FORKNI-L
Digest - 23 Mar 2009 to 24 Mar 2009 (#2009-52)
Tue, 24 Mar 2009
There are 3 messages totalling 151 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Fkspoilr (2)
2. Conference in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:07:50 -0700
From: Nancy Braman <knightwind1228@y.......>
Subject: Fkspoilr
Anyone who hasn't visited the Dusty Vaults page for a while may be
interested in the latest update: the last of Fkspoilr, June 1-11,
1996. A couple of highlights:
Part 4, June 2-3, 1996: Lynn Stapleton's interview with Fred Mollin; and,
Part 7, June 7, 1996: Nigel Bennett's farewell post to the list,
including his personal view of LK.
The direct link to the Dusty Vaults page is
http://knightwind1228.com/vaults.htm
Nancy Braman knightwind@k.......
http://knightwind1228.com/ http://mysticalcat7.livejournal.com
What time is it...what day is it...what century is it? - Nick, Forever Knight
Good morning is an oxymoron -- Me
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:13:05 -0700
From: Nancy Kaminski <nancykam@c.......>
Subject: Re: Fkspoilr
> -----Original Message-----
> Anyone who hasn't visited the Dusty Vaults page for a while may be
> interested in the latest update: the last of Fkspoilr, June 1-11,
> 1996. A couple of highlights:
OMG, I didn't know the digests were archived! I was wishing that I
could reread the ML from years past to enjoy all the discussions yet
again. I have a new bookmark...
Grateful,
Nancy Kaminski
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:57:02 -0400
From: Greer Watson <gwatson2@r.......>
Subject: Conference in Florida
Thank you everyone for your well-wishing. The conference was, as always,
delightful.
I left well before dawn, since my flight involved changing planes in
Cleveland. I got into the hotel in Orlando a bit after noon--time for a
nap, which I certainly needed. Wednesday afternoon had the opening
ceremonies, and then one session of papers. I spent the evening watching TV
and got to bed early, because....
...I gave *my* paper the following morning. Not at the 8:30 session,
mercifully, since there are always people trickling in as they drag
themselves out of bed or finish breakfast. However, after the coffee break
(yes, there's coffee!), I was the first presenter in a session of three
papers. As I'd decided to submit the paper proposal to the Horror Division,
the organizer had no trouble putting together a session in which the papers
had something in common. The others were on Bram Stoker's book, Dracula. I
guess it was inevitable, therefore, that most of the comments and questions
at the end went to the other two participants: there's a lot of current
Dracula scholarship. However, I did get some nice comments from people
after the session broke up for lunch.
Now, I know your real interest isn't in the rest of the conference, which
kept going until the banquet on Saturday night. So I'll whip through that
fast: two lunches with guest speakers; four sessions of papers each day
(morning and afternoon, with coffee breaks), with two or three papers per
session; evening activities, author readings, panel discussions, and a book
room where you can buy secondhand fiction and new non-fiction at a discount.
This was the thirtieth anniversary for the conference, so there were a lot
of reminiscences going on. Altogether, I guess there were at least 400
people attending.
So, the paper: "(Meta)Physical Reflections on Forever Knight". It was
twenty minutes long--and I *know* it was, because I always read papers at
least three times aloud at home, both for practice (so I won't stumble) and
to make sure it's not going to be too long. The first part had to be
background material, since you mustn't assume the people in the audience
know the subject. Obviously, a lot of people were there for the Dracula
papers.
The main idea of the paper, though, was there in the first
paragraph, which includes this: "...in the series Forever Knight, there is
tension between the supernatural and the scientific, both in terms of the
description of vampires, and in terms of the explanation for their
existence." For example, Nick has sought a cure through both magic and
science--several times for each.
Then I discussed Natalie's role, with particular attention to her
exhortations that Nick eat solid food. I pointed out that, although
initially there was no justification for her assertion that it is the blood
that stops him coming across, we do eventually see that vampires can digest
solid food provided they don't know of the prohibition--suggesting that it's
a psychological inhibition, not a physiological problem. On the other hand,
Natalie also feels the same way about Nick's allergy to religious objects;
and we do eventually get proof that that *isn't* just in his head (when he
recoils from the raven knife in "Blackwing"). So we've got evidence on both
sides here.
Then I discussed the frequent assertions that vampires are dead and
soulless, pointing out that the only evidence we have for either is really
just their own statements to that effect. I said, "This raises two
questions: what is *their* evidence that they don't have souls? and, do
they mean what they say literally or figuratively?" I concluded that we
can't believe anything that LaCroix says to Nick, since he'd say anything to
talk him round, and would naturally employ terms that he would hope that
Nick--a medieval Catholic--would respond to. I also pointed out the
fundamental contradiction in Nick trying to save his soul if he truly
believes that, as a vampire, he doesn't have one.
Then I discussed the depiction of the actual process of coming over,
especially what we see in "Near Death" and "Dead of Night", concluding that
the evidence indicates that the vampires in Forever Knight are brought to
the point of death during the process, but never actually die. At that
point, I brought in "The Fix", with its physiological explanation for
vampires.
My conclusion, of course, was that Forever Knight tries to maintain
a nice balance between the physical and metaphysical. My final lines were:
"The show is never entirely consistent in its portrayal of vampires--an
inconsistency that was in some ways deliberate. As a result, it is unusual
among television series about vampires in treating them, not only as
supernatural, but simultaneously as living beings with altered physiology.
Beyond that, the characters in the show must never be considered to be
entirely reliable witnesses. Whether human or vampire, their knowledge is
grounded in ignorance and interpreted through prejudice. The true nature of
Forever Knight vampires is therefore never wholly revealed, but must be
pieced together from glimpses of various aspects of a multi-faceted
complexity."
I also had a handout, on which I had a number of screen captures from the
show (thanks Nancy!) so that key points in the argument could be seen
quickly. A lot faster than screen clips!
Greer Watson
gwatson2@r.......
http://ca.geocities.com/gwatson2@rogers.com/index.html
------------------------------
End of FORKNI-L Digest - 23 Mar 2009 to 24 Mar 2009 (#2009-52)
**************************************************************
Knight graphics and parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/
