FORKNI-L

FORKNI-L Digest - 1 May 2005 to 2 May 2005 (#2005-117)

Mon, 2 May 2005

There are 15 messages totalling 647 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Nick & Nat's Relationship/Also: Ethics and Redemption (4)
  2. jadfe archives? (2)
  3. Episode Twenty One
  4. Nick & Nat's Relationship
  5. FK friends
  6. FORKNI-L Digest - 30 Apr 2005 to 1 May 2005 (#2005-116)
  7. Blood
  8. Ethics and Redemption (3)
  9. Admin: Forkni-l Rules -- Belated Happy May Day

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 1 May 2005 14:56:14 -0700
From:    Kristen Fife <fenix23fyre@y......>
Subject: Re: Nick & Nat's Relationship/Also: Ethics and Redemption

I would also point to the episode "Near Death" when
Nick is confronted by the Guide after he attempts to
cross the threshold between life and death and has a
conversation with the Guide:

N: I know there is great evil in my past, but I have
fought it. I stopped killing long ago. I have always
believed that there was a way to become mortal again,
to confront and defeat this evil in me.

G: And in so doing gain the absolution for which you
have struggled to long.

N: Yes. Can it be done?

G: Are you willing to face the consequences of your
actions?
N: Yes.

G: Then behold.
<cut to scene of a dead Nick on an autopsy table
covered in maggots>
G: Here is the soul of the vampire in its true state,
deformed by the evil it has embraced . This is your
soul, Nicholas.

N: (angry) No. After all I've been through trying to
become human, you're lying to me, this is not what I
am now!

G: We do not sit in judgment of you, we do not accuse.
The truth is simply the truth. It must be confronted,
it must be accepted.

<Nick turns away, cut to him standing in front of an
endless field of white crosses>

G: The legacy of your evil has not been purged.
Behold, the souls of the innocents that you have
murdered. They linger here, they persist, they will
not forgive you until your task has been completed.

N: How can I complete my task?

G: Can you raise your victims from the dead?

N: You know I can't.

I am of the belief that part of Nick's guilt is based
on the fact that he cannot forgive HIMSELF. No one
else can forgive him, since his victims are all dead.
His conversation with Joan of Arc also intimates that
the writers believed that Nick needed faith of his own
for the forgiveness/absolution he was seeking, and the
scene above shows us that the writers put the value on
achieving that absolution in his mind a return to
mortality. If he achieves this goal, he will know that
he has atoned for all his evil and that God has
granted him absolution by granting him his greatest wish.

Kristen Fife
http://www.fkvoyage.com/fkfanfic/fife_kristen/
"I have a vampire by my side and I'm not afraid to use him!" -Tanya Huff

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 1 May 2005 15:42:05 -0700
From:    Laura Davies <brightfeather1.geo@y......>
Subject: jadfe archives?

I'm afraid that I forgot to bookmark the put=back-up
site.  Can anyone please tell me where to find it?

Shadow


------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 1 May 2005 23:01:30 -0400
From:    Stephanie Kellerman <stequina@i.......>
Subject: Re: jadfe archives?

Here is the link

http://www.foreverknight.org/ladylacroix/www.coasteron.com/ladylc/

Laura Davies wrote:

>I'm afraid that I forgot to bookmark the put=back-up
>site.  Can anyone please tell me where to find it?
>
>Shadow
>
>

--
Steph
stequina@i.......
 "GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY, GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL."  -- Rose

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 1 May 2005 20:16:31 -0700
From:    "Lynn L. Sowinski" <lls761@s.......>
Subject: Re: Nick & Nat's Relationship/Also: Ethics and Redemption

I work in the criminal justice field, and I can tell you the answer.  While
there may be one or two people who truly repent, you cannot assume that someone
who behaves in a closed environment will continue to behave in a open
environment.  You also can't assume the person is telling the truth.  They very
well may be saying what they know people want to hear.






If Dogs Don't Go To Heaven, When I Die, I Want To Go Where They Went.

Heart Attacks - God's Revenge For Eating His Animal Friends.

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 2 May 2005 00:03:32 -0400
From:    Greer Watson <gwatson2@r.......>
Subject: Episode Twenty One

Getting down to the wire here:  this is the penultimate episode of
Season Four.  If you haven't been "watching", then the url for the
site is http://ca.geocities.com/gwatson2@rogers.com/index.html.  Click
through to the Episode Guide:  the links to the episodes are the
episode numbers.  You then go through the ratings page to the
homepage, from which you download the episode as a zip file (your
choice of Word or WordPerfect).  Each episode also has a Notes page;
but (spoiler warning!!) don't read the notes until you've read the
episode.

Enjoy!
Greer

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 2 May 2005 01:14:13 -0400
From:    Greer Watson <gwatson2@r.......>
Subject: Re: Nick & Nat's Relationship

On the subject of Nick and Natalie's relationship, Amy said:
>I always felt that the, "We can't get too close" was from THEM--the
>fultile attempst for Natalie to remain the "objective scientist" for
>Nick to maintain the illusion that he *wasn't* in love with her and
>thus wasn't as much of a danger to her.

If you try looking at their relationship chronologically, you really
need to start with the flashback in "Only the Lonely".  After they
first met when he came to life on the slab, Natalie convinced Nick
that her interest was solely in researching his condition to find a
cure.  He is quite well aware of his propensity to kill women who
found him attractive; yet he is today unwilling to backslide
into...mmmm...bad habits.  Surely, her ostensible clinical distance
was one of the things that made him agree to see her again?  (Well,
that and his hope that she would indeed find a cure, of course.)
    So Nick bought the idea that Dr. Natalie Lambert is a pure
researcher.  And Nat tried hard to maintain the outward illusion of
scientific objectivity because -- well, let's face it, she is Nick's
*doctor*!!  He is "ill"; and she's trying to "cure" him.  Though
actually, given the fact that Natalie really does want to believe that
every aspect of vampirism is capable of scientific explanation, you
probably ought to take the quotation marks out of that last sentence,
at least from her perspective.  To Natalie, therefore, Nick is ill and
she is trying to cure him.
    Doctors are not supposed to get involved with their patients.
It's considered a serious breach of professional ethics.  Serious
enough to lose you your licence.
    So that's where you start:  with Natalie having secret feelings
for Nick that, professionally, she knows she not only can't act on,
but mustn't even let Nick know about.
    Meanwhile, of course, Nick finds her attractive.  But Nick finds
practically every mortal woman attractive; and, in an attempt to hide
her unprofessional feelings from him, Natalie encourages him to
express his feelings for other women.  Go back to the series premiere,
and look at her response to his interest in Alyce Hunter.  *We* know
Natalie's dying inside every time he looks at another woman; but Nick
takes it all at face value.
    Of course, Schanke's not blind.  But as Michele says:
>The fact that they are co-workers is a BIG issue.  In many companies,
>organizations this is a huge no-no to work
>so closely together and be involved.
And, even if there isn't an outright ban, who wants to be teased about
having a crush on someone?  Especially if you don't think your
feelings are reciprocated, and don't want people (i.e. Schanke) to
embarrass the other person (which he would).  Hence the scene in
"Dance by the Light of the Moon".
    So then we come to "Only the Lonely" again, but this time the main
plot.  It is so incredibly obvious (to us) that Natalie is just dying
for Nick to say he's jealous, and that Nick is just dying to say so
but -- believing she doesn't share his feelings -- decides the "right"
thing to do is be supportive of her having a private life with someone
else.  That whole scene in her office is fabulous:  the actors convey
so much subtext.

This basic situation continues right through until "Be My Valentine",
i.e. well into the second season.  The subtext isn't much dwelled on
in the episodes; but the essential relationship between the two has
not been altered.  Only with "Be My Valentine" do they admit to each
other how they feel.  And we honestly don't know *what* memories
Natalie's been left with at the end of the episode.  Clearly her
memories of the dinner at Azure have been wiped; but...could Nick have
expunged the kiss as well, in the interest of protecting her, lest she
expect their relationship to develop in directions he fears will be
dangerous?
    The final season certainly suggests that they now admit to each
other that they love each other.  However, the reasons for not saying
anything at work still hold, even with Schanke gone.  Of course, no
one there is going to think of Natalie as Nick's doctor.  But besides
the risk of a lot of joshing on the subject, people will expect
developments in the relationship if it's openly acknowledged.  When
you know there's a couple in the office, you assume that they'll move
in together, and/or get engaged (and eventually married).  You know
what I mean:  the betting pool on when he'll pop the question; the
collection for a wedding present.  Nick and Natalie may, to some
extent, just have cold feet a bit on the *consequences* of the whole
going public thing.
    For one thing, they know that none of this can possibly happen
unless Natalie finds that elusive cure for vampirism -- and the final
season is fraught with his complaints about how slow her research is,
her complaints about his not trying, and more than a little demon- and
VR-game- wrought backsliding.  In such an atmosphere, why would they
feel secure enough to tell people?

Greer
gwatson2@r.......

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 1 May 2005 17:37:13 -0400
From:    Cheryl P <fknight420@c.......>
Subject: FK friends

New page added to the website
www.ForeverKnight.5u.com
Sty safe, and enjoy.



Sense what you have,
Don't trade a treasure
for an empty box.
ForeverKnight.5u.com.

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 2 May 2005 03:51:47 -0400
From:    Naia Zifu <naia_zifu@b.......>
Subject: Re: FORKNI-L Digest - 30 Apr 2005 to 1 May 2005 (#2005-116)

    Nick has a tendency to kill those he loves while he's trying to bring
them across :-P .  That might be one of the major obstacles to getting too
involved.
    I think I excuse vampires more easily because they're eating, just like
any other creature has to eat.  I might not like the idea of innocent people
dying to feed vampires, any more than I like the idea of innocent animals
dying to feed humans or other animals, but that's how nature works.  I have
a harder time forgiving crimes committed out of malice. . . even when those
are done by a vampire. . . like Divia, who still really bothers me. . .

>
> The problem is trying to have a relationship at all.  Nick has a tendency
> to kill anyone he tries to have a physical relationship with, unless he
> chooses to bring them across.
>
>
> We all seem so quick to forgive Nick his sins... yet cannot
> acknowledge that a killer who has found religion,
> changed his ways and asked for forgiveness, is
> deserving of forgiveness.



------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 2 May 2005 01:03:32 -0700
From:    Karen Reincke <kaylagaylestories@y......>
Subject: Blood

I was recently struck by a question brought on by rewatching "Faithful
Follows"--you know, the one where Nick goes undercover in that cult?

Anyway, the show hints that Nick had been under for a while.  If so, where was
he getting his nourishment?  Did he sneak in bottles of blood?

I don't remember them ever saying in the canon how long vampires in FK can
actually go between feedings.  Anyone?


------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 2 May 2005 04:39:19 -0400
From:    Greer Watson <gwatson2@r.......>
Subject: Ethics and Redemption

Amy points out:
>...and if we were to interview the families of those whom Nick
>killed, or the individuals whose lives were permanently altered by
>their deaths or Nick's threats or the terror that a rash of deaths in
>a village would have created for many, or those accused falsely of
>crimes Nick, LC, Janette, Erica, and others actually committed before
>moving on...I suspect they'd be less forgiving than we are

One of the problems with so many TV series is the way the consequences
of the story get ignored because the plot ends at the end of the
episode.  Cop shows are especially prone to this:  how often do we see
people arrested at the end of the episode, with not even a brief
mention of the fate of their family, something that is particularly
relevant in the case of single parents?  Of course, one can argue that
that has nothing to do with the police.  Neither, of course, does the
fate of the rest of the family involve the vampire who kills someone.
Drink, dump the empties, and depart:  that's the vampire creed.
(Certainly according to LaCroix.)
    In Forever Knight, because of the flashback format, the
opportunity existed to look at the "before and after" picture.  And
there were a few episodes that did try to do show that consequences
don't stop just because you "move on".
    Amy mentions "Cherry Blossoms".  Another is "Fatal Mistake".  In
that episode, Nick thought he'd killed a woman for her blood and the
taste of her sexual arousal; but, unbeknownst to him, LaCroix found
her barely alive and brought her across.  She came seeking revenge.
But not on LaCroix for turning her into a vampire:  she wanted to
destroy Nick for his wanton bloodlust:  after all, he'd murdered her.
And why shouldn't he pay?  In real life, we'd want a man who'd killed
a woman in lust to pay for his crime, wouldn't we?  And (lest anyone
think that, because she was turned into a vampire she wasn't really a
murder victim), I should point out that Nick did indeed intend to kill
her, and thought he had.  Our sympathies ought to be with *her*.  Yet,
I think in "Fatal Mistake" our sympathies are completely with Nick.

The trouble with episodes like these is that, even though we may feel
some compassion for the victims, their desire to get revenge on
Nick -- the hero -- makes them villains in the actual story.
Sympathetic villains, of course.  But we only *infer* their suffering.
We don't actually see it.  Objectively, we know that life was probably
pretty hard for the little boy in "Cherry Blossoms" after his mother
died; but we primarily see him as an old man trying to kill Nick.
Objectively we know that, when Nick killed the barmaid in "Fatal
Mistake", he wasn't desperate and starving; he was having fun.  But we
primarily see her as a shrewish vampire going after him with a stake.
That, after all, is Nick's perspective on the situation, given that,
in both episodes, he's the one at stake's point.  However remorseful
he may feel, the truth is that he doesn't want to die for his crimes.
(And, in "Fatal Mistake", it is *his* crime:  there's no mistaken
identity.)  Well, we don't want him to die either!  So naturally we
don't identify with someone who's trying to stake him.
    I think maybe the closest we get to actually feeling the suffering
of a survivor is in "Hunted", when, after Nick & Co. kill a
gamekeeper, he spies on the man's widow finding her husband's corpse.
Clearly, Nick is moved by her grief.  But normally he never sees the
suffering he's caused.
    Amy also mentions people being falsely accused of crimes actually
committed by Nick & Co.  Now they did touch on this in "Undue
Process", in whose flashback someone was hanged for a death actually
caused by LaCroix.  But the trouble is:  the man hanged was Nick; and,
being a vampire, he survived the experience, of course.  That, in some
other circumstance, long after the vampires moved on, some perfectly
innocent human might be accused of murder -- that they never looked at
in any episode of Forever Knight.  (On the other hand, this is one I
have written about:  in "Cover Story".)

It's an ethical problem that should trouble us more than it does.  One
*ought* to identify with the victims and their families.  After all,
if there were vampires in real life, we'd be in the victim's position,
not Nick's.  We're humans, after all.  And, given that Nick is,
objectively speaking, a serial killer, we are far more likely -- I
hope -- to be the victims of such a killer than a serial sex murderer
ourselves.  (Not that I wish either fate on anyone.)
    But, of course, we identify with the hero of the show.  And, when
the hero is the vampire (not, as in BVTS, the slayer), that means that
we tend to focus only on the plot as presented to us, which is to say
from Nick's point of view.  When a long-bereaved relative or
brought-across victim does turn up, it is only as the villain of the
week, which means that our sympathies are, at best, only *semi*
engaged.
    Surely we should recognize a serious ethical problem when we find
ourselves rooting for the killer!  Yet we don't, do we?  I mean, I
realize there's *this* discussion; but, simply by virtue of being on
FORKNI-L, we aren't the casual viewer.
    Of course, as Amy says, in FK we *know* Nick's remorse is genuine.
Even though he backslides, his intentions are good.  So it's quite
understandable that we feel for him.  But the ethical dilemma remains.

Greer
gwatson2@r.......

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 2 May 2005 07:46:08 EDT
From:    Libratsie@a.......
Subject: Re: Ethics and Redemption

In a message dated 5/2/05 3:39:58 AM Central Daylight Time,
gwatson2@r....... writes:


>   Surely we should recognize a serious ethical problem when we find
> ourselves rooting for the killer!  Yet we don't, do we?

Again, FK is a fictional show, not real life, so although I recognize the
irony in me rooting for Nick and often LaCroix (no matter what he's up to), it
isn't real life so I don't have an ethical problem with it. If it were real
life, my "rooting" would be otherwise directed.

I have been a G.I. Joe fan all my life and when the cartoon came out in the
80s, I found I really liked Cobra (the villians) more than the "All American
Heroes." Yes, on that show I root for the enemy. Yet, I don't have a problem
with it because it is fictional and I know in real life, my loyalties would be
otherwise directed. I could go on and on because I usually find myself liking
the "villian" on many shows and in many books. I think because, to me, they are
usually more colorful (and when I'm writing, more fun to write).

Maybe for FK fans who view things similar to me, it is a release, of sorts,
to recognize that since this is a fictional show, we can be a little
"fictionally" naughty.

Hmmm, it could even be one reason I'm a Ratpacker is that subconsciously,
although Screed did do in his fair share of fair maidens, he's primarily guilty
of keeping the feral rat population down. <wRPg>

--Libs

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 2 May 2005 09:27:32 -0400
From:    Deborah Hymon <debh@e.......>
Subject: Re: Ethics and Redemption

Okay, here's my thoughts for what it's worth:

on 5/2/05 7:46 AM, Libratsie@a....... at Libratsie@a....... wrote:
> FK is a fictional show, not real life, so although I recognize the
> irony in me rooting for Nick and often LaCroix (no matter what he's up to), it
> isn't real life so I don't have an ethical problem with it. If it were real
> life, my "rooting" would be otherwise directed.
I totally agree with Libs!  This is fiction and therefore we're allowed to
respond to a TV show, movie, or book any way we want without thinking ethics
or otherwise. I sometimes think that too much emphasis is put on evaluating
fiction. It can be fun to compare fictional situations to real life, but I
don't enjoy when I have to analyze the actions of the characters and my
response.  I watch or read fiction to enjoy, and escape from the real world,
so I don't expect to react as I would in real life.
> Maybe for FK fans who view things similar to me, it is a release, of sorts,
> to recognize that since this is a fictional show, we can be a little
> "fictionally" naughty.
Yes, it is a release, an escape into a fantasy world, where an 800 year old
vampire exist, and we all know that's NOT REAL LIFE.  If I want to deal with
reality, I turn on the News, History or Discovery Channels. When I view a
show like FK, I know it's fantasy, and that makes it easy to slip into the
hero's point of view, such as the writers presented in FK.

Deb
DeborahAHymon.com

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 2 May 2005 09:04:51 -0500
From:    Lisa McDavid <mclisa@m.......>
Subject: Admin: Forkni-l Rules -- Belated Happy May Day

Or Happy Beltane for those who use the modern calendar. Yes, this  _is_
Monday. I spent most of Sunday asleep under the influence of my glaucoma medicine.
No, that's not a polite term for something 90-proof. <g>
--McLisa


> If you need a hand or have any questions please don't hesitate to contact
> Don Fasig Argent@c....... or Lisa McDavid  mclisa@m.......>.
> >
>  For tips on managing your Forever Knight subscriptions please visit
>  Don's page at: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7139/fk-lists.htm
>
>  List digests are archived at:
> If you need a hand or have any questions please don't hesitate to contact
> Don Fasig Argent@c....... or Lisa McDavid  mclisa@m.......>.
> >
>  For tips on managing your Forever Knight subscriptions please visit
>  Don's page at: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7139/fk-lists.htm
>
>  List digests are archived at:
> https://knightwind1228.tripod.com/forkni.htm
>
>  FORKNI-L RULES
>
>  1. No flames on list. FLAMERS MAY BE SET NOPOST. THE NOPOST MAY BE
> PERMANENT.
>
>  2. Please don't quote more than four lines of a previous post in replying.
> If you have more than one point to answer, then you may  quote the relevant
> four lines for that point also.
>
>  3. Limit sigs to 6 lines. Your sig starts with the first thing you write
> after the text. It includes all the lines under that, even blank lines. If
> you have one of those providers that insists on putting an ad after that,
> don't worry. The ad doesn't count.
>
> 4. Please don't send to the whole list when you are only talking to  the
> person who wrote the post you are answering.
>
>  5. Advertising on list is on a case by case basis. Please consult the
> listowners, Lisa McDavid, mclisa@m....... or Don Fasig,
> Argent@c....... for permission.
>
>  6. This list is for the discussion of Forever Knight and related topics.
> FK cast and behind the camera people are ok, except that we don't discuss
> private lives.  Announcments by authorized spokespersons about events in
> those lives are ok.  List members' fannish activities are ok, as are sharing
> personal events in our lives.  Non-FK vampires or vampires in general or not
> ok. PLEASE DON'T TALK ABOUT PROJECTS WHICH HAVEN'T BEEN OFFCIALLY ANNOUNCED
> OR WRITTEN ABOUT IN THE MEDIA.
>
> 7. No off-topic posts are without permission from a listowner.  This
> includes virus warnings.
>
> 8.. No role-playing on Forkni-l. This includes character names as
> pseudonyms or posing as a character.
>
> 9.  Each subscriber is limited to five posts per day on Forkni-l.

10. Requests for prayers or other moral support should be posted with the
prayer: topic.

>
> McLisa (Lisa McDavid)
> "That will be trouble".
> Listowner, Forkni-l and Fkfic-l
> mclisa@m.......

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 2 May 2005 09:13:27 -0600
From:    Angela Gottfred <agottfre@t.......>
Subject: Re: Nick & Nat's Relationship/Also: Ethics and Redemption

What a great discussion!

>His conversation with Joan of Arc also intimates that
>the writers believed that Nick needed faith of his own
>for the forgiveness/absolution he was seeking.

From a Christian POV, Nick is committing the unpardonable sin of blaspheming
against the Holy Spirit: he believes that even God can't (or won't) help/forgive
him, so he doesn't even ask for forgiveness (which is why blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit is unpardonable). The irony is that the forgiveness is there for
the asking, if he only had the faith to ask.

Your humble & obedient servant,
Angela Gottfred

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 2 May 2005 09:13:27 -0600
From:    Angela Gottfred <agottfre@t.......>
Subject: Re: Nick & Nat's Relationship/Also: Ethics and Redemption

> Well for one thing, its not just the Human-Vampire
> aspect that makes their relationship an issue.  The
> fact that they are co-workers is a BIG issue.  In many
> companies, organizations this is a huge no-no

But for cops, it is not; in fact, it is often observed that only other people in
similar work (other cops, dispatchers, paremedics) can understand the stresses
and strains that they are under, and so they often will date & marry them. A
classmate of mine had parents who were both cops.

Your humble & obedient servant,
Angela Gottfred

------------------------------

End of FORKNI-L Digest - 1 May 2005 to 2 May 2005 (#2005-117)
*************************************************************