FKSPOILR
Logfile LOG9605 Part 3
May 1-May 2, 1996
File: "FKSPOILR LOG9605" Part 3
TOPICS:
Jane Doe Spoiler (2)
Jane Doe Spoilers (2)
SPOILERS: Jane Doe (ep 19) Take 2
Jane Doe/Uniquely Evil Geniuses
SPOILER: Jane Doe, HF, FI (2)
SPOILER: JD, HF, Body Count (3)
Jane Doe: Nick Flying IN a building??? (2)
LC, Nietzsche, and evil.... (5)
SPOILERS: Jane Doe; Companionship
SPOILER: Jane Doe
Sorry!
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 22:43:12 GMT
From: Katy Deery <gb61@d.......>
Subject: Jane Doe Spoiler
Perhaps Lacroix's reaction during Jane Doe was because he has a
certain understanding of racial prejudice? After all, vampires are
'The People who dare not speak their names' and who have to hide
their true natures from society, very much like the Jews did in
occupied countries during the war. I haven't seen the episode yet,
so forgive my wild speculations, but I gather from what I've heard
that when Lacroix meets Hitler it's before he has become the
dictator of Germany and therefore Lacroix has no knowledge of
what he will do in the future. He might well recognise the evil in the
man, but not its eventual means of expression, but he presumable
knows what kind of person this Jordan Manning is. Maybe he sees
him as having the same mentally as a hunter?
Katy Deery <gb61@d.......>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Hey Fraser, don't they have any Canadians with attitude?"
"Yes Ray. We call them criminals."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 18:52:49 -0400
From: Gehirn Karies <SoulDebris@a.......>
Subject: Re: Jane Doe Spoilers
FoolKiller :
>And am I the only one that had trouble reconciling LC's raised eyebrows
>over the pycho's poem, with the LC in TG that welcomed another mass
>murderer back to a computer chat session? Something may be a bit
>inconsistent here.
No, no, no, no, no, no....... Rosebud and his friends covet,
Manning hates. Big difference, no inconsistency.
Brutal Cousin Karies
SoulDebris@a.......
'The only way to reform some people is to chloroform them." T.C. Haliburton
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 17:35:17 -0700
From: AKR <r@w.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Jane Doe (ep 19) Take 2
On Wed, 1 May 1996, Phillip Anderson wrote:
> Two US servicemen were just court-martialed
> and kicked out for refusing to supply DNA samples (I don't know in what
> form, but it wasn't even in the course of an investigation).
It was because the US military requires DNA samples of all servicepeople, for
identification purposes. From the military's pov, it is no different than
requiring you to wear dogtags. I assume the Canadian military has a similar
policy.
I really did think that Reese had lost it, in the warehouse with the psycho.
I laughed in relief when he reverted to normal, with Nick, outside.
The funny thing is that for the bulk of the episode, I was convinced that the
racist author couldn't be the serial killer, just because it was *too easy*,
because he'd been there from the beginning. But then, I watched MBIAV not
too long before I saw JD, and if nothing else can be said for MBIAV, at least
I was surprised by who turned out to be the killer.
**** Amy, Lady of the Knight (AKR) r@w....... ****
"For how do I hold thee but by thy granting?" --W.S. Sonnet 87
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 20:45:12 -0400
From: Karen Kasting <KatrynK@a.......>
Subject: Jane Doe/Uniquely Evil Geniuses
Hitler's grandfather didn't get around to acknowledging his son until late in
life. The chief interest in Schickelgruber lies in "Heil Schickelgruber"
just not having quite the right ring to it.
The whole issue of dwelling upon the sparing of Adolf by our favorite
vampires turns upon the assumption of Hitler being a uniquely evil genius who
inevitably would have wrought havoc. I believe that it is an error to think
of Hitler as a unique monster. His ideas were not his own alone; some had
been around for a while. While it is common to think of him as springing
fully developed from obscurity, a closer look does not bear out the popular
view of the artsy bum full of hate.
Hitler was carefully groomed by others. The clothes, the speeches, the Nazi
regalia, the carefully staged presentations--did not erupt from Hitler's
unaided brain. He had help. He was perhaps the first media-oriented
politician with his "Wings over Germany" campaign designed to make him look
modern and forward-looking.
What Hitler did have going for him was his speaking ability. I don't see it
in the films, but then I don't understand German. By all accounts, he was
spellbinding, sufficiently so to be *elected by popular vote*.
But I wouldn't be too hard on LC or Nicky Boy for passing on a light Austrian
snack. Given conditions in Europe, and the emergence of dictatorial regimes
elsewhere in Europe, if Adolf had managed to pursue a career in art, someone
else, somewhere, would have arisen to create turmoil. Conditions were ripe
for European conflict, and sadly, even today after the horrors of WW2 AND the
commonplace of tv coverage bringing genocide and political murder into homes,
our species goes on killing in the same old ways. We shouldn't hold our
favorite vampires responsible for the deaths of millions; unfortunately,
such slaughter is our species-tendency.
Karen Kasting
KatrynK@a.......
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 20:54:25 -0400
From: Lisa Prince <Moonlight@g.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe, HF, FI
Go ahead, say it, "Oh no, not her again" :) Well, being a Cousin
means being tenacious about certain things.
I wrote:
>> Nick is not exactly a Saint -- present day or past.
Amy responded:
>Given, and gladly. But, in the present, 1992-1996, Nick is a good
>man.
My point is that people are constantly throwing out, rather
blithely, that LaCroix is *evil* and Nick is *good*. All relative
terms. The world is not a black and white place. It exists
continually in varying shades of gray. In present day, you see
Nick doing *good*. Well, where in present day do you see LaCroix
doing *evil*? (Please remember that in my opinion that killing of
the doctor in HF was justified and for the *good* of his people.
Mr. Evil Incarnate saved them all. But, of course, he must be
regreting the fact that he saved them. Doing good and all that :))
LaCroix is currently a watcher of human life and vampire life. He
very rarely appears to interact with them at all -- other than to
remind Nick where his allegiance should lie. So, if we can forgive
Nick all his past *evil* deeds, why can't we forgive LaCroix?
Because he's not torturing himself with a pointless quest for
mortality?
>Flashbacks usually turn on things he's done wrong in the past.
>Isn't that natural? Don't all of us spend much more time reliving
>the things we regret than what socks we've worn over the years? :)
You're comparing apples with oranges. A more valid question would
be: Don't we all spend time reliving the things we regret along
with our good deeds? I remember clearly the times I've have helped
others with no thought of my own needs. I also remember times when
I've done things I'm not proud of. They are equal in my memory.
Nick mostly remembers the bad, or the writers are more interested
in showing us the bad :)
For instance, by the time NiQ rolled around, we had seen LaCroix
save Nick's life (the resurrection doctor flashback), and yet in
the flashback in NiQ, Nick puts a price on saving LaCroix's life.
Would you put a price on saving someone's life even if he/she were
someone you didn't particularly like? Now, do you suppose if the
tables had been turned that LaCroix would have put a price on
saving Nick's life? I don't think so. Contrary to popular
opinion, LaCroix does do things for others -- see episodes Close
Call, Night in Question, Father's Day, even Be My Valentine -- your
favorite episode :) His letting Fleur go was a selfless act --
whether he loved her or not.
I wrote:
>> Oh, but maybe no one ever told Nick that humans are
>> supposed to have compassion for the sickly.
Amy wrote:
> Fair enough. In that time period, Nick's innate
>arrogance, long nurtured by LC, combined with his lack of patience
>to allow him to be annoyed by a man with a constant cough.
This was all of what . . . 50 years ago? Well within the time
frame of his supposed revelation about human life.
Amy continued:
> But LC is the one who made him leave.
Yup, with nary a word from Nickie-boy. Complacency is just as bad.
I wrote re. the chained women:
>> You can justify that scene!!!!! He had women locked up in his
>> basement! In chains! Unconscious because of loss of blood!
Amy responded:
> I assume you meant, "*can't* justify that scene."
Nope, that was a rhetorical statement to Sandra who had just
justified that scene. I could not actually believe that someone
would even *attempt* to do so.
About that scene, Amy wrote:
>When he looked up into Andre's eyes, he suddenly became aware of
>the horror he was perpetuating. He was made to see his own
>depravity, and I think it was an important turning point in his
>existence, one of those things which have slowly added up to make
>*today's* Nick so different from *yesterday's*.
Okay, that scene took place, tops, 50 years after Nick was brought
across. If he was really that horrified, you mean to tell me that
it took him another 600 or so years to decide that he shouldn't
actually kill humans for their blood? "His own depravity" was
certainly ssllloooowww in sinking in :)
I wrote:
>> On that note: If he was in fact raised Catholic, he should know
>> that the only thing he needs to do to attain redemption is ask
>> for it.
Amy responded:
>The willingness to accept God's grace is exactly what Nick is
>lacking, and yes, it's all he really needs. However, <snip> Nick
>would have been raised to believe that the penance is more
>important than the reconciliation.
Beg to differ with you on this point. There was much in Catholic
theology even back then to support the idea that an internal
pursuit of God was a valid means of attaining salvation and the
glory of God. I don't have my notes on the particular theologians
with me right now, but I would be more than happy to go look up the
names if that is necessary to prove this point. Suffice to say
that at any given time throughout history there were several
interpretation concerning salvation. So, I guess that would mean
that he chose the one that would make it hardest on himself.
Amy wrote:
>Please consider my premise. Nick (like me, and some other people)
>believes in absolutes. People who believe in absolutes believe
>that, as per the definition, absolutes apply to everyone,
>everywhere, everywhen.
We'll have to agree to disagree here or we'll end up arguing to the
end of time. In my way of thinking, absolutes reduce the world,
put it in a neat little box, and tie it up with a pretty pink
ribbon. There are no absolute truths. To believe in said truths
is to limit one's ability to accept other cultures and beliefs as
valuable and *right* in their own context.
Amy wrote:
>I am not here attempting to argue the nature of absolutes, but
>merely that it must be at least as valid to believe in them as not
>to.
Very true. Everyone is welcome to there own beliefs.
She continued:
> That is where I believe Nick is coming from when he jumps to
>moral conclusions. We share this insane view that objectivity is
>possible. :)
Ah, but if your above definition is to be applied, your view is one
of subjectivity, not objectivity. You and Nick have a set criteria
of beliefs for what is right and what is wrong and you both apply
it to those around you -- subjectivity.
Back to you in the studio,
Mercenary Cousin Lisa
The Forgotten L -- Third over to the right
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 18:03:21 -0700
From: AKR <r@w.......>
Subject: SPOILER: JD, HF, Body Count
Obliquely responding to Laurie:
First granting that LC's body count in this century is probably not *too*
different than Nick's, and acknowledging that they weren't necessarily for
"pleasure," I can think of a few people he has killed from 1992 to 1996:
-- anonymous person at the end of LYTD (feeding: drained)
-- Cal in Fever (for revenge: drained)
-- assistant in STF (didn't bother to hypnotize: drained)
-- intended to kill Nat in BMV (for revenge: intended to drain)
Not very many, really, is it? How about Nick:
-- criminal in NiQ (accident: fell from a height)
-- nobility guy in QoH (accident: hit by a car)
-- intended to kill Ravenette in FtB (feeding: intended to drain)
There are still many episodes I haven't seen, and my memory may be blocking
out bad-Nick moments in an act of Knightie-self-preservation, but that's all
I can come up with. As for Janette:
-- two arsonists in HF (revenge, first feeding: drained)
-- somebody in AFWTD? (haven't seen this yet...)
Overall, I think there may be remarkably little killing going on.
> But vampires are NOT human. They are a different species altogether,
> Nick's pathetic attempts to prove otherwise notwithstanding.
But they *were*, once, human. We were never cows. :) And we don't
depend on the art and culture of cows to make our existence worthwhile. :)
And we don't adopt cows into our families. :)
Just curious, but would the Cousins and Dark Knighties and such really think
that Nick had reached a mature epiphany if he quit his job, made up with LC,
and went back to feeding on human blood?
**** Amy, Lady of the Knight (AKR) r@w....... ****
"For how do I hold thee but by thy granting?" --W.S. Sonnet 87
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 20:49:32 -0500
From: Carol LeBras <clebras@i.......>
Subject: Jane Doe: Nick Flying IN a building???
Just a note that seems odd:
Have there been other instances of Nick flying inside buildings
like he seemed to be doing in the chase scene at the end of the episode?
I hate to bring up this "flying" discussion again, but this doesn't seem
terribly logical to me! (But when is FK logical? ;) ) Perhaps I am
misunderstanding the scene.
But can you imagine Nick flying past Manning so quickly that he
doesn't see him inside a building to cut him off around the next corner?
LOL!!
Carol.
******************************************************************************
Carol LeBras, Fine Arts Reference/Technical Associate. Fine Arts Library,
Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47405 clebras@i.......
******************************************************************************
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 18:50:55 -0700
From: AKR <r@w.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe, HF, FI
(Hi, Lisa!)
> Well, being a Cousin means being tenacious about certain things.
Cousins are tenacious, Knighties are stubborn... tomato, tomato... :)
> My point is that people are constantly throwing out, rather
> blithely, that LaCroix is *evil* and Nick is *good*.
While I still find those terms useful, you're right. Both men are
far too complex to be casually labeled and filed away, as if a single word
explained them.
> Please remember that in my opinion that killing of
> the doctor in HF was justified and for the *good* of his people.
Ummmm... well, *I* don't think so, actually. Killing Cal
*fortuitously* provided the cure, but LC killed him in an act of pure,
useless vengance. The disease had already spread; killing Cal would do no
good at all, as far as LC knew when he did it, except perhaps soothe LC's
sense of justice/vengance. What -- was he going to go tell all the dying
vampires that he'd gotten the guy at fault, and that made it all better?
> Why can't we forgive LaCroix? Because he's not torturing himself?
Exactly. <g> I'll forgive LC everything he's done the moment he feels
bad about it. :) He needn't actually go so far as to seek mortality, or
anything, but... "Redeem LC!" is the slogan of the Light Cousins, after
all... all three of us. :) (Hi, Idalia! Hi, Paula!)
> They are equal in my memory.
Well, perhaps I'm just weird. My memory is full of my failings; I don't
think I ever *dwell* on successes. So is Nick "just weird" too? :)
> For instance, by the time NiQ rolled around, we had seen LaCroix
> save Nick's life (the resurrection doctor flashback)
If you are referring to The Fix, then I beg to differ. LC was there,
yes, but *Janette* saved Nick.
> Contrary to popular opinion, LaCroix does do things for others -- see
> episodes Close Call, Night in Question, Father's Day, even Be My
> Valentine -- your favorite episode :)
(Regret providing me with it yet? <g>) Yes, LC does things for others.
LC is capable of great goodness. He does not always choose to exercise this
capacity, but it most definitely does exist, as Nick's capacity for evil
exists, and both have been documented. Balanced enough for ya? :)
> His letting Fleur go was a
> selfless act -- whether he loved her or not.
Yes it was. :) And he did love her. :)
Re: Jane Doe:
> This was all of what . . . 50 years ago? Well within the time
> frame of his supposed revelation about human life.
Do you really think being annoyed by the hacking cough of a fellow
passenger was more than merely petty selfishness? So Nick was a bit of a
jerk and LC was slightly more than a jerk. They were having a tough night...
Re: Fallen Idol:
> Okay, that scene took place, tops, 50 years after Nick was brought
> across. If he was really that horrified, you mean to tell me that
> it took him another 600 or so years to decide that he shouldn't
> actually kill humans for their blood?
No. :) It took 300 years. :) In LYTD, LC says to Nick, "In keeping
with your code of the past 300 years..." thus defining just how long they'd
been at odds over Nicky's conscience. If the flashbacks of LYTD were 100
years ago, then Nick's "code" goes back 400 years from the present, meaning
that he implemented it around about his 400th birthday! :) He didn't actually
stop killing humans for their blood until after Sylvaine's death, but for
that 300 year period, he tried to just kill the "guilty."
So he's only been on bovine juice for a century. :)
Ok, so the boy is more than a bit slow. :) But, as Laurie has pointed
out on LC's behalf, they need blood to survive. The mental effort required
to reject human blood is immense -- and possibly suicidal.
I just thought the Pit was a step on the road to redemption. I
don't think it was the on-ramp to the express, or anything... :)
> So, I guess that would mean
> that he chose the one that would make it hardest on himself.
Trusting your research, I find that compatible with Nick's
personality. He is, on the one hand, very arrogant, completely aware of
his power and knowledge and status. On the other hand, he hates himself,
and everything he is. So this combination of self-value and self-hate is
what has made him set the ransom of his soul so very high.
> Ah, but if your above definition is to be applied, your view is one
> of subjectivity, not objectivity.
Ah, but the very nature of believing in an Absolute convinces you of
its objective truth. :) Applying it uniformly is seen by the applier as
objectivity. :) But, yeah, let's agree to disagree.
I hereby withdraw from the argument, because there's actually nothing to
argue about. LC is both good and bad; Nick is both good and bad. :)
**** Amy, Lady of the Knight (AKR) r@w....... ****
"For how do I hold thee but by thy granting?" --W.S. Sonnet 87
Knightie * Fleur-Booster * Light Cousin * (Im)Mortal Beloved
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 21:55:19 -0400
From: Michelle Mark <Raindance2@a.......>
Subject: LC, Nietzsche, and evil....
Amy wrote about the concept of evil:
> Ah, the cultural relevancy argument. I don't agree with
>that, in a broad sense. Some things are simply wrong
The existentialist in me just has to jump in. (in a friendly way...I'm not
being confrontational here) What do you mean by "some things are simply
wrong"? According to who? By whose standards do we deem someone "good" or
"evil"? I think that all things and values can be interpreted from different
angles. There is no ultimate system of belief or criterion that can
establish the "truth" about anything. There is no one truth but many truths,
and no system of belief is neccessarily better than another. Morality, good,
evil...all of it is arbitrary. The "good" and the "just" are simply those
who believe they possess the ultimate criteria for good and evil. Dosen't
make them any better than anyone else. While it is acceptable for an
individual to create their own
meanings and values, it is also necessary that they understand that those
values need not be true or valid for everyone, forever. So, what the hell
does this have to do with anything you ask?
;) I think if you look at LC from an existentialist point of view, you
will see that he is not, and cannot be evil. He simply has his own moral
code which may be different from others, but is nonetheless, what he wills
for himself, and what he is ultimately responsible for.
Comments?
Cousin Michelle~CSS~Truly Depraved~Thong Snapper~Seducer~
SKL: "Faciemus ut Dewus Mountainus e Tuo Nasone Exeat!"
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 18:52:01 -0700
From: [Name removed by request]
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Jane Doe; Companionship
Laurie wrote:
> What it was in Nick that attracted LaCroix and made him decide to bring
> Nick across as an eternity-long companion?
<snip>LC's musing in Jane Doe about why he would consider bringing someone
>across, and any answers might also refer to that episode -- which
Young, blond, good bod.
LC has got to have been as tired as i am of dark-browed,
night-wandering mortals with black insides and wicked habits - the ones
who have the piercing look down and everything. A fun experiment for LC
might have been to bring over a virtuous golden boy (or one who tries to
be virtuous and good) and see him struggle with, whoopee!, damnation. i
mean, look at that face. That's not Enrico with a rose gritted between
his teeth, enticing you into his casbah (err, casbah? Ckazbaw? Katzenberg?)
with a cocked eyebrow. This is Nicky who'll always look 5 to me.
This might not have been what was going on in LC and Janette's minds at the
time (see above: "Young, blond, good bod... Wrap the boy up. We'll take
him.") but it's a bonus LC probably enjoyed later.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 21:42:34 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: Jane Doe Spoilers
Celeste writes:
>Gozer the Gammy-legged Cat & Mad Max have brought home several dead/
>almost dead/not very enthusiastic birds a piece already this spring.
>They do not eat them, but have a great time playing with them.
And our family once had a cat who used to bring us dead birds, mice,
and snakes as "gifts" (she laid them in front of the door). Pets are
fed by their owners so maybe don't feel much need to eat what they
catch. For a wild animal, what they catch *is* their food. I suppose
that sometimes a predator may not eat all of what they catch, but I
would think that hunger would be the motivation for wild predators to
hunt. FK vampires have been termed predators by some on this list.
No one's ever called them pets. :)
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 23:07:21 -0400
From: Apache <lf@c.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe
On Wed, 1 May 1996, Sandra Gray wrote:
> Well, imo, it's twisted to try to put all the deaths of WWII at
> Nick's feet. That is how this whole debate got started (and yes, I
> saw Apache post it was a joke, but I'm not the only one who took
> what she said as a serious comment).
Yeah you are. And since you're flattering me with the
appellation 'twisted,' here is the whole text of what I sent.
Walks like a joke, quacks like a joke ... by golly it's a...
Searing Moral Indictment!
Apache
Twisty Vachonista
****
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 01:56:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Apache <lf@c.......>
To: Forever Knight TV show - Spoiler Topic List <FKSPOILR@p.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe
On Mon, 29 Apr 1996, Roxanne Piccen wrote:
>
> Also on Monday, April 29th, Laurie Fenster wrote:
> >Btw, in the original script, at the end, after LC muses "I sometimes
> >wonder how the world would have been different had I done what I
> >intended," Nick follows with "Or had you done what I had asked."
That's our boy Nick -- wants this creeplet Hitler gone, but will
*he* do the dirty deed? Nooooo, not Mr. Hair Shirt -- he wants Papa to
kill for him. Shall we chalk up the 50 million or so total people,
military and civilian, who died in WWII to Nick's little moral sulk?
Hands?
Ap.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 23:12:41 -0400
From: Michelle Mark <Raindance2@a.......>
Subject: Sorry!
Sorry for the double post...AOL is a pain in the A**!!
Mea Culpa.
Cousin Michelle~CSS~Truly Depraved~Thong Snapper~Seducer~
SKL: "Faciemus ut Dewus Mountainus e Tuo Nasone Exeat!"
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 23:56:57 -0400
From: --Serena DuBois <SerenaDB@a.......>
Subject: Re: Jane Doe Spoiler
Im on digest so if someone else noted this I apologize.
BUT did anyone note that The Corporal talks about "My Battle" in one of the
flash back scenes which of course happens to be a pretty good rough
translations of "Mein Kampf"
that well known book? I think the writers wanted to make it *really* REALLY
clear who the Corporal really was and also draw the parallel between him and
Manning, racists together. Besides speaking of racists, Hitler didn't just
murder 6,000,000 Jews; there were also another few million Gypsies, Chechs,
Poles and other assorted lower races that went to death of one kind or
another at his hands. And one of the stories out there about him says that he
was part Jewish. If he *was* part Jewish and killed 6 million of them or was
responsible for it, what would he do to the Vampire race if he was made a
vampire? Self-hatred can take very strange forms!
There might not be a Forever Knight today! Terrible thought! Maybe THAT was
what LC felt and what made him decide that the Corporal was better left
human.
SerenaDB who Lurks in the Shadows
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 23:29:34 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: Jane Doe: Nick Flying IN a building???
Carol LeBras writes:
>Have there been other instances of Nick flying inside buildings
Well, I don't know if it's clear whether Nick is flying or just *moving*
very fast. He (and Screed and the Inca) flew through the sewers looking
for bombs in Black Buddha. Nick used vampire speed to capture the
murder suspect in the parking garage in Capitol Offense. Those are
the only things I can recall right now and I'm not sure if a parking
garage qualifies as a building.
Of course in first season, we saw Nick fly at a normal visible speed
and attack from the air in Dying to Know You (a warehouse) and Father
Figure (his loft).
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 21:39:41 -0700
From: LC Fenster <lucienlc@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: JD, HF, Body Count
Amy wrote:
>Obliquely responding to Laurie:
Not so obliquely responding to Amy (hi, Amy <waves>):
>First granting that LC's body count in this century is probably not
>*too* different than Nick's, and acknowledging that they weren't
>necessarily for "pleasure," I can think of a few people he has killed
>from 1992 to 1996:
> -- anonymous person at the end of LYTD (feeding: drained)
I conceded that one in my original post - though I think it was really
a mere plot device to show LC's return, and therefore an annoying
aberration <g>
> -- Cal in Fever (for revenge: drained)
I have no problem with revenge either in this case. The man is
personally responsible, as far as LC knows at that point, for wiping
out his entire race. Kind of like if the survivors of the
concentration camps had been given their crack at Hitler or Eichmann. I
would not have blamed them for anything that happened, because anything
they did would have been too good for the scum involved. And of course,
the Israelis did get Eichmann. Kidnapped him, spirited him out of
Argentina, put him on trial, and executed him. And I applaud them for
it, whether you call it "justice" or "revenge".
Granted, Cal's actions were inadvertent. But the vampires were just as
dead. And sometimes, we have to bear the consequences of our actions,
even the unintended consequences.
> -- assistant in STF (didn't bother to hypnotize: drained)
LaCroix punishes ("with extreme prejudice" <g>) those whose actions
might tend to reveal the existence of the vampire community. He killed
the killer in Dark Knight for the same reason. And he killed the guard
in DK to protect the vampires' secrets. I never said he had stopped
killing entirely. But he does not kill for "pleasure" or for food, in
the current era, as far as we know. I gather his "crime" is that he
doesn't angst about it either. <g>
> -- intended to kill Nat in BMV (for revenge: intended to drain)
This I totally dispute. I don't think he ever had any intention of
killing Nat, certainly not before Nick's arrival. You look at how
swiftly he can kill when he wants to (with Alyce and the killer in Dark
Knight), then you look at how slowly he acted with Nat, taking his
time, looking around - he can sense Nick and imo he knew exactly when
Nick was going to arrive. He was merely setting the stage for Nick's
arrival. After that - I'm not sure. I can make the case either way
(and frequently do <g>). Given that LC can sense what Nick is thinking
(confirmed yet again in Jane Doe), either Nick was lying and LC sensed
it, but let him off the hook anyway for Fleur's sake or Nick's sake;
or Nick wasn't lying and LC sensed that and therefore let Nat go. But
in either case, imo he didn't "intend" to kill Nat; with LC, intention
is as good as the deed <g>.
>Not very many, really, is it? How about Nick:
> -- criminal in NiQ (accident: fell from a height)
> -- nobility guy in QoH (accident: hit by a car)
> -- intended to kill Ravenette in FtB (feeding: intended to drain)
He also deserves a little *discredit* for "turning his back" in Baby,
Baby and letting Serena drain whatever-his-name-was. :-)
>There are still many episodes I haven't seen, and my memory may be
>blocking out bad-Nick moments in an act of Knightie-self-preservation,
>but that's all I can come up with.
I suspect there are more, but I'm too tired to go episode by episode
right now.
> As for Janette:
> -- two arsonists in HF (revenge, first feeding: drained)
> -- somebody in AFWTD? (haven't seen this yet...)
No - the only guy she killed in FWTD was her "master" at the brothel in
the twelfth century. She wanted to kill someone else, but was beaten
to it <g>.
>Overall, I think there may be remarkably little killing going on.
It's too dangerous in this day and age. Calls too much attention to the
community.
>> But vampires are NOT human. They are a different species
>>altogether, Nick's pathetic attempts to prove otherwise
>>notwithstanding.
> But they *were*, once, human. We were never cows. :)
True. But we humans have showed remarkably little respect for human
life over the centuries. Historically, human life has been cheap. It
wasn't until this century that wars of conquest began to be viewed as a
"BAD THING". Colonialism, tribalism, genocide, slavery -- all of these
still exist today (cf. Rwanda, Somalia, Cambodia, Bosnia, Sudan). So
riddle me this: why should vampires, for whom humans are their most
nutritious food source, have more respect for humans and humanity than
humans themselves do? <g>
>Just curious, but would the Cousins and Dark Knighties and such really
>think that Nick had reached a mature epiphany if he quit his job, made
>up with LC, and went back to feeding on human blood?
In a word, yes. :-) At least, I for one would. For me, that's what
this show is all about: Nick coming to terms with what he is and
realizing that he can have a good, productive life, helping humans, AS
a vampire. I don't want or expect him to kill. I don't think he need
quit his job, nor do I think LC wants or expects that of him (except
when it becomes necessary to protect their secret). LC wants him to
get over his self-destructive urges, his self-hatred, and his futile
search to become something he cannot. And so do I. :-)
Cousin LaurieCF
M+B+D+T+K
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 23:51:59 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: LC, Nietzsche, and evil....
Cousin Michelle writes:
>Comments?
Don't most cultures view murder as wrong? The Nazis might have thought
some people were not as worthy to live as them, but I betcha if a Nazi
was killed by someone, it would have been considered murder of said Nazi.
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 23:53:50 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: LC, Nietzsche, and evil....
Even if the murderer of a Nazi was another Nazi.
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 23:59:10 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: LC, Nietzsche, and evil....
So what does *LC* term evil? If he has his own moral code, then
doesn't it follow that he has decided for himself that some things
are "good" and some things are "evil"?
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 22:00:30 -0700
From: LC Fenster <lucienlc@i.......>
Subject: Re: LC, Nietzsche, and evil....
Sandra wrote:
>Don't most cultures view murder as wrong? The Nazis might have
>thought some people were not as worthy to live as them, but I betcha
>if a Nazi was killed by someone, it would have been considered murder
>of said Nazi.
But that's just the point that Michelle was making. It still depends
on how you define *murder*. The murder of a Nazi might be viewed as
murder by the Nazis, but as an honorable, justifiable act by the Allies
or the Resistance. Whereas the murder of Jews, gypsies, the
handicapped, etc. was viewed as patriotic and praiseworthy by the Nazis
and not as *murder* at all.
Laurie
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 00:25:22 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: JD, HF, Body Count
Laurie Fenster writes:
>And he killed the guard in DK to protect the vampires' secrets.
What vampire secrets? LC was in the museum to steal a Mayan cup.
For all the guard knew, LC could have just been a common theif.
And really, for an intelligent guy, I thought he really bungled things.
With his vampire hearing, he could have waited until the guard was
out of range before breaking the case and setting off the alarm.
Instead he waits and watches until the guy is in sight of him and
*then* breaks the case.
Or, for that matter, why not have snuck up on the guard and knocked
him out? Or even try to hypnotise him when he'd been seen? Or
*fly* away at great vampire speed so the guy would have seen nothing
or at most an unidentifiable blur?
Nope, just plain sloppy. I think LC just wanted to kill the guy.
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Knight graphics and parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/
