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

FORKNI-L Digest - 30 Mar 2001 to 31 Mar 2001 (#2001-105)

Sat, 31 Mar 2001

There are 23 messages totalling 852 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Cousinly Kyer? (2)
  2. LaCroix's view of fatherhood (long) (2)
  3. LaCroix's view of fatherhood (11)
  4. Nigel's Chat Transcript
  5. FK Domain Names (4)
  6. Con quotes
  7. My Two Cents' Worth on the Book Situation...
  8. FK Domain Names - more info, and don't hold your breath

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:00:45 -0700
From:    Kyer <kyer@p.......>
Subject: Re: Cousinly Kyer?

Stormborn joked:
> And don't worry, Kyer, we know you're so busy polishing Nicolas' armor
> (remember, mail goes in that big barrel filled with sand and gets rolled
> around the courtyard) that you haven't had the time to fully take in The
> Glory That is Nunkies. <joking, I'm joking!>

Yes, sand is good for cleaning mail---and woolen Andean rugs too.
And.. (  ;)  ) having seen Ashes to Ashes I have previewed the <cough>
"Glory That is Nunkies".  *Why* do you think I'm here polishing Nick's
armor!  The annoyance of getting sand in my hair to be closer to Milord is a
mucho grande preferable scenario to this Squirette than the (eeeuwww..)
alternative. <eg>

;)=
Kyer, kyer@p.......

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:18:48 -0700
From:    Kyer <kyer@p.......>
Subject: Re: LaCroix's view of fatherhood (long)

Stormborn commented: > Kyer wrote:> >>And yet Nick is for the most part full
of pity, charity and mercy (the> ideals--if not the reality of a knight),
yet LC chose to bring him across.<<

> Maybe if he'd known that about him, he would have reconsidered. <g>

Molly, Molly, Molly, m'lass... <mournful sigh>
You just insulted LaCroix by insinuating that he was *implusive* in his
actions in brining Nick across instead of carefully planning ahead and
studying the consequences like the Roman General he was.
If you're good, maybe Nick will consent to speak to Aristotle on your behalf
to get you relocated with a fake i.d. history. <eg>

:)=
Kyer, kyer@p.......
Weird Twilight Paranoid Schitzoid Knightie---and loving it!

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:46:09 -0500
From:    Portia 1 <portia1@m.......>
Subject: Re: LaCroix's view of fatherhood

This is a very interesting idea!  I know that there are potentially valid
arguments that LaCroix was not necessarily physically abusive/punitive towards
Nick, but I do wonder what else might explain Nick's obvious fear of LaCroix.  A
good example is his reaction to LaCroix when the Master vampire comes to reclaim
him after he has run away in "Father's Day." (Do I have the eppy right?) He
looks frightened, and not because there might be a scene.  There may be other
examples of how Nick's reactions to LaCroix might infer that he fears physical
violence, but my mind is muzzy right now.  I do know that he "imagined"(?)
LaCroix assaulting him in "Curiouser & Curiouser" -- we might wonder where from
those images originated....

Portia, pondering


Forever Knight TV show <FORKNI-L@l.......> wrote:
Have you heard about the psychological case of the 'wounded child'?
<snip>Nick's behavior might just as well be a reaction to
LaCroix's treatment of him when he was a chi-- err fledgling.
Countess

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:53:37 -0800
From:    fkforever <fkforever@y.......>
Subject: Nigel's Chat Transcript

Hi everyone...

The SciFi Channel has just posted the transcript for Nigel's Chat!!!

http://www.scifi.com/transcripts/2001/nigelbennett.html

For those unable to attend, the chat was on 3/29/01 from 9-10pm est.

=====
Desiree

www.knighties.50megs.com
UFfer, UA, UT, NNpacker

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:54:33 -0800
From:    Susan Clark <sclark@b.......>
Subject: Re: LaCroix's view of fatherhood

Rose wrote:
> I think LaCroix's just evil.  Plain and simple.

I disagree. (Or agree to disagree...I'm not looking for a fight.) And I'm not
coming from a "factional" view, but as a writer.

A just evil character, imho, is incredibly dull. (For the record, a just good
question has the same problem.)

The first season LaCroix, pre-interactive, mostly served the purpose of the
boogeyman from the past. The second and latter third season LaCroix was far more
interesting. He wasn't predictable, which is good since the character should
not be driven by modern mores. I think the character was, with the exception of
some 3rd-season USA-inspired oddness, consistent. And interesting. And that
counts for a lot.

If I feel I've written a good LaCroix, I feel like I've accomplished something.
I don't see it as easy to do...but when you get it, it's fun.

--Sue

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:08:41 -0600
From:    Eve Dutton <umdutto3@c.......>
Subject: Re: LaCroix's view of fatherhood

> A just evil character, imho, is incredibly dull. (For the record, a just good
> question has the same problem.)

I agree. I think we would have been just as bored by an entirely demonic
Lacroix as we would be by an entirely pious Nick. Just as we enjoy Nick's
occasional wicked moments, Lacroix's momentary "waves of altruism" make him
far more interesting (dare I say... human?) as a character.

Eve.

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:20:24 -0500
From:    Portia 1 <portia1@m.......>
Subject: Re: LaCroix's view of fatherhood

>>we might wonder where from those images originated....

Portia, pondering<<

Portia, also blushing at the pretentiousness of the above phrasing!  Told ya my
mind was muzzy.... "g"

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:21:57 -0700
From:    Kyer <kyer@p.......>
Subject: Re: LaCroix's view of fatherhood

Portia: <snip>his reaction to LaCroix when the Master vampire comes to
>reclaim him after he has run away in "Father's Day." (Do I have the eppy right?
)He looks frightened, and not because there might be a scene.  There
>may be other examples of how Nick's reactions to LaCroix might infer that he
>fears physical violence <snip>

Oh, yeah---he did look scared.  And remember also in Father's Day we saw LC
grab Nick and thrust him against the wall while snarling vamped-out in his
face.  That scene alone told me that LaCroix was very capable of getting
'physical' (Putting the Fear of LaCroix in him, though I think he prefers
pychological 'guidance' over physical overall, imho.)  Nick seemed also in
no particular hurry to tangle with LaCroix in that slaughterhouse in Dark
Knight II despite the goading.  It wasn't until Alyce was threatened that he
attacked.

In fact...I'm trying to remember any scenes where Nick attacked first
without some sort of prompting by LaCroix.  Even the flaming stake was
thrown only after LC threw it first and tried (and succeeded!) in draining
Alyce.  Is it just me or does it seem that LC purposely tries to get Nick to
attack him (despite Nick's fear of the other's authority/strength?) to bring
out his son's vampire?

: )=
Kyer, kyer@p.......

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Mar 2001 01:54:31 +0100
From:    IIIMMIII <lllmmlll@b.......>
Subject: FK Domain Names

I'm a bit new and everything and I guess you all know this already, but I
was rather disturbed and somewhat upset to see that foreverknight.com is
owned by Sony and contains a miserable page with Evil Never Dies and no link
whatsoever on it. May the hordes of darkness pour bile upon their heads
until infinity.

I was further disturbed by finding out that foreverknight.net seems to be
owned by folk who just register domain names for the hell of it.

At least nickknight.com is owned by a guy who is actually called that and
has his website there.

Anyhow. I've bought www.foreverknight.net and also www.NicholasDeBrabant.com

As I have no websites with fk content, I can re-direct these domains to
someone's home page if they would like to use them officially. They are
currently pointed at a page each on my dr server. You can also set up
matching mail in that name (unlimited aliases). Which, actually, could mean
that anyone could have an email mailto:uniqueusername@eitherofthem with a
redirect. Or from my www.LucienLaCroix.com if wanted.

Mail me. Oh, no charge btw.

Silver
mailto:lllmmlll@b.......
or, redirectly,
mailto:info@l.......


"Vires Per Virtutem"

>

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:40:46 +0100
From:    IIIMMIII <lllmmlll@b.......>
Subject: Re: FK Domain Names

Sorry, made a mistake.

not net.

The three are

http://www.foreverknight.org - org, not net!
http://www.lucienlacroix.com
http://www.nicholasdebrabant.com

Silver

"Vires Per Virtutem"


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Forever Knight TV show [mailto:FORKNI-L@l.......]On Behalf Of
> IIIMMIII
> Sent: 30 March 2001 01:55
> To: FORKNI-L@l.......
> Subject: FK Domain Names
>
>
> I'm a bit new and everything and I guess you all know this already, but I
> was rather disturbed and somewhat upset to see that foreverknight.com is
> owned by Sony and contains a miserable page with Evil Never Dies and no link
> whatsoever on it. May the hordes of darkness pour bile upon their heads
> until infinity.
>
> I was further disturbed by finding out that foreverknight.net seems to be
> owned by folk who just register domain names for the hell of it.
>
> At least nickknight.com is owned by a guy who is actually called that and
> has his website there.
>
> Anyhow. I've bought www.foreverknight.net and also www.NicholasDeBrabant.com

As I have no websites with fk content, I can re-direct these domains to
someone's home page if they would like to use them officially. They are
currently pointed at a page each on my dr server. You can also set up
matching mail in that name (unlimited aliases). Which, actually, could mean
that anyone could have an email mailto:uniqueusername@eitherofthem with a
redirect. Or from my www.LucienLaCroix.com if wanted.

Mail me. Oh, no charge btw.

Silver
mailto:lllmmlll@b.......
or, redirectly,
mailto:info@l.......


"Vires Per Virtutem"

>

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:06:14 -0500
From:    Stephanie Kellerman <stephke@i.......>
Subject: Re: FK Domain Names

If you go to http://www.networksolutions.com and do a whois, and look at the
info--foreverknight.com expired on March 24th.  I wonder if you inquired about
it at NetworkSolutions,  whether you could get them to sell it to you.  I did
that for my Richard Basehart domain which had been registered, but had expired,
and it suddenly became free to buy the next day.

--
Steph
stephke@i.......
ftp://ftp.win.net/winnet/fkvoyage/fkfanfic/
http://www.richardbasehart.com
"The sea..where each man, as in a mirror, finds himself", Richard Basehart as
Ishmael
"If you obey all the rules, you miss all the fun."  Katherine Hepburn

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Mar 2001 22:11:25 EST
From:    Libratsie@a.......
Subject: Re: LaCroix's view of fatherhood

In a message dated 3/30/01 4:55:01 PM Central Standard Time, sclark@b.......
writes:

> A just evil character, imho, is incredibly dull. (For the record, a just good
>  question has the same problem.)
And, from a writer's point of view, remember that "evil" people don't see
themselves as evil in real life. Or the sane ones don't. They usually have a
purpose, and see themselves as being in the right.

To make LaCroix "purely evil" is to create not only a dull character, as
you've argued very well, but a one-dimensional character.  There's times when
he seems to indicate he sees himself as evil (AtA, I think) for killing his
own daughter or whatever, yet even then it seems driven by guilt.  He
sometimes seems a little afraid. He sometimes seems a concerned
father/master. He can even love.

Pure evil?

Nyah. Not IMHO.

Libs

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:41:40 -0600
From:    "Janet Dornhoff, DVM" <dornhoff@p.......>
Subject: Con quotes

>> all-time favorite line of which was, "there's a train bearing down on us; is
>> that a problem?" :)
>
> LOL  My favorite was KC's (Susan Nix) question to Nigel during
> a Q&A at AggieCon: "How many kinds of fish can you name?"
> <g>

"Oh my God, she looks just like Amy Hull!"


-Janet   <dornhoff@p.......>
The Forever Vet -- NatPacker, despite the name
Also Lurker, Watcher, Scoobie, X-Phile, and budding I-maniac....

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:20:19 -0700
From:    StormBorn <smolly4@q.......>
Subject: Re: Cousinly Kyer?

Kyer wrote:
>>The annoyance of getting sand in my hair to be closer to Milord is a mucho
grande preferable scenario to this Squirette than the (eeeuwww..)
alternative. <eg><<

Au contraire!  Nicholas makes you do chores; Nunkies reserves an entire
restaurant just so the two of you can me alone.  And that voice--that voice!

Molly/StormBorn
Cousin, Ravenette, Dark Trinity, Seducer, Forum Fanatic, FK Pagan
NA Forever!
Abnormally fond of dead guys
smolly4@q....... or stormborn@l.......

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:37:53 -0700
From:    StormBorn <smolly4@q.......>
Subject: Re: LaCroix's view of fatherhood (long)

Kyer wrote:
>> Molly, Molly, Molly, m'lass... <mournful sigh> You just insulted LaCroix
by insinuating that he was *implusive* in his actions in brining Nick across
instead of carefully planning ahead and studying the consequences like the
Roman General he was.<<

No, no--I was *complimenting* Nicholas on his irresistible allure, charm and
looks.  A Cousin and an Addict I am, but never doubt that I consider Nick
one fine piece of 'scenery'!

Molly/StormBorn
Cousin, Ravenette, Dark Trinity, Seducer, Forum Fanatic, FK Pagan
NA Forever!
Abnormally fond of dead guys
smolly4@q....... or stormborn@l.......

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

Date:    Sat, 31 Mar 2001 04:46:01 -0500
From:    Will Steeves <goid@i.......>
Subject: My Two Cents' Worth on the Book Situation...

Judy Freudenthal <DanaKnight@a.......> writes:
>(Quoting Gwenn quoting Pat McGrew)
>Pat McGrew: "What you missed was the disappearance of the authors.
>I'm sitting here with half a manuscript, a bunch of photos and
>permissions, and nothing else. I did ask several folks if they
>knew of anyone else who wanted to do a similar project. No takers. "


Back to Judy...
>If they're still looking for someone to do it, I'll do it.  I never heard
>of the request and would've offered to do it, if I had.

Ditto, count me in too, for whatever it is that you and/or the authors
decide once someone gets to the bottom of all this.  I was also disappointed
to hear of the apparent (possible?) falling out between the authors and the
publishers.  I don't know what happened; I wish that I did.



Seeing as how this situation (or at least the facts surrounding it) appears
to be spinning out of control, I just wanted to "briefly" stick my nose into
this discussion.  Specifically, I have have had some occasional contacts
with Pat and was one of the people of whom she was referring here, i.e., I
was one of the "several folks".  Consequently, I may be able to at least
partially shed some light as to what's going on - at least from what little
I do know.

Let me try to explain my part in all this, however minor it was.  I tried
explaining it all to my wife, and her head exploded (not literally, of
course), so if even _she_ can't wrap her brain around something that I tell
her (I love her dearly and I assume that she's the smartest person I know
:-) ), it's probably a good bet that it's pretty complicated.  Here goes....

1) Way, way back in the summer of 1999, a few friends and I contributed some
material to the book, including an article and some of my _best_ and most
treasured pictures from various Toronto filming site tours.  Indeed, the
only other "really treasured pictures" that I kept were the pictures signed
by Lisa Ryder and Kathryn Long, but that was about it; just about all the
rest of the _originals_ of "the good stuff" was lent out for use of the
book. As part of my providing permissions for these contributions to be used
(because technically I own the copyright on the pictures), I was put in
contact with Pat McGrew.  Our contact at that time was brief, and I don't
recall much of what was said - mainly just "here's what the permission
letter has to say", etc.

2) In September of 1999, at the Romantic Times Convention in Toronto, I met
a very nice group of people (including Cousin Sukh, one of the authors) and
gave them "The Tour".  We also spoke a little about the project.  I offered
some more help, but since I was busy working for the Kentucky State
government at the time (imagine _me_ as a bureaucrat - har, har :-) ), I
didn't have the time to do any major tasks, but offered to do any small,
menial tasks as needed.  And, seeing as I had more money than time, I also
offered to be an investor partner - yes, partly out of the profit motive,
but also because any good project needs money as well as hard work, and
since I couldn't offer much more in the way of work, I figured that money
would sure be nice too.  :-)  My request was politely declined, which is
probably just as well, given the problems that can happen when money is
involved.  Indeed, although I'm not a "control freak" (at least I don't see
myself that way :-) ), I'd probably have become a "not-entirely-so-silent
partner", if just to keep on top of things to make sure that the project
would at least break even.  Anyone can probably imagine the possible
conflicts resulting from this sort of involvement - it's the age-old
conflict between artists who want to create without being micro-managed
versus the financial backers watching their bottom lines.  Conflict would
have been a Bad Thing because I like Cousin Sukh and wouldn't ever want to
be squabbling with her.

3) A little after the convention, we kept in touch for a little while, but
then lost touch.  I don't recall whether I had left her a note that she
didn't reply, or whether she left me a note that I hadn't replied to, but
knowing me ("The Speed of Will" - I didn't get that nickname for nothing!),
it was probably my fault for not keeping in better contact.

4) Approximately 6-7 months after losing contact, I recall trying to send a
message to her, but unfortunately it bounced. I then wrote to Pat McGrew to
ask (basically), "I can't reach the authors, is everything okay with the
book?  Has it been published yet? [The book was tentatively scheduled for
release in November of 1999, as I recall]  Have my pictures finished being
scanned?  Can I get them back soon?" etc., and she replied back, somewhat
frustrated, saying that nobody had been in touch with her for the longest
time and she was assuming that the project was pretty much dead in the
water.  I then suggested to Pat that perhaps I could organise a team to take
over and build upon the current work - if the authors would allow that or if
I could even reach them - or organise a new, similar project.

5) Not too long after seeing the frustrated note from Pat, someone wrote a
note on Forkni-L asking about the status of the book (I don't recall who,
unfortunately), and as I recall, both Cousin Sukh and Trapper (TrapperG2,
maybe - I don't recall her exact alias) replied to say that everything was
okay, but unfortunately Sukh's e-mail had been down for a few months (hence
the bounced note to her).  I was overjoyed, wrote to them to say hello, etc.
As I recall, we wrote a couple of notes, but then unfortunately we lost
touch - again.  Again, it was probably _my_ fault.  I figured that the
project had simply been delayed for a short while, but was back on track, so
I didn't ask about whether they were thinking of passing the torch to anyone
else, and/or if I could get my pictures back soon.  That was about six to
nine months ago, I don't recall exactly.

6) I started thinking about the book again recently, and then as if on cue
(okay, the universe is funny sometimes), I noticed the letters from Gwenn
and Judy asking if the book was still going, along with the recent note from
Pat that was forwarded to the list, whose contents seemed to imply that the
authors had not been communicating with her.  (This was the same thing that
she said before - see point #4).  THEN, I saw the reply from Trapper saying
(basically), "No, that's not true, we've been communicating with her, SHE'S
not communicating with us!!!".


Okay, I admit it - I'm confused.  After hearing all this, I'm wondering,
"Well, I don't think that either of them is _lying_, but one side is saying
that they wrote regularly and the other side never got back to them and the
other side said that she was communicating regularly but the authors weren't
replying back".  Not that anyone is lying, but....clearly there's something
that's not right here.  Any help would be appreciated.  I'm really, really
concerned about what's going on.  I don't want to blame anyone, I just want
to see if there's anything that I, or any other fans can do to help get
things going again.


Now that Trapper is back (I suppose that she was never "gone", any more than
"I" have been gone), I suppose that I ought to ask the authors to see
whether this situation is a case of:

1) their lives are now too busy to complete the work (there is certainly no
shame in this if that's the case.  For instance, at least one of the authors
works and has kids, as I recall; and living a working life AND a parenting
life _cannot_ be easy!!!) ; or

2) they are no longer interested in working with Pat (I have no idea why
this would be, but who knows?) ; or

3) Pat no longer wants to work with them (again, I don't see it, but
occasionally it happens that even the world's most reasonable people will
just not be able to see eye to eye, unfortunately)



At any rate - if someone can reach them and figure out what's going on, we
can figure out whether to redouble our efforts and put our support behind
them (if indeed they still want to continue) or to take over and build upon
what they've done so far (how would this work?  Would we  offer a share of
the revenue?  Granted, some people consider mixing fandom and the profit
motive to be a Bad Thing, but I'm not one of them, as long as you don't
forget that you're primarily doing it for the fandom rather than for
yourself - and certainly these authors ARE loyal fans and I know them to be
so, and even if they were selfish - which they aren't - they should get
_something_ for their hard work so far), or should we just start something
totally new?


I absolutely do NOT want to blame anyone, because that would be totally
unproductive.  I just want to get to the bottom of this, to see if we can
get Pat and the authors talking again, and if so, if we can give whatever
help we can give to the authors to get this fine project back off the ground
and onto the bookshelves.

Okay, enough babbling for now ... I hope that I've been at least slightly
enlightening in helping to explain this situation, even though I don't know
_that_ much more than anyone else.

W.

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

Date:    Sat, 31 Mar 2001 07:18:02 -0600
From:    "Carla M." <copper6500@y.......>
Subject: Re: FK Domain Names

Stephanie Kellerman wrote:

> If you go to http://www.networksolutions.com and do a whois, and look at the
> info--foreverknight.com expired on March 24th.  I wonder if you inquired about
> it at NetworkSolutions,  whether you could get them to sell it to you.  I did
> that for my Richard Basehart domain which had been registered, but had expired,
> and it suddenly became free to buy the next day.

I have already contacted Network Solutions about this.... Actually, I was jumping
on it at 12:01 am and then frequently for the next couple of days, trying to
register it.  I'd set up a reminder months ago.

Sony has a billing cycle set up with Network Solutions, and as such, it may not
yet have come due.  According to Network Solutions, unless Sony chooses not to
pay the renewal over the course of the next billing, then they MAY put it back
up for sale (then again, since it's SONY, and they're probably a huge customer,
they may let them slide for a little while.).  I've already got a pre-order
purchase in for it through another domain registrar, though, so if it *does*
come available, I'm hoping to get it.

If I should be lucky enough to get it, it will become a "Gateway to
ForeverKnight," and design and content will be open for input, discussion, and
perhaps even actual html design. :-)

-Carla
copper6500@y.......

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

Date:    Sat, 31 Mar 2001 08:47:15 -0600
From:    "Carla M." <copper6500@y.......>
Subject: Re: FK Domain Names - more info, and don't hold your breath

On doing a little more research, I wouldn't hold my breath on *anyone* getting
the foreverknight.com domain.  Not anytime soon, anyway, and perhaps never.

I had suspected that something wasn't quite right last year, when I searched on
a domain name I considered registering.  It was somewhat unusual, but when I
went back to register it about a week later, it was gone.

There are articles all over the net (on reputable news magazine sites included)
about NSI's unethical treatment of expired domain names.  Many other people had
the same thing happen to them -- they checked on an unusual domain name, and it
was available. Shortly thereafter, it was suddenly registered or listed as "On
Hold" by NSI. It seems that if someone is interested enough to check on a domain
name, but not register it immediately,  NSI deems is important enough to snap
up so no one else gets it and they can later resell it.

There is a lawsuit against NIS for hoarding expired domain names -- apparently
they were going to try and auction them off instead of releasing them back into
the general pool for everyone to get.

They have an 85 day billing cycle. So once notification goes out to the previous
owner that their domain is about to expire, they have 85 days to get that
payment in (apparently).

If that's not paid, then the domain goes into a 'batch deletion' file.
(Providing NSI doesn't deem it worth keeping for themselves to auction later on).

Once that batch program hits x number of entries, they're all purged from the
database-making them available for registration again.

So, now you know.  We might really, really, want a certain fk-related domain,
but chances are we'll never get a chance to get it.  But, I've got a domain
watch bot checking for it daily, and should it become available, the bot will
immediately try to register it in my name.

-Carla
copper6500@y.......

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

Date:    Sat, 31 Mar 2001 08:24:33 -0800
From:    Emily Hanson <emilymhanson@y.......>
Subject: Re: LaCroix's view of fatherhood

You may have hit on something, Kyer.  I don't think it's just you <g>.
LC seems to want Nick to accept the vampire part of himself, and go on with his
life - or unlife, as the case may be, instead of trying unproven cures, time
after time.  LC's motives are unclear, at least in cannon - does he simply want
to control Nick, or is he really looking out for Nick's best interests, at least
as far as LC can decide what Nick's best interests are?  That seems to be
the great debate.  It may be a bit of both.  LC, coming from a society where
parents have more control over their children then ours, is used to being in
control and doesn't want to lose his domination over Nick.  It's entirely
possible LC's own mortal father was just as strict, or more so.  And he may
genuinely care about Nick, in his own way, though because the way his character
was written, it's never shown.

Emily

--- Kyer <kyer@p.......> wrote:
>...Is it just me or does it seem that LC purposely tries to get Nick to
> attack him (despite Nick's fear of the other's authority/strength?) to bring
> out his son's vampire?

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

Date:    Sat, 31 Mar 2001 11:14:13 -0600
From:    Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject: Re: LaCroix's view of fatherhood

At 08:24 AM 3/31/01 -0800, Emily Hanson wrote:
>  LC's motives are unclear, at least in cannon - does he simply want to
> control Nick, or is he really looking out for Nick's best interests, at
> least as far as LC can decide what Nick's best interests are?

But isn't that how it is with most parents?  At least, it is with most
parents I have known <g>.  They tell you what to do, but it's *always* for
your best interests, as far as they're concerned.  But it may not be in
your best interests as far as you're concerned.  It's the eternal conflict
between parent and child.  Yes, the situation between LaCroix and Nick is
exaggerated beyond the everyday, but to me, that's a dramatic device, used
to highlight a real situation.

In other words, I don't think the show is simply portraying a Roman father,
although I do think the creators of the show may have chosen to make
LaCroix an ancient Roman in order to make his authoritarian character
believable.  I'll grant you that an Alan Alda type just wouldn't have
worked. <g>

>And he may genuinely care about Nick, in his own way, though because the
>way his character was written, it's never shown.

What, what, what?!?!  Never shown?!?!  Okay, well, we all see different
things when we watch the show, but I think it was shown often.  The
strongest example I can think of is in "Sons of Belial" when LaCroix at
first refused to take Nick to the exorcist, but then did take him when he
saw how desperate Nick really was.

Bring 'em back alive!
Margie (treeleaf@i.......)
Cousin of the Knight ~ N&NPacker
CotK Site -- http://lavender.fortunecity.com/evildead/879/

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:37:21 +0100
From:    IIIMMIII <lllmmlll@b.......>
Subject: Re: LaCroix's view of fatherhood

> LC seems to want Nick to accept the vampire part of himself, and
> go on with his life - or unlife,
> as the case may be, instead of trying unproven cures, time after
> time.  LC's motives are unclear,
> at least in cannon - does he simply want to control Nick, or is
> he really looking out for Nick's
> best interests, at least as far as LC can decide what Nick's best
> interests are?

There's another thing that I have always noted with interest. It's always
pre-supposed that parents "have their child's wellbeing at heart" as though
that was a law of nature. In reality, it seems to me that many parents are
bitterly torn between loving their children, and being terribly jealous of
them (their youth, their potential, that they have it "so much easiser"
etc); also being torn between loving them and *trying to re-create them in
their own image*.

Most of that is strictly unconscious, of course. And then there's also the
thought that Lucien just might have a part of him that loves to see Nick
suffer.


Silver

>

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

Date:    Sat, 31 Mar 2001 13:25:15 -0500
From:    Portia <portia1@m.......>
Subject: Re: LaCroix's view of fatherhood

LaCroix showed he cared about Nick when he helped him to heal in that
episode where Nick received a gunshot wound to the head...Yeah, I know he
said it was "quid pro quo," but there was obviously more to it.  And he was
rather gentle in his treatment of the amnesiac Nick, if I remember
correctly.  If I weren't so sleep deprived, I'm sure I could think of
more....

Portia

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

Date:    Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:01:01 EST
From:    Laudon1965@a.......
Subject: Re: LaCroix's view of fatherhood

In a message dated 3/31/01 10:13:26 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
treeleaf@i....... writes:

<< we all see different things when we watch the show, but I think it was
shown often.  The strongest example I can think of is in "Sons of Belial"
when LaCroix at first refused to take Nick to the exorcist, but then did
take him when he saw how desperate Nick really was. >>

To me, it wasn't exactly Nick's desperation, it was Nick's
abrupt switch from theatening demon to suplicating child.
I think we saw the all too "human" side of LaCroix there.
Nick is suddenly deferential and pleading and it plucks
LaCroix' heartsrings instantly, playing on his need for Nick's
affection and dependence on him.

YMMV,
Laurie of the Isles

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

End of FORKNI-L Digest - 30 Mar 2001 to 31 Mar 2001 (#2001-105)
***************************************************************


Previous digest Back to March's list On to April's list Next digest






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