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


FORKNI-L Digest - 30 Jan 2001 to 31 Jan 2001 (#2001-35)

Wed, 31 Jan 2001

There are 10 messages totalling 428 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Forever Knight *BIG* Poster for sale on ebay!
  2. Right Place, Right Time (2)
  3. Catherine Disher on Sci Fi Channel right now (2)
  4. Extremis
  5. Right Time, Right Place
  6. FK ending (was Right Place, Right Time)
  7. Curious
  8. Jeannie


Date:    Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:49:08 -0600
From:    Kristin <kris1228@s.......>
Subject: Forever Knight *BIG* Poster for sale on ebay!


Just wanted to tell you all there is a wall-sized, glossy, poster of Nick
Knight aiming his gun with a penetrating stare "now" on ebay. It is 30
inches wide and 42 inches in height. It was developed from a professional
slide out of a Press Kit. The place I had this enlarged from gave me an
extra one by accident. It was very difficult to find a place to do an
enlargement of this size and it costs me $75 normally to get one made. Don't
miss out on this great offer! It is a definite must have for any Nick fan!

View auction here:

Thank you very much!
"When you only have eyes for the Knight..."


Date:    Wed, 31 Jan 2001 00:28:16 -0500
From:    Sandra <sandragray@r.......>
Subject: Re: Right Place, Right Time

Margie wrote:
>If the only way Nick can "step into
>the daylight" is to die and go off to heaven, that, to me, is not a
>positive message.  It's a very negative message, carrying negative
>conotations about what it is to live life on earth.

I agree.

Portia wrote:
>And the tone of the last season was certainly darker and seemed to
>build to the tragic end.

I agree with this too.

>If the series had ended with no resolution (ie. a reg ep or, worse, a
>cliffhanger!), I would have been incredibly disturbed and disappointed.

I wouldn't have minded if the series had ended with no resolution.  I
would have preferred that to what we got.  Depending on what it was,
I might not have minded a cliffhanger either.

>  If
>the story had ended with Nick moving on, I would have felt bitterly cheated
>(as I did with the QLeap ending).

It would depend, I think, on the circumstances.  If Nick had decided to give
up on his quest to be mortal and be the type of vampire LC wanted him to
be, I would have felt cheated by that.  If he was still committed to his quest
to be mortal, I think I could have accepted that.

As for QL, I didn't like that ending either.  But after thinking about it,
I could see ways that QL could have continued (maybe Sam started leaping into
the future or other worlds or dimensions).  They never said Sam had died;
just that he never returned home.

>The only other ending apparent to me at this moment would have been that he
>attained his mortality and was able to make the life of which he dreamed.
>I would have liked to see such a culmination, but it would have needed at
>least a few eps to work out all of the details of "what happened after." "g"

If Nick had achieved mortality after biting Nat, I don't think I could have
accepted that (even though I wanted him to regain his mortality).  A "happy"
ending just wouldn't have felt right to me.  As someone else said, it was the
quest that was interesting.  I don't think that if such an ending had occurred
it would have needed a few eps to work out all of the details of what happened
after.  It might have needed to be a two part episode, but I think they could
have wrapped it up fairly quickly.  If they had had Nick regain his mortality,
I think it might have been more interesting if  they left things up in the air
some after that.  It would have left an opening for movies or episodes (or

Although Nick regaining his mortality wouldn't have had to be the end of it
either.  He could always be revampirized.

Marel wrote:
>Nick didn't initiate the events of the final episode, but an
>uncharacteristically defeatist Natalie.

It wasn't just Natalie.  LC had told Nick he was leaving.  Tracy had died.
So many things in previous eps had chipped away at Nick too (the demon
possession, Schanke's death, etc.).

>what Nick always wanted/needed was to be *punished*.

That's an interesting idea.  I don't agree with it, but it's an interesting

Portia wrote:
>I can't summarily dismiss his possibly valid motivations, nor can
>I summarily dismiss them as completely unworthy acts of defeat and dispair,
>knowing as I do (to some extent as a viewer) his character and his
>professed philosophy (especially as it stood at that moment).

His professed philosophy before Nat convinced him to try Janette's
cure was that he was going to leave with LC (imo because he couldn't
stand having caused so much pain to people around him any more).
I do think that because he felt so much pain especially after having
failed with Nat that he just decided he'd had enough, that he couldn't
take being a vampire anymore.  Imo, his hope was gone and I felt that
the loss of that hope, more than anything else, was *wrong* and a
great disservice to the character.

Marel wrote:
>Although he couldn't
>admit it to himself--it would seem an act of treachery to Natalie-- perhaps
>deep down he wanted LaCroix to find a convincing argument against it.

I don't think so.  See my response to the previous quote.

>LaCroix, normally so psychologically adept, should've understood that you
>don't humour someone who's temporarily deranged with grief. To kill him under
>these circumstances doesn't demonstrate respect for Nick, but a frightening
>degree of callous self-righteousness and lack of common sense that's totally
>out of character for his maker.

I think even LC could see that Nick had been pushed as far as he could have
been pushed.  Let's not forget that LC could often tell what Nick was thinking
and feeling through his link to him.  I also think LC had a further reason to
stake Nick.  Nick had lost his hate of LC and had expressed love and acceptance
of him.  I don't think LC really wanted (or knew what to do with) Nick's love.
So I can accept that LC would stake Nick under those circumstances.

I accept LK as having happened and I believe Nick and Nat died in it.  I didn't
see anything hopeful or good about their deaths.  It was certainly a powerful
episode, but I hated it.  It was a lousy ending to the series.

--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie


Date:    Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:08:46 EST
From:    Dolpfin220@a.......
Subject: Catherine Disher on Sci Fi Channel right now

Just a quick note:

The Friday the 13th episode, Coven of Darkness with Catherine Disher is
currently on the Sci Fi Channel.  12 Midnight Central time.



Date:    Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:13:25 EST
From:    Tammie Foley <X7xAngelx7x@a.......>
Subject: Re: Catherine Disher on Sci Fi Channel right now

She looks REALLY REALLY good!!!!! I hate to say it, but she looks younger :)


Date:    Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:38:40 EST
From:    Julia Kocich <JKocich@a.......>
Subject: Re: Extremis

I'm catching up with old digests, so if this has been said already,
sorry for any duplication. Eric wrote:

> One thing that always bugged me about Nat-her take on
>  vampirism could change on a dime, depending on the
>  circumstances.

As could Nick's <weg>! Seriously though ... the face-to-face
confrontation with mortality can quickly displace the most
elegant logic and thought process, in any human being.

> Jealousy could do it: she lost it when
>  Nick was about to bring Tracy across, and wanted to
>  know why it was so impossible to consider bringing Nat
>  across as well.

I'm not sure that was jealousy: it was irritation <ahem> at
the fact that Nick was disinterested enough in Tracy to be
able to consider "saving" her, especially since he felt some
guilt for her getting plugged in the first place. She knew that
Nick could only consider it because he *didn't* care for Tracy
as much as he cared for Nat, which is also quite human of
him <g>.

> Grief also: after insisting that Nick
>  bring her brother across, what did she think he was
>  going to live on afterwards? <snip> How would she have
>  handled her brother's vampirism in the long run?

Again, I think that was a very human reaction, to make any
bargain, with any power, to save the waning life of a loved
one. Thought didn't come into it. Just love and desperation.

> And
>  what was the episode where she sought out another
>  vampire to bring her across? <snip> I've
>  forgotten what it was that drove her to that, but my
>  point is, vampirism became an option whenever her
>  emotions ran off the scale.

The meteor was coming, even the olderer vamps would
eventually run out of food supplies, and Nick wouldn't
"save" Nat (even if temporarily) by bringing her across.
Again, she was facing sure death, with only one potential
alternative. When you're drowning, you grab at whatever
is floating nearby, without wondering how clean it is <g>.

> Unless Nat had the kind of
>  incredible control that would mean her very first
>  feeding would be a swig of cows blood, and nothing
>  else ever, her first killing would cause her to have
>  the kind of guilt that would impress even Nick. Your
>  thoughts?

I dunno: my suspicion is that Nat would make an efficient
vampire. She would chose whether to kill humans or to
subsist on protein shakes, but I don't think she'd angst
about it -- she'd made her bargain and would learn to unlive
with it. I think she'd be closer to Lacroix in the *manner*
of her attitude, if not in the *matter* of the attitude. She could
see herself as the ultimate experimental subject. But I think
she would learn to control herself pretty quickly: I just don't
know what her vampiric outlook would be (oh, okay ... she'd
run off with her Screed <g> <waves to Libs>).

UF list cobra


Date:    Wed, 31 Jan 2001 02:11:17 EST
From:    Julia Kocich <JKocich@a.......>
Subject: Re: Right Time, Right Place

> > Probably he'd have to trust a man not to betray him, since it was de la
> > Barre, and the commanders in the Crusades, who destroyed his faith to
> > begin

I don't think that LaCroix betrayed Nick in the original intent
of the finale of LK, and LaCroix was the only one who could
give Nick his release.

>        You can interpret the end of Last Knight in positive terms.  We
>  do see the sun rising, instead of setting.  Subtle, but perhaps a
>  symbol that a "new dawn" has arisen for Nicholas.  That he has
>  finally left the Eternal Night and stepped into daylight with Natalie
>  at his side.

Metaphorically speaking, perhaps.

Ever the anti-sentimentalist,
UF list cobra
"Life is complicated. Ideas are simpler. That is their attraction."


Date:    Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:55:37 -0500
From:    Tim Phillips <Timp@d.......>
Subject: Re: FK ending (was Right Place, Right Time)

>And I think they ended it that way because they were angry that the series was
>cancelled, and wanted to make absolutely

     Maybe this is the case.
        I prefer to think that the ending was done this way for artistic
reasons.    You've got admit this ending isn't a "cop out".  It is not
the standard Hollywood - and they went happily everafter into the
sunset - ending.   Look at the last episode of Whose The Boss for
a show that chickened out at the last moment.
     Sometimes a story can only end with a "bad ending".
        Consider the movie The Professional and how different it is
if Leon doesn't not get killed?   Or the book HMS Ulysses if the
Ulysses isn't not sunk in the last pages.
        These also are stories about a journey and courage against
adversity and they would be much different if the hero got up in the
end and dusts themselves off and goes about a "normal life".
        Emotionally, I don't like Last Knight.
        But it works in the larger story in the same way that Romeo
and Juliet has to end like it does.  Without a tragic ending, it is not
the same story.
 Tim Phillips


Date:    Wed, 31 Jan 2001 08:46:57 EST
From:    Marel Darby <Frostsaint2@a.......>
Subject: Re: Right Place, Right Time

In a message dated 31/01/01 05:34:40 GMT Standard Time, sandragray@r.......

>  I think even LC could see that Nick had been pushed as far as he could have
>  been pushed.  Let's not forget that LC could often tell what Nick was
> thinking and feeling through his link to him.

He could tell that he was deeply depressed, but he also tried to talk him
out of it, so I assume he sensed there was still a chance or he wouldn't
have wasted his breath. And although recent events had been traumatic
for Nick, in his long lifetime he had faced others as bad (killing his own
wife, for example) and had come through it, eventually. I'd have accepted
it better if LaCroix had said: 'Give it 6 months, and if you're still of the
same mind, ask me again'. LaCroix knew of Nick's capacity for suffering, but
had also seen his resilience amply demonstrated over the centuries.

> I also think LC had a further reason to stake
>  Nick.  Nick had lost his hate of LC and had expressed love and acceptance of
>  him.  I don't think LC really wanted (or knew what to do with) Nick's
>  love.  So I can accept that LC would stake Nick under those circumstances.

I don't think that LaCroix was so emotionally inadequate. In AMPH, he
freely admitted his need for companionship -- a desire for affection was
implicit. It isn't logical to think that they were at each others throats for
800 years, when for a great deal of that time they lived under the same roof.
There must have been times of emotional intimacy. In any case,
LaCroix, in spite of his cool demeanour, was able to be quite tactile with
those close to him...touching Nick's face for example, or placing a sympathetic
hand on his shoulder.  There are a number of reasons for maintaining an icy
front: one is that you feel nothing, in which case Nick's declaration of
friendship would have left him unmoved, and he certainly wouldn't have needed
to put an end to the speaker. Another reason is that you feel too much and
must never let anyone know...
There are other reasons of course, but I can't believe that LaCroix was so
psychologically crippled that he couldn't deal with an expression of love
for him. Of course, that's not to say that he wouldn't exploit the situation
to his own advantage, given half a chance...<g>



Date:    Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:59:16 -0800
From:    "Kelly C. Smith" <tigrlady2u@j.......>
Subject: Curious

 I just recently re-watched 'Dead Issue' and was wondering... who is the
little boy that Schanke is scolding, and then sends off to play, at the
 Any clues? Ideas?

KC Smith
Nick/Natpacker with Dark Knightie tendencies.
"I've never met a chocolate I didn't like."


Date:    Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:07:35 -0700
From:    Rose Thatcher <dreamerextrodanar@h.......>
Subject: Jeannie

Jeannie Eukland!  Help!  my e-mail won't let me write you.



End of FORKNI-L Digest - 30 Jan 2001 to 31 Jan 2001 (#2001-35)

Previous digest Back to January's list On to February's list Next digest

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