Home Page How I Found Forever Knight Forkni-L Archives Main Page Forkni-L Earlier Years
My Forever Knight Fanfiction Links E-Mail Me


Logfile LOG9606D Part 13

June 24, 1996

File: "FORKNI-L LOG9606D" Part 13

	It's all in their heads -- SPOILER for HF (was Re: Crosses / evil)
	Good and Evil Discussion
	Repulsion by Holy Objects
	FK Merchandise Survey
	sorry :(
	The Fix & other stuff
	Nick and Nat
	Games Vampires Play
	Nick and Nat and Janette, oh my! (LONG)
	Baptism; Picnic
	Going home at Night?
	Spoilers: LK and SoB (Re: Nick and Nat)
	(SPOILER: HF) Janette and Love (long)

Date:         Mon, 24 Jun 1996 03:50:28 +0500
From:         "John T. Folden" <jtfolden@e.......>
Subject:      Re: It's all in their heads -- SPOILER for HF (was Re: Crosses /

> From: "TJ Goldstein" <vanguard@p.......>

> SPOILERS FOR HUMAN FACTOR AHEAD -- is this still under protection?
> Which reminds me of an interesting thought by an off-line friend of
> mine, who said, "You know, I thought it was pretty interesting that
> Jeanette convinced herself she was mortal."  It never even occured
> to her that Jeanette might really BE mortal.  I arrived at FKSPOILR

Wow! I had just mentioned this very idea on another loop.  :) I arrived
late and never saw any mention of this idea...  I think it's a good one,

** John T. Folden, a demented victorian
** lost in the DARK SHADOWS of an endless FOREVER KNIGHT...

!! SOS/FK: http://members.aol.com/CuznJamiMR/SaveForeverKnight.html !!
Date:         Mon, 24 Jun 1996 04:27:01 -0400
From:         Bruce Gray <LBruceGray@a.......>
Subject:      *Good and Evil Discussion*

I'm not going to quote anybody right now (I may later), but I just have a question
for anyone who is knowlegeable about sociology.  Some people have pointed out
that some cultures (like the Aztecs) have practiced ritual human sacrifice, which
to them is not murder.  What I'd like someone to address is whether cultures
that *do* engage in *some* practices that are not considered murder is do these
same cultures have within their societal rules concepts of certain killings of
other members of the culture murder?  I'm no expert on sociology, but I would find
it surprising to read that cultures that have some forms of *acceptable* murders
do *not* have any concept that certain *other* killings of one another *are*
murder (gosh, I hope that sentence wasn't too convoluted to make sense :) ).
What I'm getting at is that "Yes, Aztec priests can sacrifice people and it's
not murder.  But if Joe Aztec kills his cousin Bill Aztec then *that* is murder."
*If* cultures that have *acceptable* killing of their fellow humans, but *also*
consider some killings *to be murder*, then doesn't that mean that *murder* is
considered *wrong* (or in some respect "evil")?  If this is indeed the case, then
"religion" doesn't matter--murder is morally wrong.  The culture involved might
have a different idea of what "punishment" their particular beliefs hold for murder,
but the reality would be that it is *wrong*.  So, by *any* standard, the vampire
that kills a human being is committing murder if a concept of murder is universal
among all cultures.  They may think being vampires that they are exempt, but how
can they be?  Whether they are "changed" by their vampirism or not, they began
as humans.  And I would imagine that even aliens on another world would develop
a rationale against murder.

This discussion has been interesting reading though.  :)

--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d....... (email currently down :( )
Date:         Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:37:13 -0700
From:         Amy R. <akr@n.......>
Subject:      Re: Repulsion by Holy Objects

I've received some private mail which makes me think that my post on this
topic was unclear.  I was attempting to address the "psychosomatic"
theory with light sarcasm as well as evidence.  I, personally, do *not*
like the idea that the disadvantages of vampirism are merely
psychosomatic, that repulsion is merely subconscious telekinesis!
It would make all of our vamps, LC as well as Nick, fools.
As they are not fools, the disadvantages of vampirism must be real.

***** Amy, Lady of the Knight  (akr@n.......) *****
Date:         Sun, 23 Jun 1996 23:25:44 -1000
From:         Kevin Matsumoto <kevinm@p.......>
Subject:      Re: FK Merchandise Survey

>Forever Knight is VASTLY under promoted & not merchandise-"exploited"
>in any means.  PTW (powers that were) didn't see this one, & it is
>our RIGHT, RESPONSIBILIY, and OPPORTUNITY to indicate what we want
>in the way of Forever Knight merchandise (for the 1st three seasons
>& any FK shows/movies which come along).
>FOREVER KNIGHT MERCHANDISE SURVEY                              5/19/96
>=================================                              =======
>Please take a moment to answer these questions.  WHEN FK reincarnates
>into another movie, etc., the backer(s) will want to know there are
>accompanying income resources (i.e. merchandising).  This is your
>chance to indicate what you want & don't want!  LURKERS, pls come out
>for this survey, too.  Please copy this survey & hand out to
>non-Internet FK friends & to newbies!  As always, the more responses,
>the more compelling an argument to get what we want!
>PLS print this & give copies to your non-Internet FK friends. They can
>snailmail theirs to the address below. Pls send NOW!
>1)  Would you purchase the following? How much would you pay (US$)?
>     -- coffee mug? (black w/FK logo? another design? another color?)
>     -- comic books? (would they have to be in the FK "universe"?)
Yes, No 2.95 tops
>     -- novels? (would they have to be in the FK "universe"?)
Yes, 5.95 tops
>     -- fanzines?
>     -- filkbooks?
>     -- original music books/sheets?
>     -- The Raven/club stuff? (what?)
>     -- more music by Fred? (FK only?  other Fred stuff?)
>     -- trading cards w/characters photos & info
>     -- technical books from the sets? scripts?
>     -- FK fantasy art?  (what media?) (mail order?)
>     -- FK t-shirts (what on it?  what colors?)
>     -- FK halloween costuming? masks? (what? who?)
>     -- posters?  (what shots? what groupings?)
>     -- Ribena?
>     -- FK vamp stuff? (what?)
All of the above, I might not get it all but Most of it yes!
>2)  Would you want to see "action figures" or is that too juvenile? Is
>    this too adult a market?  If you like the idea, pls specify what
>    "attributes" you'd like your favorite to have (i.e. costume,
>    color, hair(!!!), carrying what, etc.)?
>3)  Do you know where you can get Ribena locally?  Pls indicate where
>    & if you'd like to get it (retail or mail order).
>4)  How about FK chocolate?
>        -- what shape?
>        -- what type of choclate? (milk, dark, semi, Belgian, etc.)
>        -- would you pay extra for it to be a good quality chocolate?
>        -- how much/pound would you pay (in US$)
>5)  Would you buy different factions' FK chocolate?  If so, please
>    indicate what flavor or filling would be most appropriate for
>    each group (i.e. what filling for cousins, perkolators, etc.)
>6)  Have you found Fred's CD in local music stores?  Have you asked
>    for it by name?  What stores/what cities?  Will they get it
>    for you?
No, yes I have asked.  Blockbuster music, Borders, Tower records, Sears. No
none of them know when the are going to get them.
>7)  What else can we market?
VIDEOS!!!!!! Especially first season. (The uncut version if possible)
>8)  How old are you?  What gender?  What profession (general)?
32, male, teller computer tech.

>9)  In what city/state/country do you live?
Waipahu, HI USA
>10) Do you belive in purchasing by way of credit cards?
>11) Do you order items through the mail?  Internet?
Yes, no

>12) Pls indicate name/alias/email preference for tabulation only.
Kevin Matsumoto

"Remember, You're the Brain, I'm the Brawn"   :Detective Bobbie Mann
   "Technically, I'm the Brain and the Brawn" :And Eve Edison
"So what does that make me?"                  :MANN & MACHINE
   "The one that can be killed."              :
Kevinm@p.......   A Nick&NatPacker with Cousinly tendencies :=)
Date:         Sun, 23 Jun 1996 23:34:07 -1000
From:         Kevin Matsumoto <kevinm@p.......>
Subject:      sorry :(

Sorry about that, I was trying to send this to the survey taker and
didn't check the return add.  :( My fault.

"Remember, You're the Brain, I'm the Brawn"   :Detective Bobbie Mann
   "Technically, I'm the Brain and the Brawn" :And Eve Edison
"So what does that make me?"                  :MANN & MACHINE
   "The one that can be killed."              :
Kevinm@p.......   A Nick&NatPacker with Cousinly tendencies :=)
Date:         Sun, 23 Jun 1996 23:19:02 -0400
From:         Sheila Coneybeer <sconeybeer@e.......>
Subject:      Re: The Fix & other stuff

Jane Credland wrote:
> Adult human beings may no longer be child human beings, but they are still
> members of homo sapiens.  IMNSHO, vampires are no longer physiologically
> homo sapien.  They are a separate species.  They are predators whose prey
> is human.

Your point being.......?????
  Sheila Coneybeer   <sconeybeer@e.......>
  A Vaquera w/Knightie overtones, sympathetic to RatPackers,
  A Phantom Phan, A TJOL follower
  'The sun is yet to rise.  It is still Forever Knight.'
Date:         Sun, 23 Jun 1996 23:42:14 -0400
From:         Sheila Coneybeer <sconeybeer@e.......>
Subject:      Re: Nick and Nat

L. Katherine Queen wrote:

> Sure, it's a value judgement from a human perspective, but they once were
> human.  They are, in effect, cannibalizing their own parent race...by
> feeding on them.  Nicholas is damned by the hundreds, or perhaps thousands
> of human beings that have perished at his hands.

Adding my .02 (does that make it .04 or .06?)

As I have said elsewhere -- Your point being......?

To paraphrase George Carlin, the idea that human life is sacred is a concept
put forth and supported by (take a wild guess) *living* human beings.
(Surprise!!)  What makes a human life any more important than any other life
on the planet (or off planet, for that matter)?  Aren't we just the arrogant
creatures, deciding that, of all the living things on this planet, we are
sacred because we can communicate with each other in a manner other than
grunts (which we used to do), meows, barks, moos, etc.  Does having created a
written language (what else *really* sets us apart?) makes us better or just
less adept at reading signs?  Human beings are predators who prey on other
living creatures for sustenance as well as sport.  Humans even prey on other
humans and do so almost always for sport.  Doesn't that make the entire race
inherently evil, to use the same logic that has been used to say all vampires
are evil.  That being said, then if there is redemption for humans, according
to most religions, is there not redemption for vampires?  Since I do not
subscribe to any organized religion, but merely acknowledge a being greater
than myself, I believe that true remorse for past social, moral or ethical
transgressions and sincere attempts to rectify any damage or harm caused is

But I do prattle on.  NEXT!

  Sheila Coneybeer   <sconeybeer@e.......>
  A Vaquera w/Knightie overtones, sympathetic to RatPackers,
  A Phantom Phan, A TJOL follower
  'The sun is yet to rise.  It is still Forever Knight.'
Date:         Mon, 24 Jun 1996 08:28:56 -0500
From:         Annmarie McKee- Fitzgerald <mickey@c.......>
Subject:      Games Vampires Play

I apologize for not knowing if this is under spoiler protection or not...
Just in case...

Did it bother anyone else that Nat referred to "it" as killing and not
feeding as Nick did?
We have been having numerous discussions about good/evil, I wonder how Nat
percieives what Nick does? Does she see him as a killer? And if so, how does
she deal with this as a Doctor? I think that before this, I always thought
that Nat viewed what Nick did as a necessary element of his nature, but then
I suppose she thinks he could just ingest cow blood then, so it brings me
back to how does she deal with the fact that the man she loves, occasionally
becomes a killer, when killing isn't needed to satisfy the hunger, or is it?



*Cousin*, *Vachon Ogler*, *Official Tucker In-er of the Clan Macgregor*
*Ambassador to the "Old Dude"*  *PWFC* *MFW Cavalry, Rider of Methuselah*
*DMC* *MPPB* *MPEB* *X-Phile*
*Forever Knight SOS/FK: http//members.aol.com/CuznJamiMR/SaveForeverKnight.html
** The Mother of Invention *had* to have been a single Mother! **
Date:         Mon, 24 Jun 1996 08:43:31 -0400
From:         Felicia Bollin <AriCon@a.......>
Subject:      Nick and Nat and Janette, oh my! (LONG)

Oh dear! <feigning dismay>  What to answer first! :)

BTW, I'm enjoying this, guys, and want to you know that I'm finding it good
fun.  None of you have to convince me, and I certainly don't have to convince
you <G>.  But we're getting loads of mental exercise, aren't we?

Firstly, I think I'd better clarify before jumping in:

I am *not* saying, and have never said, that I think Janette is the
definitive ultimate love of Nick's life.  I think she was the love of his
vampire life, and that they have the *potential* to get together in the
future.  It was more a frustrated backlash, honestly, from the implication I
see often on-list that no one else other than Natalie could possibly be
Nick's future long-term relationship, that she is the Only One.  As Jane
Credland listed, there have been mortals/vampires in the past that Nick has
been attracted to:  Emily Weiss, Alyce, so on and so forth;  and there could,
technically, be some in the future who could stand the test of time.  The
grievance I have is with the Romantic ideal that Nat is Nick's *only* other,
"perfect half".  We don't know that.  It could be Janette.  It could be
someone that we haven't met yet.

Sharon writes, responding to me:

>But you're equating love and sex, and in my book they are two >very
different things.

No, I'm not, at least I don't _think_ I intended to <G>.  I'm sorry if it
came off that way.  Maybe I said it badly.  It is in the wee hours of the
morning, after all, and it is possible <G>.  I am not saying that love and
sex are the same thing;  ideally, of course, I would always hold out for the
love.  But, I am saying that *if* it came down to a choice between love and
sex, and there was no love possible, I would rather have the sex than have
the nothing.  And no, I am not a nymphomaniac ;)))  Nat can't have the sex,
because it will kill her.  And *I do not think* she has the love either.  I
know people disagree with me on this.  I'm not attempting to change their

Now, I know you *didn't* mean what I'm going to say next, Sharon, but it's
been on my mind for a while, so I thought I would take the chance your
bringing up the topic gives me:

Some posts I see (NOT yours) seem to give the impression that FK love almost
never has _anything_ to do with sex, that the two are completely separate.
 My contention, of course (and I don't think you or anyone are going to
disagree with this <G>), is that sex is supposed to be a part of a loving
relationship.  Whether or not Nick can have sex without killing, is not
exactly the issue, I'm getting at a different point here <G>.  I seem to see
often the following dichotomy:

Nick is seen as being more "in love" and more respectful of Nat, because he
does not pressure her for sex (this does not mean I'm saying that he _should_
pressure her for sex and thereby put her in danger!).  By contrast, because
he *does* solicit the vampiric version of sex from Janette, he is sometimes
reviled.  I, imo, do not think it would be amiss if Nick were to more often
show Nat just a tiny little bit of non-platonic interest mixed in with his
love.  And there is no objective reason why, biting factor aside, it should
be said that his *not* asking Nat for sex is *more* indicative of proof that
he sincerely loves her, while the fact that he "just" goes to Janette for
sex, is taken as automatic proof that he does *not* love Janette.  I'm merely
saying that the two are not mutually exclusive.  For example, I occasionally
read stories that seem to fall close to characterizing Janette as the Bad
Girl because she actively pursues Nick, for sexual reasons or otherwise;
 while Natalie is seen as the pure Good Girl, because she does *not* actively
pursue Nick, sexually or otherwise.  Imo, Natalie being more sexually passive
is not automatically a virtue.  Janette being more sexually aggressive is not
necessarily a vice. :))

>No she can't. But why should she?  Natalie is an individual just as Janette
>is.  This is what I dislike about this debate the most, the implication that
>one woman is better than the other.  IMO, they're *both* too good for him
>and they both could do a lot better, but that's just me...

But now, we're in almost complete accord <G>!  I'll be addressing this topic
in greater detail off-list, so stay tuned, Sharon. <VBG>

>And besides which, you make it sound like it's Janette's (or
>whoever's) sole mission in life to keep Nick happy, a point I
>most respectfully disagree with.


I'm not sure about the point of mine where this came from.  And I thoroughly
disagree with it when I see it written that way, so I know I didn't mean it
<VBG>.  Maybe we can work on this one further in the private mail, yes,
Sharon? <G>

>So then, by this argument, you're suggesting that no one other than Janette
>could ever possibly have a long-term relationship of any kind with Nick?

I think this goes back to the first answer.  Again, I'll do more in the
private mail, but to give the short form:  No, I do not think that no one
other than Janette could possibly have a long-term relationship with Nick.
 That was, again, mostly a backlash to the concept I keep hearing that
*Natalie* is the only one who could possibly have a present and future
long-term relationship with Nick;  that not Janette, and certainly no other
mortal, could ever hope to.  No, it doesn't have to take a hundred years
before Nick gets to know anyone that well.  But I do think that, for the
point at which Nick and Nat got during the time that we got to see them, they
had a ways to go.

I still feel, with all due respect to everyone and agreeing to disagree <G>,
that Natalie, for all her contact with Nick, is in a position where, if she
spent the amount of time with him that Janette did, might find her feelings
for him quite a different story than they are now.  Obviously, I have no way
to prove that ;)  Quality can conceivably substitute for quantity, true.  But
there *is* a large gap between six years and ninety-seven years, no matter
how good and chock-full Nat made her six years with Nick, or how much time of
their "marriage" Janette spent apart from Nick.  I'm not going to attempt to
change anyone's mind <G>, because I don't see how we could ever prove it one
way or another.  It would take too much for us to try and factor all the
different possibilities and all the different things we didn't see on-screen
from those 97 years.  It's just an opinion.  Everything I've said is an
opinion, no matter how many asterisks I use;  I'm a very emphatic person

Mei-Wa writes:
>As far as the Janette thing, I believe he does love her, in some way, but
>I don't think its LOVE.  A lot of it has to do with lust and I think he
>cares for her, but I'm sticking to my guns and saying Nat is

Well then, again we're finding out our viewpoints are not so different after
all, yes? ;)  I agree completely with your statements about Janette, as I
stated in the beginning of this post.  Nick is not "in love" with Janette;
 but neither do I think he is "in love" with Natalie.  I merely think that
the _raw materials_ so that he _could_ fall in love with Janette eventually,
are present to a degree that they are not present with Nat.  Can we agree to
disagree? <G>

Saving the hardest for last <VBG>, Sharon writes:

>regarding Janette.  For all his faults in regard to Natalie, I
>think he's been pretty despicable to Janette as well since he
>tends to treat her like a whore >snip< by your own argument
>why on earth would you want someone like Nick for her?

I think you've nailed me there, Sharon <VVBG>.  Can I do it in two parts?  Or
have two days? ;)  Okay, I'll attack it little by little, though I'm sure
that somebody's grandmother could probably shoot holes in this one <VBG>:

I believe in the theory that Natalie knows Nick-the-vampire, and tends to
attribute the bad qualities to the vampire, but the good qualities to the
man.  That she thinks when Nick is cured, many (if not all) of his bad
qualities will become a non-issue;  when in fact, they're just two sides of
the same coin and are not intrinsically tied to the vampire part of Nick's
nature, and that when he is cured, he will not shed his bad qualities
(self-absorption, etc) like a second skin.  Janette, imo, knows better.  I
think Natalie deludes herself more about Nick's "better nature" than Janette
does.  *Not* saying Janette doesn't delude herself, but again imo, Natalie
does it more.

And I know this doesn't *exactly* answer the question, but I think Janette
can "take care of herself", so to speak. I'm speaking "romantically", not in
everyday life, where Nat is certainly a powerful enough woman.  Hold on and
bear with me for a second <G>.  We have seen scenes, at least one (the
episode escapes me at the moment) where Nick interrupted Janette at the Raven
while she was speaking to a gentleman, and it was made pretty clear by
Janette's little eye-roll and apologetic dismissal of the guy, that Nick had
just interrupted a little something and plans for the evening.  Conversely;
 we have a whole episode, Only the Lonely, where it is made pretty clear to
us that Nat almost never dates.  She mentions that she has considered a
dating service, et. al., Schanke's conversation with her at the crime scene
and her responses, etc., all combine to indicate that Nat does not date much
if at all.  I'm sure it's tough with the hours she keeps.  But the fact is,
we have seen at least the one episode, two if you count "Human Factor", where
it is shown that while Janette may _want_ Nick, but if she can't have him,
she is willing to go out and get someone else.  So even if she doesn't wind
up with Nick, she will be all right.  In contrast, we get the clear
impression (a form of this is even stated by Nat in one of those damn
spoiler-protected episodes we don't want to get into <G>) that Natalie has
pinned all her hopes, wishes, and romantic dreams of the past six years on
Nick.  Once/if Janette failed to "get" Nick, she could go out and find
someone else.  Now, Natalie *could* go out and get someone else, I am sure;
 but as far as we have seen on the show, she has made no effort to.  She's
making herself completely powerless waiting on Nick to provide her romantic
happiness.  Janette doesn't seem to do herself out of every possible romantic
interlude, but Nat doesn't seem to make any attempt to actively solicit (and,
for all we know, might actively discourage) any romantic interest to take her
mind off Nick, and I think it is very harmful to her.

And Janette never makes any bones about enjoying Nick for what she can get
from him.  She says in "Crazy Love", after the bloodletting by the water, "I
like it when you need me."  Yes, we can argue that that was "in code" <G>,
but Janette seems to be okay, if not _utterly_ satisfied, with what she gets
from him.  It's not her ideal, but it seems to be enough for the moment.
 Janette has never said that she is unhappy with that kind of treatment.
 Perhaps she *does* feel happy enough with the mutual "sipping".  If she
indicated her unhappiness, of course it would be a different story.  But it's
not "up to me", so to speak, to tell her that she should be dissatisfied with
his treatment.  (My word, listen to me.  Can't you see it now?  As if I can
call up the Raven and say, "Janette, I think you need to tell Nick to take a
hike."  I think I need some sleep <G>).

Felicia Bollin
Ravenette*Immortal Beloved*MBDtK

Hugs all around!
Date:         Mon, 24 Jun 1996 08:48:53 EDT
From:         Lisa McDavid <D020214@v.......>
Subject:      Baptism; Picnic

Ok, twofers again. :)

1. Actually, not all Christian denominations do baptize infants. The
most important example is the Baptist Church, in its many varieties.
Their name comes from the belief that only someone old enough to know
what is happening and to consent to baptism can be validly Baptized.
(For any Baptists out there, yes, I know there's a controversy in
some congregations over whether to rebaptize adults who have come from
other churches and were baptized in infancy.)

2. The picnic scene that's missing from US versions has several interesting
aspects. Not only does Nick kiss Nat on the lips (briefly), but there's
a line which can be taken to mean that the Schankes have a son as well
as Jenny. (A scene that's missing in the US from For I Have Sinned actually
has Schanke, in an argument over the phone, say something to Myra about
"you and the *kids.*) It's probably just a continuity glitch, given
the fact that for the rest of the series we only hear about Jenny. After
all, FK was the show with Myra's Amazing Resurrecting Mother. In one
show, Schanke had a whole long scene in which he talked about Myra
and her adjustment to her mother's death. Toward the end of the season,
he has a line in which he says that Myra's in Florida with her Mother.
<cue Twilight Zone theme. :)>

Cousin Lisa -- "That will be trouble."
Chief Watcher for Cats, McGregor
Lisa McDavid
Date:         Mon, 24 Jun 1996 06:06:00 -0700
From:         "Sharon A. Himmanen" <romana@i.......>
Subject:      Re: Going home at Night?

Susan wrote:

>And Natalie is a very important part of his Janette-less life for two years.
>By Nick's own choice.

More than just those Janette-less years, I think.  I've never been left with
the sense that she in any way fills a void left by Janette, or vice-versa.
Natalie has been an important part of Nick's life since the OtL flashback,
whether Janette was there or not.  And after Natalie is gone, if she isn't
brought across, she will be one of the most important relationships,
friendship or otherwise, that Nick has ever had in his life.

>Do I think Janette will go back to her old ways now that she's turned?  Yes,
>to a major extent.  She has to in order to survive.  I don't think she's
>sworn off human blood--she's not into guilt and self-punishment.

I don't agree with this (and it ties into a discussion Susan and I had this
weekend over Last Knight and Natalie as well--another significant,
life-changing event in my book, providing she survives).  She underwent a
substantial transformation and a lot of joy and pain in those months. Too
much happened, and you can't deny the events.  Janette *was* mortal or very
close to it.  She found someone who was probably The One.  Sure, you get
over things, and probably revert to old behavior patterns, but you are
*never* the same person you started out as, and I think these events were
substantial enough to create a very different Janette.  There may be a
period where she tries to recapture her old lifestyle, tries to convince
herself that that other thing was just a fluke, but I think she'll find it
ultimately empty.  Will she kill?  Probably, but I don't know what the act
will mean to her anymore.  She may become like Nick, feeding only on
criminals and those she deems should to die, when she kills which I don't
think will be often.


Sharon A. Himmanen * romana@i....... * romana@a.......
NatPack * BotCoS * Keeper of the GopherGame * FoFoD * Jungle Patrol
Nat's B&B          http://members.aol.com/romana/natpage_stuff/natpack.htm
Save FK            http://members.aol.com/CuznJamiMR/SaveForeverKnight.html
"Dolphins have no use for psychodiagnostic categories."  --Douglas L. Medin
Date:         Mon, 24 Jun 1996 08:33:56 -0500
From:         Carrie Krumtum <carriek@e.......>
Subject:      Spoilers: LK and SoB (Re: Nick and Nat)

On this whole good/evil thing...

Yes, I'm going to step into the fray (look out, water balloon headed at
ya <g>)...

If we are going to take a purely Christian view, every living sentient
creature born of woman is in need of redemption. If the need for
redemption is an indication of evil, then humans and vampires alike are
evil. Its a basic Christian tenant the "all have sinned and fall short
of the glory of God." That's the whole point of salvation, obtaining

What Nick does is more equatible to penance. When a person has confessed
their sin, but some outward sign of their repentance is called for, they
undergo penance in order to demonstrate that they are truly repentant.
God's forgiveness is granted the moment we ask for it (First John 1:9),
the minute we begin penance, not at the completion of penance. The whole
point is to instill in the repentant that the behavior of sin that they
once engaged is now to be turned away from. That is what repentance
means anyway, to turn away from.

IMHO, Nick has been undergoing penance. He is redeemed already, he just
doesn't know it. I will use two eps as an example, in Near Death he sees
his souls status, grotesque and worm ridden. He assumes that that means
he must 'atone' somemore. But there is no way to atone for murder, you
cannot bring back the dead. He needed, at that point, to confess to God
his need for redemption. Period. His penance would not atone, but it
would make him feel as if he was making a difference in his life,
something our brick doesn't really believe he will ever achieve. "Its
not enough, its never enough." Nick in LK

In SoB, the demon possessed Nick rants that the Good that Nick has
cultivated had been driven out. Obviously Nick had made some progress in
believing that there was some degree of goodness in his own soul. The
possession was evidence of the success of his penance in producing some
changed behaviors. He no longer kills for food, he views humanity as a
state of grace (whether correct theology or not), he values human life
and he is trying, fitfully at times, to reestablish some faith in God.

I know, I know. This is all just intellectual fodder for the most part.
The point I am trying to make is that, from a Christian point of view,
there is no basis for declaring that vampires are anymore evil than
mortals are. They all started out as human in a fallen from grace state.
Both are in need of redemption. The mere fact that one has had their
physiology change by becoming a vampire does not, IMHO, mean that they
are beyond redemption. That's a pretty narrow view of the capacity of
the love of God. The difference, I suspect, is in the worldview of the
average vampire. It would be much easier to kill human beings if they
believed, as LaCroix professes, that there is no God, no devil. There is
none of that pesky morality to have to deal with then. Its merely a
situation of supply and demand, hunger and food supply, superiority and
inferiority, etc. etc.

I think Nick will achieve his goal, indeed, I believe he already has and
have generated fanfic to this end. But then, I kind of think that
Pollyanna was a great movie and that there probably are leprechauns and
that there is gold at the end of the rainbow and that if you wish for
something with all your heart your wish can come true and God is not a
cosmic vivisectionist after all...
Carrie, Proud Knightie
The Nurse is a hampster
I finally had some sense knocked into me
and I have the bump to prove it!
Date:         Mon, 24 Jun 1996 09:42:09 -0400
From:         Felicia Bollin <AriCon@a.......>
Subject:      (SPOILER: HF) Janette and Love (long)

Amy R. writes:

>However, I cannot think of one single piece of interaction
>between Nick and Janette that is romantic *and* non-sexual.

And why should you have to? <G>

>Even in the PotM flashback, Janette's "reason" for their love
>is in a passionate kiss. >snip< make a distinction between sex
>and love, and if there is a non-sexual scene of romantic love
>between Nick and Janette, I'd really like to see it.

I don't understand. :(

How can one try to _separate out_ love and romance, from sex?  Isn't sex an
important component *of* a "romantic" relationship?  What I keep seeing, or
at least seem to keep seeing, is the contention that True Love can have no
truck with Eros. (clutching hair) I don't understand! <mournful>  Things do
not *have* to be both romantic _and_ non-sexual.  Gosh, things in that area
of my life are always befuddled! <G>

I also, personally, make a distinction between sex and love.  Honest! <G> But
they are not totally foreign animals to each other!  Are you guys saying that
just to play with my head? ;)  I'd understand if we were talking about
_mistaking_ sex for love.  But what's the point of a romantic relationship of
love  _totally_ without sex?  I really don't know where I've last seen
something as tidy as a completely non-sexual scene of romantic love.  It
would be pretty much like an empty shell, imo, if you had romance with
absolutely zero sexual attraction.

In PotM, Amy argues above that "Janette's "reason" for their love is in a
passionate kiss."  So, if her reason for their love was a platonic kiss, then
their love would be truer? <G> It's false because it incorporates a sexual
component?  So because Janette kisses him passionately, it must be her
passion only that is holding onto Nick?  The passion in that kiss cannot
*also* be tempered by residual love she feels for Nick?  Romantic love and
passion cannot exist in the same relationship?

I REALLY don't understand now. :(  I just know I'm missing some essential
definition of romantic love that everyone else is working from :(

Felicia Bollin
Ravenette*Immortal Beloved*MBDtK

Previous digest
This month's list
This month's list
Next digest

Knight graphics and parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/