is *why* Janette was so ticked at him at the time. Or do you mean "Sons of Belial"? *That* was a vampire. Just keeping the record straight. :) Diane E # D Echelbarger gryphon@e....... # # WWW HomePage: http://www.execpc.com/~echelbar/ # # "Look, I know you're a figment of my imagination, # # but you have to stop sneaking up on me!" N. Lambert # ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 07:27:59 -0700 From: LC Fenster <lucienlc@i.......> Subject: Re: Nick, Nat and Janette; brief LK SPOILERS Toward the end of this post, there are some brief LK spoilers, so be warned. Eileen Duffy wrote: >Well, IMHO, I truly believe that Nat was meant by those PTB to be the >human"love interest" for Nick. And Janette was meant to be the >vampire "love interest". That doesn't mean that I can't take sides ;) I had a discussion with Nick Gray, the FK Producer, some months ago at the FK set, and he raised something that bears on the above comment. We were discussing why TPTB were unhappy with the Tracy/Vachon relationship. In the course of that discussion, he observed that the main problem with the Tracy/Vachon relationship was that it was primarily sexual, as opposed to the Nick/Nat relationship, which was primarily "intellectual" (his word, not mine). In other words, Tracy and Vachon's relationship was based on sexual attraction (and therefore could go nowhere without killing Tracy, which is why they didn't develop it), whereas Nick and Nat's relationship was based on the search for a cure, which is about as unromantic as you can get. This having been said, the balance of the show was most definitely skewed when Deborah Duchene left the series. TPTB wanted Nick to have some kind of *romantic* or *sexual* association; that had always been an aspect of the show. But until third season, his nookie interest (with the singular exception of BMV, which I will get to in a moment) was always the neck of the week or Janette. Natalie was most definitely NOT a part of that. They were friends, good friends even, relaxed and comfortable with each other, but that was it. Nat might have wanted more, but Nick kept her at a distance. For good reason, granted, but he did. Then third season arrives, and without Janette, TPTB were left with only Natalie as a regular to provide Nick with the relationship aspect of the show. This, btw, was not the result of a conscious decision of TPTB to choose "Natalie" over "Janette"; it was the result of totally unrelated REAL LIFE factors. As Eileen said, things DO happen on television shows for reasons that have nothing to do with plot, or canon or characterization. But the result is a false (though totally understandable) picture for those who only joined the show in third season. They see an entire season of Nick&Nat. Not surprising that these folks would view Nat as the love of Nick's life: she's the only "love" interest one sees. But many of us who were around before tend to look at it quite differently. Nick was *married* (according to DD) to Janette for 75 years. At a minimum, in series canon, they had a torrid, intense relationship, the likes of which Natalie couldn't even dream of. And they have rekindled that torrid relationship periodically over the ensuing centuries. Nick had ONE YEAR where things arguably got semi-serious with Natalie - a year when Janette wasn't around, and I wouldn't describe the N&N relationship even in third season as terribly romantic or serious - balanced against 750+ years of Janette. Nick didn't *choose* Natalie over Janette; Janette went away and left Nat a clear field for awhile. To the extent Nick had a love interest (and I for one maintain that the boy is far too narcissistic and self-absorbed and self-hating to be capable of *truly* loving another), I see it as Janette, far more than Natalie. Natalie perhaps wants more, or thinks she wants more (after all, she has chosen to focus her attentions on someone who is obviously unattainable; a study of her psyche could form its own lengthy discussion), but Nick does not. What about BMV? One can, of course, view BMV as an aberration, as plenty of people do, either for its view of LC <hi, Sandra> or its view of N&N. However, one can easily incorporate it into this viewpoint, even as show canon. Nick, as always, is driven by guilt. He sees the murdered women, with their busy professional lives and lack of personal lives, and he feels guilty for using Nat. He wants to make it up to her, within his limited capacity to do so. After all, he likes Nat and cares for her, insofar as he, a vampire, is capable. So he indulges her fantasies a bit. After all, he knows he doesn't have to go very far in that direction; his *condition* makes that impossible, so he has a very easy out, unlike mere mortal men. Because Nick uses Nat, just as he uses Janette. Our Nicky boy is a user. A charming, adorable, manipulative user. He uses Nat to feel that a cure is possible, to feel that he is capable of redemption, to feel that he is not irredeemably evil. He uses her to shield the vampire community, to hide his secret. (Until, of course, she makes the mistake of offering to join him in darkness.) I've always said that imo the Meatloaf song line described perfectly the N&N relationship: *I want you, I need you, there ain't no way I'm ever gonna love you.* Nick wants and needs Nat, for various purposes, but he doesn't love Nat. However he needs to keep her happy, or he couldn't use her any more. So both guilt and self-interest coincide in BMV. I think that when LC confronts him in the restaurant, and Nick denies loving Nat, and claims to be using her, there is more than a kernel of truth in what he says, and LC (who, after all can read Nick) knows it is true, and THAT is why he allows Nat to live. Back to Janette for a moment: I agree with those who feel that Nick uses Janette more than loves her. I agree that neither of Nick's relationships (with Nat or Janette) are healthy relationships. Nick hates himself too much to believe that anyone can truly love him, with the possible exception of Janette, who has seen him, faults and all, through his blood. But not a mortal. If a mortal loves him, there is obviously something wrong with that mortal. In a way, Love You to Death can be seen to foreshadow Last Knight: in LYTD, Nick kills Sylvaine Clochet because she dares to love him. "Purity can not love evil. Unless ... it is not purity." He kills her because of his self-hatred. In Last Knight, Nick kills Nat under similar circumstances. He brushes aside Nat's view that being a vampire is not inherently evil. She loves him; she wants him; he kills her. [I know; I can hear the shouts of outraged Knighties from here <g>.] Just mnshco, of course. :-) Today. Laurie Cousin *** IB *** anti-Nick&Natpacker ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 09:31:07 -0500 From: "J.S.Levin/Stormsinger" <wabbit@e.......> Subject: Re: A question of holy symbols Julie Fundenberger said: > My personal view on the subject of which holy objects affect the >vampire is as follows. I believe that any object that a person used as a >holy thing or symbol would be objectionable to a vampire. Example: the >knife set in Blackwing. I think that all religious things would hurt them, >not just ones from certain faiths. Julie, this makes sense to me from this angle -- the knives in Blackwing were *ritual* objects. Any ritual object has a heck of a lot of psychic power poured into it. A Catholic chalice or the Jewish Torah would similarly repell a vampire at touch -- but not drive them back in the way that a cross does. See the difference? (I *think* there is one :)) Storm (Vaquera, Scrapper, Gangrel) wabbit@e....... (J.S.Levin/Stormsinger) Their canon met my imagination and was outgunned. If you practice being fictional, you discover that "characters" are as real as people with bodies and heartbeats... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 09:50:12 -0500 From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......> Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK, AtA, Fran -- Good & Evil (long) Amy wrote: >All souls are equal before God, their creator. In Christianity? Anthrovamp must step in here and remind that not everyone is Christian on this list, and even those who are have different interpretations. Not everyone believes in God, or at least, not the same god. I'm not willing to say that any one person or group of people is right or wrong in their interpretations. I'll only be willing to say that when someone can offer me empirical proof. >And all souls are equally subject to the universals of Right and Wrong >which transcend culture, time, place, and species. If there were no such thing as human beings, then there would be no Right and Wrong. Such concepts are social constructs. If there is no one to commit Right and no one to commit Wrong, then they do not exist. Therefore, they are arbitrary. Some people believe in a different set of absolute rights and wrongs. My father, and many like him, believes homosexuals are doomed to hell and their very existence is an aberration of nature and God. Is my father's set of values to be used, or someone else's? Who's to say what is Right and Wrong for all? >>As to "universal morality" - there ain't no such thing. Who decides this? > >God. Certainly not us. :-) Which God? Yours? Mine? Nick's? The trouble is, human beings *do* decide universal morality. We do it every day. Human beings make laws and rules and social behavior based on our individual idea of what is right and wrong. For some people, interracial marriage is about as wrong as you can get. For some people, being a non-Christian is about as wrong as you can get. The list goes on. If there was a universal right and wrong, we'd have an easier time of following the rules, don't you think? But the fact that there are so many religions and so many points of view and so many interpretations means that not everyone views the world in the same set way. I, for one, am not qualified to say who is right and who is wrong and which particular religion is *the* absolutely correct one. >I would need a more relevant example, of course, but yes, we can say that >someone is wrong, and even evil. Read David Eddings? Priests of Torak, >ripping the living hearts out of unwilling victims? That would be wrong, >and evil, and it would be just fine to say so. So the Aztecs were wrong and evil, too? Whatever they were doing socially allowed them to become one of the most advanced and largest civilizations in history. Their religion worked for *them*. For the purposes of the show, I will grant without argument that there is some kind of god or supreme being or after life. Nothing, however, has indicated to me *which* god, *which* supreme being, or *which* afterlife it is. I have my own ideas of right and wrong, but I'm not going to try to hold them up as Right and Wrong. We human beings tend to give ourselves way too much importance in the universe. Personally I think we're all just a bunch of self-important animals, just glorified beavers and monkeys building glorified dams and scratching ourselves in public. Rather than saying "murder is wrong", I'd rather say "for the strength of our societal fabric, murder must be avoided". If two monkeys kill each other, it's no big deal to most of us. To monkeys, however, it disrupts their social fabric and hierarchy. I don't see it as being all that different. Personally I think having to shave one's legs every day is evil. I think Rush Limbaugh in a halter top is evil. I think my fifth grade PE teacher was evil. But these are what *I* think. I'm not going to write laws based on my own personal rights and wrongs. >The same goes for vampires. LC's comments at the end of the "three guys >at the bar" scene in MBIAV indicate that he thinks traditional vampire >behavior is still appropriate in the present day. Murder has always been >a part of "vampire culture." But it was always wrong, and it still is. There's the word again. ;) We've developed a sense of Right and Wrong to keep society chugging along unhindered. It's preservation of the species. One of the tenets of evolution is that we have to live long enough to pass along our knowledge to our children. Therefore, we have to ensure that we won't get wasted on the streets every time we go out to get our morning paper. We instill ideas of Right and Wrong so that we can feel relatively safe living our lives. "I probably won't get murdered today, because most people know murder is Wrong." It's security. But, as an anrthopologist (ha! you knew I was gonna dredge that up again!), I'm not going to say there are Rights and Wrongs. There are things merely which either help or hinder the ongoing continuity of our society. Lacroix believes vampires are justified in "murdering" human beings. But do you see him doing it a lot? No. Why? To do so would endanger his community - his *society*. Most of the rest of us don't murder because we've been taught it's wrong. "Thou shalt not kill." It's ingrained into us until we think it's completely natural, that we were even born with morals. Saying something is Right or Wrong is too simple and avoids looking at the reasons of why such a thing is perceived as right or wrong or why such a thing must or must not be done. Sorry, that's the sociologist in me talking. ;) Now that I think about it, Lacroix would have made an excellent sociologist! Maybe if he's free my school can recruit him... ;) Professor Lacroix has a nice ring to it... ****Wicked Cousin Tippi**** HEY! Want FK stuff? Sony needs to know that you want it! Contact Anne at TV_ShowStuff@p....... and TELL her NOW! :) "Poetry can be so deceiving." - LC in Baby, Baby ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 10:55:43 -0400 From: "Lisa P." <LadysAVamp@a.......> Subject: New Screen Name for CERK Shirt Orders Hi Everyone, For all those people who ordered CERK shirts through me (or wish to), please send any further questions, comments etc. to KnightKeep@a........ My LadysAVamp@a....... account is becoming increasingly more hectic since I went off digest for both FKFIC-L and FORKNI-L and joined the VIRTUAL loop. So in order for me not to miss any posts, please send to my new screen name. Also, I created two flyers for the Forever Knight soundtrack. Both are the same except for ordering information. One is made for posting in music stores, the other for the general public. They both contain information on how to contact TV SHOWSTUFF. I still have not had a chance to create a web page <grrr>, so if anyone is interested in the flyers (MS Word 6.0c for Windows), e-mail me at KnightKeep@a....... and put FK CD Flyers in the Subject heading. Lisa Patnaude p.s. YKYBWTMFKW discussing with a client on transferring documents from one platform to another (Unix to PC) through the company's network and he describes it as "bringing across" the document. I just couldn't stop the smile that spread from ear to ear and he took that as meaning it would be no problem. I told him I would be very happy to bring it across and yes, I was still grinnning like a fool! *************************************************************************** Only one thing is truly permanent...Forever Knight Cousinly Knightie w/NatPacker tendencies <I do so hate to limit myself> LadysAVamp@a......., KnightKeep@a......., oboyyme@t....... <Just call me a Lady of the Knight...but say it with a smile> ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:33:30 -0400 From: "Lisa J. Patnaude" <KnightKeep@a.......> Subject: Congratulations! You are the First Visitor! Congratulations Cousin Tippi! You were the very first visitor to my new AOL screen name. It was not created 15 minutes prior to your arrival. Just like Uncle, somehow he always knows ;) 1st Place Prize - virtual assorted chocolates of your choice or one anatomically correct dark chocolate figure of Uncle in a strawberry flavored thong. Please, take your time in deciding. <humming theme to Jeopardy...don't know why, just popped into my head> Definitely in a weird mood. Lisa Patnaude *************************************************************************** Only one thing is truly permanent...Forever Knight Cousinly Knightie w/NatPacker tendencies <I do so hate to limit myself> LadysAVamp@a......., KnightKeep@a......., oboyyme@t....... <Just call me a Lady of the Knight...but say it with a smile> ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 10:25:50 -0500 From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......> Subject: Re: Nick, Nat and Janette; brief LK SPOILERS At 07:27 AM 6/22/96 -0700, LC Fenster wrote: >Then third season arrives, and without Janette, TPTB were left with >only Natalie as a regular to provide Nick with the relationship aspect >of the show. But the result is a false (though totally >understandable) picture for those who only joined the show in third >season. They see an entire season of Nick&Nat. Not surprising that >these folks would view Nat as the love of Nick's life Just to set the record straight, every N&NPacker didn't join the show in third season. I started watching in second season. Some of the first episodes I saw were "Partners of the Month", "A More Perfect Hell", and "Crazy Love". Even though I loved the scenes with Janette in "Crazy Love", I know Nick loves Nat, and I am a died-in-the-wool N&NPacker. Margie (treeleaf@i.......) N&NPacker Cousin of the Knight Save FK - http://members.aol.com/CuznJamiMR ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:38:49 -0400 From: Tami Baskin <Tjoy968@a.......> Subject: NK and Janette Questions Hi, all! All these posts about Nick and Janette and their relationship have stirred up a few questions. I have only seen a handful of second season eps, most of the third, and none of the first. During the first and second seasons, has Nick ever shown any real resentment or hostility toward Janette for the role she played in his transformation, given that she was the "bait" or the "lure" (or so I've read) that brought him to LaCroix? In the few 2nd season eps that I've seen where NK and Janette interact, (POTM, CL, AFWTD) he seems to have a great dependence on and fond- ness for her. In POTM, he seems devastated when she chooses to end their relationship. How can he just ignore the part she played in bringing him across? Has he ever commented on her role in this to Janette or any other FK character? Forgive me if any such dialogue was in any of the above mentioned eps, as I watched them very late at night, and was more than a bit sleepy. Yes, I understand that Janette was "all he had", and that really they were both LC's "hostages". I see how they could become very dependent upon one another. But I still think he might have some degree of animosity toward her (no matter how brickish he can be, or how deeply he tried to burry it, but I haven't seen it. Granted, I haven't seen a whole lot, and that's why I'm asking ; ) Can it be precisely because Janette was "all he had" for several centuries that NK has repressed her part in his being brought across? Could he be transferring all or most of his feelings of anger onto LC? Any psychologists out there? Also, was it ever made clear who spotted Nick first, LC or Janette? Does NK feel that she was just a pawn, and had no choice in the matter? On the other hand, LC didn't *need* Janette to get Nick. What LC wants, LC simply takes. The description I've read concerning Nick and Janette's seduction scene has a totally remorseless Janette walking coldly away from NK to LC. Do you all think that this was because she felt that Vampirism was a wonderful gift, and there was nothing to feel guilty about? The way I read it, she seemed to really relish her part in the seduction (I know I'm going to get a lot of replies here to the effect of "Hey, wouldn't we all!" ; )), and there seemed to be a degree of selfishness or self interest ("Oooh, I want him!") involved. IB's don't come after me ; ). Maybe he feels that after a century or so with LC, who could blame her? Uh oh, now the cousins will come after me ; ) Was her part totally voluntary? Was she pressured by LC? A bit of both? No simple answers in the grey world of FK, I guess (and that's one of the reasons I love it)! Cousin Eric recently wrote: >Nick has not, to my knowledge, (and I haven't seen every ep yet), ever >seemed like he was in love per se, with Janette. In lust, yes. In need, yes. >But not in love. Could true love grow out of their situation? I don't know. What's everyone's take on all or any of the above? Their relationship in general? Can anyone enlighten me? If this has been discussed on the list before, I apologize, but we newbies are full of questions! I guess getting them answered is how we become, what, "oldbies"? ; ) Tami Joy Unaffiliated and Curious ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 10:42:08 -0500 From: "J.S.Levin/Stormsinger" <wabbit@e.......> Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK, AtA, Fran -- Good & Evil (long) Anthropologist/Historian/Witch here. Please see Tippi's post on this subject. It is beautifully comprehensive and I'm gonna have to "me too" it almost end to end. People, we have to remember that we live in an extremely pluralistic society -- and that this basic society also exists in the world of FK. As we have *very* clearly seen, the issues and the choices are no simplier or easier in Nick's world than in ours. As Tippi points out, the concept of a Universal Good and Evil is, unfortunately, a cultural myth. You would find that, for instance, the hill people of Afganistan also have such a concept -- but it's application would *appall* you (they see no problem in beating a woman to death for talking to a man not her husband -- or for extorting an endless "dowry" from her parents in return for not killing her so he can marry again). Evil to us; cultural norm to them. We can see that just talking to man is not adultry -- but in their eyes, it is. Adultry is Wrong. My own concepts of Good, Evil, God/dess, and morality are not like yours. And as Amy points out, if there *is* some Universal concept, it is not known to us. Therefore, we can't discuss it meaningfully. We are only guessing, based on our knowledge of our small part of the elephant. And I refuse to be responsible for your guesses. Sorry. Tippi points out: >I have my own ideas of right and wrong, but I'm not going to try to hold >them up as Right and Wrong. We human beings tend to give ourselves way too >much importance in the universe. <snip> Rather than saying "murder is >wrong", I'd rather say "for the strength of our societal fabric, >murder must be avoided". And even the definition of "murder" is open to societal interpretation. A country like China, choking on its census, unable to feed the people it has *right now*, let alone the ones being born tomorrow, has a completely different concept of "murder" than we do. As do the Moslems. As do vampires -- who, I think, for their society's survival and their own sanity, must have developed a differentiation between hunting and/or killing for survival (I still don't buy that every attack ends in death -- it's not a survival characteristic) and "murder". I'm not sure exactly what that definition would entail, but I suspect that danger to the community and the *necessity* of the death play a part -- even as it does when a cop looks down the barrel of his gun at a perp and decides whether or not to pull the trigger. We use the same words and think we are talking about the same things, and we aren't, as diplomats and business people realize every day. Heck, my definition of "sky blue" is probably not your definition of that color, although we are both technically looking at the same sky! But I grew up in Florida, and believe me, a blue sky down there looks totally different from a blue sky up here in Wisconsin! Tippi says: >Most of the rest of us don't murder because we've been taught it's wrong. >"Thou shalt not kill." It's ingrained into us until we think it's >completely natural, that we were even born with morals. And if you look at our society today, you see the utter falsity of that concept. There are too many people out there who have been taught that violence, including what we define as "murder" is an appropriate response. And many of them simply *do not understand* what our "problem" is -- this is the way *their society* works. It is not our society, even though it intertwines with ours and we try to pretend that it is. "Our society" is actually a patchwork quilt of societies -- some of which work together, some of which are anathema to each other. Like vampire and mortal society, they touch, they even intertwine, but they do not "mix". To communicate between two such societies, bridges must be built, and definitions carefully defined. That is why there are no "quick fixes" in our society, and why, in the FK universe, the relations between the vampire and mortal societies are so tentative. >Saying something is Right or Wrong is too simple and avoids looking at the >reasons of why such a thing is perceived as right or wrong or why such a >thing must or must not be done. Absolutely -- to which I add "*in our society*". Nick's problem, IMNSHO, is that he is attempting to plaster *his perception* of mortal society over vampire society -- and it simply will not fit. It is the solution of the conquistadors and the inquisators, and it didn't work then and it doesn't work now. Nick wants the simplicity of Universal Right and Wrong, but his world is simply not cooperating. >Now that I think about it, Lacroix would have made an excellent sociologist! Yes, he would -- because he understands, as Nick doesn't, that one must examine the situation, and tailor a solution to it -- not try and cram the situation into your pre-conceived solution. And Lacroix does this very well -- in every arena *except* his dealings with Nick. We all have our blind spots. <G> Gods -- *enough* philosophy on a Saturday morning! Tippi, maybe you and I need to go start a show like the Nightcrawler's somewhere! We definitely have the philosophical, challenge your perceptions bent for it!! <BG> Storm (Vaquera, Scrapper, Gangrel) wabbit@e....... (J.S.Levin/Stormsinger) Their canon met my imagination and was outgunned. If you practice being fictional, you discover that "characters" are as real as people with bodies and heartbeats... =========================================================================
Previous |
This month's list |
Next |