File: "FORKNI-L LOG9606D" Part 5 TOPICS: SPOILER: LK, AtA, Fran -- Good & Evil (long) (4) Congratulations! You are the First Visitor! Happy Birthday Announcement (2) -- Good & Evil A question of holy symbols The NEW, NEW Question! Tia talkin' (2) The Fix/Nick & Nat What's under spoiler protection again? Good vs. Evil GWD's new series Alyse Ger and a new series Holy Symbols... Nick and Nat Feeding the Beast Spoilers, Nick and Sex (3) Milk Carton msg. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 10:45:23 -0500 From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......> Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK, AtA, Fran -- Good & Evil (long) At 09:50 AM 6/22/96 -0500, TippiNB wrote: >Amy wrote: >>.... yes, we can say that someone is wrong, and even evil. .... >>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*. So if murder appears to "work" for a society it's okay? The only criterion is whether it "works"? Margie (treeleaf@i.......) N&NPacker Cousin of the Knight Save FK - http://members.aol.com/CuznJamiMR ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:09:53 -0500 From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......> Subject: Re: Congratulations! You are the First Visitor! Lisa wrote: >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> Make it grape and you got yourself a deal! Yay! ****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 13:08:32 -0300 From: Stapleton <d7ux@u.......> Subject: Happy Birthday Announcement Today, June 22, is the birthday of Catherine Disher. Let's get out there and celebrate. Virtual chocolate to everyone! (I'm in a happy mood today, and no one can spoil it) Lynn Stapleton Bouncy NatPacker (is there any other kind? :-)) d7ux@u....... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 12:25:00 -0400 From: Mary Davis <Spirit3679@a.......> Subject: Re: -- Good & Evil Everybody has an opinion on the issue of God, right,wrong,good,evil,.... So I may as well throw in mine. Here goes. I think God is probably doing one of two things. Shaking his head and mumbling to himself, "They don't get it, they just don't get it" Laughing his ass off, "They don't get it, they just don't get it" Ah what fools we mortals be. Mary Davis Just another actor strutting on the stage of life. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:31:51 -0500 From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......> Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK, AtA, Fran -- Good & Evil (long) I wrote: >>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*. Then Margie wrote: >So if murder appears to "work" for a society it's okay? The only criterion >is whether it "works"? The words "murder" and "okay" don't appear anywhere in my above statement. Such words are not value neutral and the only one in which one can have a meaningful debate is to remain *value neutral*. Anything else is, by literary standards, rhetoric, which accomplishes little and inflames much. There are (were) religions in which human sacrifice was mutually consentual. Both religion and practioner agreed to it, whether explicitly by verbalization or implicitly by the continuing implementation of said religious practices. How I once viewed FK and how I view it now are different. It *was* once a black or white issue for me. I was not a fan then. The more complex I realized it was, however, the more I watched. There are themes in it that parallel wider sociological themes. Very few answers are just handed to us, which leaves it up to interesting conversations such as this one. ;) Just imagine if we all saw it the same way, how boring that would be. ****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 12:56:14 -0400 From: Judith Freudenthal <DanaKnight@a.......> Subject: Re: Happy Birthday Announcement Out of curiousity does anyone know how old Catherine Disher is? Judy DanaKnight@a....... Natpacker, Knightie, N&Npacker ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 12:57:22 -0700 From: Robin Carroll-Mann <harper@t.......> Subject: Re: A question of holy symbols "J.S.Levin/Stormsinger" <wabbit@e.......> said: >2) How does the religion in question deal with the question of vampires >(almost every one actually does, interestingly enough, in some form) and >good and evil? Judaism explicitly, and Christianity implicitly condemn >vampirism. Some of the eastern religions are less hard and fast. When you say that Judaism condemns vampirism, are you basing that on the biblical prohibition against consuming blood? If so, there's a loophole. Any of the laws of the Torah can (and must) be broken in order to save human life. Orthodox Jews will drive on the Sabbath to take someone to the emergency room, if need be, or eat ham if there is nothing else to keep them from starvation. There are only three laws that cannot be broken in order to save life: idolatry, adultery, and murder. So by Jewish law, Nick is doing what he ought to do: drinking animal blood to keep himself alive. Now, if Nick were Jewish, he would probably be required to restrict himself to the blood of kosher animals. As a gentile, he is not bound by the laws of kashruth. Judaism holds that he *is* bound by the 7 laws given after the Flood to the sons of Noah. One of these laws prohibits eating the flesh of a living animal, and is considered to be a general prohibition against cruelty to animals. So I would guess that Nick is not allowed to drink straight from the cow, but should restrict himself to blood from animals that were humanely slaughtered. OTOH, while Judaism provides certain loopholes for vampires, I do not think that it condones *choosing* vampirism. Disclaimer: All of the above is my (doubtlessly flawed)interpretation of what traditional Judaism would say about vampires. I'm Jewish, but not very observant, and most of this is based on stuff I've read, including a thread on this very topic in soc.culture.jewish. >Storm (Vaquera, Scrapper, Gangrel) -- Harper *** Robin Carroll-Mann harper@t....... OR rcmann@d....... "Mostly Harmless" -- Douglas Adams ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:00:36 -0400 From: Lisa Prince <Moonlight@g.......> Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK, AtA, Fran -- Good & Evil (long) Hey, Hey All :) (Amy, Marci, you really shouldn't be doing this to me) I am playing devil's advocate here and the examples here are used to illustrate a point -- i.e. absolutes are as much a matter of perspective as the concepts of good and evil. If you've had it with this debate or don't feel like reading, but all means delete away. Amy writes: >All souls are equal before God, their creator. Yes, all souls are equal before God, but each also is individualistic. Each creates its own understand of what is righ and what is wrong. Amy writes: >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. I must disagree (as if you didn't know that ;)). I'll use the example of murder which most people believe is wrong and evil. Capital punishment fits the bill quite well. Our government says that murder is wrong and then it turns around and murders the murderer. If murder is always wrong and evil, then the government is as wrong as the murderer. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that there sort of thing. Now I'm not saying that I agree with or don't agree with capital punishment, I'm simply saying that the world is not ruled by standards that are simply wrong or right. Perspective, motives, and individualism always impact upon ideas of good versus evil. Amy writes: >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. Again, this is an individual perspective. According to certain cultures, cows are sacred. Many people eat them quite liberally. Their culture dictates that our actions are wrong and evil, ours does not. Who is right? Whose perspective should be the one that is followed? Amy writes: >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. According to definition, murder means "the intentional killing of one human being by another." Therefore, if one believes that murder is a universal absolute evil, wars are evil -- both sides are evil whether they are protecting the innocence or not, capital punishment is evil, self-defense is evil, etc. etc. Amy says: >Evil is still evil; wrong is still wrong; and we are all >accountable for ourselves. Yes, and we are accountable to ourselves and *OUR OWN* perception of what is evil and what is wrong. Amy says: >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. True, but we acknowledge and understand when we are being *good*, Nick does not. That is the fundamental problem with Nick and his desire for redemption. Marcia writes: >>Hence, "murder" is simply an act of survival for a vampire. Amy responds: >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. A sentient being is a being that has sensation or feeling. We have absolutely no idea whether animals communicate in any type of sophisticated manner. Do they feel fear and pain and hunger and affection? Yes. Why are they more acceptable to kill? Simply because we can't talk to them? They can't beg for their lives? They can't scream and cry and implore their attacker not to kill them? Shouldn't we be protecting those animals that are *less* intelligent than we are? Amy wrote: >>>Some things are, or ought to be, engraved on the souls of >>>all.... All I can say is that as soon as someone does a survey that shows every human being agreeing on the wrongfulness or evil of any given act without qualifications, I'll accept that. Marcia responded: >>Oh, I can hear Lisa now...;D Yes, "ought to be" - wouldn't that >>be great? It's really not nice to taunt people, you know ;) Amy writes: >Lisa has said that before. :-) Always, it's a misinterpretation >of my point. Not misinterpreting, Amy, simply disagreeing. I actually would have saved everyone the pain of hearing my blathering if you hadn't included this line. >An action that violates a moral absolute is an evil action. ><snip>If there was not a moral absolute, actions could not be >evil, because all things would be relative to individual >perception. <snip> there is an absolute. No, there is not an absolute. There is the belief in absolutes within certain people. There is a vast number of people who believe that evil and good are always relative terms. Actions can be evil without moral absolutes. As I've said before, to admit to the existence of good is to admit to the existence of evil. The concept and understanding of one can't exist without the other. However, that doesn't require either to be dictated by moral absolutes. Actions and evil are always a matter of individual perception. Marci wrote: >>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. Amy replied: >Obviously not, or Nick would be the son LC always wanted. Excuse me? You're now comparing LaCroix to Jeffrey Dahmer -- a serial murderer who *ate* his victims -- and John Wayne Gacy -- a serial murderer who killed and raped young men and buried them in his basement? Are you saying that you believe that LC wants Nick to become like either of these fellows? If so, I think you are totally off the mark. All LC has ever asked Nick to do is accept himself. Considering the pain and angst that Nick goes through by rejecting something that is a part of him, I can see why LC would want him to accept himself. He doesn't want his child to be in pain. Right or wrong, agree or disagree, I think there is a *VAST* difference between what LaCroix is advocating and what Dahmer and Gacy were. Besides which, by accepting himself and the wrong that he has done, Nick will be much closer to redemption and salvation than he is now. Amy: >This compulsion drives vampires to commit acts which violate the >moral law (murder) and damn them if they remain unrepentant. Yet, Nick is not unrepentant, so he is not *evil*. The largest argument surrounding Nick, in my very humble, is his unwillingness to believe in his own goodness and accept that he can be forgiven if he only asks for it. Marci wrote: >>we're both right on this because we have no way of knowing if a >> vampire's soul can be considered human or not. Amy replies: >Aside from my firm belief that there could be no difference >between the souls of sentient beings, According to several religions, every creature has a soul. Humans, animals, etc. So, all should be given the same reverence and consideration. Amy says: >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." Yes, and Nick refuses to step into the light and accept the consequences of his behavior. Acceptance of our mistakes and our sins are the first step on the way to redemption. Nick, as with his search for a cure, wants guarantees of his salvation before he gets there. We, as humans, must accept our judgement without fore knowledge of our redemption, why should Nick be different. Amy writes: >(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.) Again, both times he rejects the light for selfish reasons and he must rely on others to bring him back. He needs proof, but in order to have true faith, he must reject his quest for proof and accept what is unproveable. Marci writes: >>As to "universal morality" - there ain't no such thing. Who >>decides this? Amy writes: >God. Certainly not us. :-) Yes, and we, as humans, interpret God's words -- priests, scholars, church-goers, etc. etc. (Sounds familiar for some reason :)) Those who wrote the Bible, wrote it after the death of Jesus. They interpreted his life and expressed it in written words. Were they divinely guided in their writing? Who knows. But as I've said before, all reading is interpretation. We see the words, internalize them, and come to invest meaning in the words according to our own experiences. There are multiple interpretations of the Bible and more will proliferate as the world grows older. Who knows which interpretation is the one that the writers or God meant for us to accept. Marci wrote: >>Who decides the dividing line between killing to live or to >>defend oneself or not? Amy replied: >Same as above. We aren't to judge, but that doesn't mean we won't >be judged. This is true. We will always be judged. But, we are not the ones that have the ability to judge something or someone. Until we climb into the shoes and soul of another being, we will never be able to judge whether or not that person's motives are pure. That being said, who are we to judge anyone else's beliefs and actions. According to your argument, God is the ultimate judge. Therefore, we should not be condemning someone for a perceived evil; we should be leaving that condemnation and punishment up to God. Marci wrote: >>What of cultures which, because of their *different* value of >>human life, practice ritualistic suicide and the like? Are they >>wrong? Evil? <snip> They're just *different*. Amy replied: >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 Sorry about over quoting up there. No way around it :( Anyway, back to the argument. It doesn't make it acceptable to you and a number of other people. It obviously is very acceptable to them or they wouldn't be doing it. They are different from you and as an outsider, you look in and place a value judgement on their behavior. It is unfair to the difference of that culture for you to judge them as an outsider. Lisa Who can't believe she lets herself get pulled into this every time :) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:14:42 -0400 From: Joy Davis <Rjoi@a.......> Subject: The NEW, NEW Question! Tia talkin' Hey people out there! I got many good answers, and the majority said that Nick looks like he's going to heaven! No one was rude and I must say that it was a pleasure to get polite, nice answers to my question. Well, today's question is: WHAT IF PEOPLE FOUND OUT ABOUT VAMPIRES? WHAT WOULD THE HUMAN RACE DO? I MEAN EVERYBODY! THE JUNKIE ON THE STREET, THE MILLIONARE IN HIS MANSION, MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE, ETC. IF THERE WAS NO DOUBT THAT THEY EXISTED, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN? Thanks everybody! I thank EVERYBODY personally, and I read each and every answer I get. Please give me thoughtful answers because I am in Jr. High, I'm busy, and I take the time to read and respond to the answers I receive. Thanks for your support! Tia N&Npacker~Natpacker Knightie Cousin of the Knight~Cousin (an aquired taste!) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 12:28:53 -0500 From: D Echelbarger <gryphon@e.......> Subject: Re: The NEW, NEW Question! Tia talkin' On Sat, 22 Jun 1996, Joy Davis <Rjoi@a.......> wrote: >WHAT IF PEOPLE FOUND OUT ABOUT VAMPIRES? WHAT WOULD THE HUMAN RACE DO? > I MEAN EVERYBODY! THE JUNKIE ON THE STREET, THE MILLIONARE IN HIS >MANSION, MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE, ETC. >IF THERE WAS NO DOUBT THAT THEY EXISTED, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN? Tia, dear, you don't need to SHOUT. :) We all can hear just fine. That said, anyone who wants a few fan-fic answers to this question should check out the "If They Only Knew" challenge stories on the FK FTP site, since that was the question posed by the challenge. I'll send a copy of my (admittedly depressing) story in this challenge to anyone who asks by midnight tomorrow (6/23). :) (Cynthia, is there is a separate section for this challenge? I couldn't find one...) 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 13:32:11 -0400 From: Mei Wa Kwong <kwongm@g.......> Subject: The Fix/Nick & Nat I erased the previous message, but I think there was some confusion on one of my previous posts. In response to someone's post as to why Nick didn't kiss Nat on the lips after he was cured if they were lovers, I said that they weren't lovers yet. What I meant was that while they, in my opinion, were in love, they had not consummated their love in any way, be it physically or telling each other that they were in love. Hence, my reasons for saying they were not lovers. Hope this clears it up! ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:32:04 -0400 From: Ann Lipton <Iocaste@a.......> Subject: What's under spoiler protection again? Yes, I know this has been said a zillion times, but I forgot. Could someone please let me know for the (hopefully) last time what is still protected? Thanks, Ann ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:35:10 -0400 From: "Margaret L. Carter" <MLCVamp@a.......> Subject: Re: Good vs. Evil I fall on the side that believes ethical standards apply to all sentient (intelligent, soul-possessing, however you want to put it) beings. I also happen to believe that the FK-type vampires are human-beings-with-a-difference, not former human beings, but even if I held them to be a "different species," I would still not hold them therefore exempt from what we recognize as standards of Good and Evil. (I write about vampires who are literally a different species; some among them consider human beings equivalent to lower animals and therefore not the subject of ethical constraints [note, however, that many real-world human beings don't regard "lower" animals this way], while others consider human beings as sentient, intelligent, etc., and therefore deserving of ethical treatment. The disagreement is whether homo sapiens is "intelligent" enough to evoke a moral quandary, not whether moral standards apply to all intelligent life-forms.) And, to segue into a side-remark about killing vs. sipping, I see the "vampire who doesn't have to kill" as more involved in moral quandaries because, among other things, it seems to me that a person who, in the absence of an irresistible craving, makes a cool decision to kill because he gets a kick out of it, is more guilty than the person who is swept away by that aforementioned irresistible craving. Universal morality? Disagreements among real-world cultures about euthanasia, suicide, number of spouses, etc., are disagreements about details, not fundamentals. As C. S. Lewis points out in THE ABOLITION OF MAN, a truly "different" morality would be simply unrecognizable. (To apply this to FK vampires, for example, those like LaCroix don't deny the value of life; they just restrict it to vampire life. Others expand the concept to include respect for human life, as well.) I think I've recommended this book on this topic before, so in the spirit of "here's where I came in," I'll shut up. Margaret Carter ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:35:27 -0400 From: "Margaret L. Carter" <MLCVamp@a.......> Subject: Re: GWD's new series I would really enjoy seeing him as a private investigator, too. Or a public defender getting involved with the downtrodden. How about GWD in the series that the TV version of "The Client" SHOULD have been -- a dramatic examination of social issues (whereas it seemed to establish itself very quickly, from the eps I've seen, as one more "murder of the week" show). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:34:39 -0400 From: "Margaret L. Carter" <MLCVamp@a.......> Subject: Re: Alyse Contrary to the earlier post on this topic, I felt the character of Alyse was marginally better in the FK pilot. In the original NICK KNIGHT, she behaved so stupidly she made me gag -- I just could not believe her as a professional woman with a doctorate. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:05:32 -0700 From: Margie Gillis <margieg@e.......> Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK, AtA, Fran -- Good & Evil (long) Talking about societies/cultures that practice human sacrifice, and whether or not they are intrinsically evil, Tippi wrote: >There are (were) religions in which human sacrifice was mutually consentual. >Both religion and practioner agreed to it, whether explicitly by >verbalization or implicitly by the continuing implementation of said >religious practices. > And to put this in another perspective--Christianity, particularly Catholicism, is a religion which is based *entirely* on the concept of willing human sacrifice. This sacrifice is repeated ritually--celebrated--every single day. Although the argument can be made that now it is repeated symbolically, rather than actually, and thus doesn't carry the same weight, that doesn't hold with Catholic beliefs. And even if it did, the original sacrifice was real. I know of no Catholics who consider their religion evil, or themselves evil for taking part in it. Nor should they, imo. The willing sacrifice of oneself to one's god in order to save one's people is a very powerful thing, indeed. I don't want to get into a huge discussion on the merits of Catholicism--I'll leave that to Amy, who does a terrific job and is still a Catholic, so remembers things that I don't. :) I just wanted to point out that sometimes it isn't always the "alien" society that needs to be looked at. Automatic assumptions about intrinsic good and evil can be dangerous. >How I once viewed FK and how I view it now are different. <snip> Very few >answers are just handed to us, >which leaves it up to interesting conversations such as this one. ;) Just >imagine if we all saw it the same way, how boring that would be. > Ain't it the truth? :) Margie margieg@e....... Dark Knightie/Immortal Beloved/Unnamed ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:09:01 -0700 From: Marg Rothschild <margr@a.......> Subject: Re: Ger and a new series Hello all! On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, Muldy Sculler wrote: > Okay, I will play. GWD in a new series playing a priest. Just ponder > what confession what confession would be like. Humm a crime-solving > priest, well, he is more interesting than Geo. Kennedy. LoL, I could see this - he did a great job in the confessional in For I Have Sinned!!! I was ROTFL! Love the accent! Marg Rothschild, Cousin margr@i....... or margr@a....... (sig in process) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:20:12 -0700 From: Antonia Spadafina <asginger@i.......> Subject: Re: Holy Symbols... Hi all-- I've been following the discussion revolving around the empowerment of symbols. Here's my $.02 worth... One example of the empowerment and subsequent corruption of a symbol is the swastika. In many cultures it is a symbol of prosperity and good fortune. It was a favorite symbol on Mesopotamian coinage; it appeared in early Christian & Byzantine art; the Mayas and principally the Navajos used it as a focal point. In India it is still used as an auspicious symbol; Jainas are reminded of the four possible places of disposition for their souls by the four arms. This symbol is still used for good - to guard doors against the entrance of evil or to keep bad fortune away from balance books. The right hand swastika is considered a *solar* symbol, imitating the rotation and path taken daily by the sun. To some peoples it is a symbol of universal peace & happiness. The left-hand swastika more often stands for night, the goddess Kali (represented as a hideous hag smeared with blood, for which she has a taste, with bared teeth and protruding tongue - a real vampires' goddess!) and magical practices. The Nazis took and invested the swastika symbol with overtones of racial superiority and the crushing military might of the German folk. Used as a uniting emblem, it lit a fire with the power of belief in the government's propaganda. Keeping this in mind - might the right-hand swastika be used to repel the attack of a vampire in the modern age? There is yet belief in this symbol. Or must the vampire have been brought over when the Navajo nation was at its peak - or the Mesopotamians ruled what is now Iraq, thus being susceptible. It is a *sun* symbol, not unlike the knife used in "Blackwing", or a certain other symbol currently under spoiler protection (further deponent sayeth not). And further, would we be safe in saying that the left-hand swastika would invest a vampire with greater strength and lead him deeper into evil? I'm curious what y'all think. *********************************************************************** *Toni S. / asginger@i....... _OR_ antonia_spadafina@s....... * *new Vaquera, old Knightie from NYC * *DUM SPIRO SPERO!! * *********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 14:21:51 +0000 From: Gayle McCreedy <gmccree@c.......> Subject: Re: Nick and Nat NO, NO, NO, NO, NO! Natalie's attraction to Nick is immediate. When she first opens the body bag, her reaction as she gazes at his face is, "...not bad at all." (Said, I should add, in a sexy undertone.) And Nick's attraction to Nat, while it develops more slowly, is equally apparent. He is NOT just Nat's "best bud." N&N slammers are missing two important pieces of the puzzle. First: Nick is/was a KNIGHT! Think of coming of age in the age of superior courtliness. The courtly ideal, and the model of courtship, is a chaste one. The romanticism of Nick's era is that the love of the knight's lady is pure, is chaste, and is HEALING. The mere touch of a lady's hand on a fevered brow, the sole occurance of a chaste kiss, a token of affection in the form of a lock of hair or a piece of jewelry - the romantic knight takes these into battle with him. It is a 90's predisposition that love = sex. Given that Nick views Nat as his lady, with all of the romanticism and idealization that entails, a long and chaste courtship would be the most logical of paths for Nick to take. When you add that Nick's vampirism makes it a virtual certainty that Nat would die from a sexual encounter, the enforcement of a chaste relationship is even stronger. Secondly, Nat's acceptance of this role, even though she is generally a 90's sort of women, is simply to let her romantic side out. How many women hold in that secret part of their hearts a remnant of Rose, who longs to be the saving love for the Beast? (Fie on the cartoon; go back to the book!) Our society is littered with the mythical remnants of the saving power of the love of a good woman upon an "unredeemable" man. How many of us have spent time in the quest of transforming that man who really seems to need our love to complete themselves? Natalie, who begins looking for a cure with needles and textbooks, ends up believing that perhaps it IS the quality of a pure love to be the cure. Nick and Nat come into their love from different times and cultural perspectives, full of fear of rejection and fear of acceptance, both seeking that pure love which will permit them to transcend the constraints of the life they had to enjoy a life in the ideal. ************************************************************ Gayle McCreedy gmccree@c....... Nick&Nat Packer "In Love and Faith There is Forever" ***************************************************** ...Sanity is the playground for the unimaginative... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 14:30:29 +0000 From: Gayle McCreedy <gmccree@c.......> Subject: Re: Feeding the Beast Spoilers, Nick and Sex Back again to the knightly courtship... A Lady supplies the chaste love, the dream, the cure, the courage to endure. Sex is simply something easily had with the slut du jour. Nick is not the feminist ideal of the perfect date; just the knightly/romanticist one. ************************************************************ Gayle McCreedy gmccree@c....... Nick&Nat Packer "In Love and Faith There is Forever" ***************************************************** ...Sanity is the playground for the unimaginative... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 14:02:48 -0500 From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......> Subject: Re: Feeding the Beast Spoilers, Nick and Sex Gayle wrote: >Back again to the knightly courtship... >A Lady supplies the chaste love, the dream, the cure, the courage to >endure. > >Sex is simply something easily had with the slut du jour. He has sex with Janette a bunch -- and he still married HER! ;) ****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 14:06:30 -0500 From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......> Subject: Re: Feeding the Beast Spoilers, Nick and Sex I wrote: >He has sex with Janette a bunch -- and he still married HER! ;) Wuh oh! Replying to my own post! Actually there's no proof in the show itself that he and she were technically married. But the Renaissance equivalent of common law marriage, on the other hand... In other words, in Nick's mind sex is *not* just for the "slut du jour". ****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 15:15:20 -0400 From: Apache <lf@c.......> Subject: Re: Milk Carton msg. Thanks very much to everyone who wrote! I got about twenty answers, and it seems pretty clear that the "Spilt Milk" story got delivered by ".edu" servers but not by any others -- there's some reason why edu servers get a more direct connection from the lists. Anyway, the story is up on the ftp site now. Thanks again, all, Apache =========================================================================
Previous |
This month's list |
Next |