FKSPOILR
Logfile LOG9605 Part 13
May 7, 1996
File: "FKSPOILR LOG9605" Part 13
TOPICS:
SPOILERS: Francesca (ep 20) again
spoiler: francesca
SPOILER: Francesca
SPOILER: Francesca, The Hurry (3)
Francesca:Tracy:Hypnotism (Resistance)
SPOILER: Francesca?
SPOILER: Francesca, New Points (3)
Francesca-bad humor ;)
SPOILERS: Francesca
SPOILER: Francesca, Evil (3)
Francesca--Bovine Implications (2)
Bovine Implications (2)
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 15:41:33 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: SPOILERS: Francesca (ep 20) again
Diane Echelbarger writes:
>anybody else notice that Francesca thought the *abilities* transferred
>to?
Laurie Fenster writes:
>300 years of *becoming* the worst wretches society had on offer?
Nick mentioned that the musical ability he'd get would only last for
two hours. I would hope the stuff he described about drinking blood
to Nat would also be a temporary effect. I personally don't see how
vampires as old as Nick and LC would be able to avoid going mad if
*all* of a life of a victim *permanently* became a part of them.
Although it could be possible for some remnants of the victim's
memories to linger in the vampire's memory.
Apache writes:
>'Near Death' also seemed to say that Nick could cleanse his soul even
>while remaining a vampire. That was the whole point of the vision of
>the worm-ridden body.
My impression was that the guide was showing Nick that *nothing* he
did on his own would cleanse his soul, that the only thing that would
make a difference was for Nick to ask for God's forgiveness (the
"grace" comment).
>well-adjusted vampire child who was always happy to see him.
That seemed inconsistent with LC's character to me.
>I'm a working poet and I guarantee my feelings and memories are as
>nasty as anyone else's if not moreso,
Maybe the "artist" attracts because they throw themselves into life
and experience and make "art" out of it. Nick commented that Faubert
played with "passion". Maybe the attraction is in how the artist
takes even pain and makes something beautiful out of it. Or maybe
the artist is just more honest about himself?
Lisa Prince writes:
>wouldn't vampires killing other vampires always be wrong? Wouldn't
>that make Nick's murder of the Countess evil?
Well, I would suppose that since we have Enforcers in the show, there
must be some cases where killing another vampire wouldn't be wrong.
Nick was wrong to directly confront and kill the Countess since she
was in her own home doing her own thing. He should have waited and
tried to secretly free the musicians later or expressed a preference
for other food or something. But the Countess was also trying to kill
Nick so an element of self-defense comes into play too.
>Hasn't Nick sort of made it his business to run around through history
>killing what he perceives to be wayward vampires?
Has he? He didn't kill the doctor in Fever or Jack the Ripper
(although in that case, his job would have made it incumbent for him
to do something about Jack). He's killed two of his own children
(Richard and Elizabeth), but if he hadn't killed them, don't you think
either mortals or the Enforcers would have done so? If the Enforcers
had gotten involved, Nick would have been held responsible for letting
Richard and Elizabeth run wild and also been killed.
>And Nick, by killing her, killed all the *souls* that she had
>immortalized.
I disagree with this. If the talent only lasted two hours after
feeding, then I don't see any reason why souls would hang around. In
fact, they mustn't since in Dead of Night we see lots of souls come
after Nick (unless, of course, you don't think those were real ghosts).
>Why does everyone always use LaCroix as the example?
Probably because he's the vampire whose actions we've seen the most of
other than Nick and because LC is the one most people bring up whenever
the discussion is "it's natural for a vampire to kill humans."
>Nick stops killing humans and starts killing vampires instead and
>that makes him a good man?
It's good that he has stopped killing humans. But what "starts killing
vampires instead"? I haven't seen Nick going on any sort of vendetta
against vampires in general.
Lisa Wolters writes:
>Too bad Ger didn't take his shirt off in those love scenes, though.
Yeah, and slept in his *clothes* too (they could have at least given
him that "nightie" from Near Death to wear ;) )!
Margaret Carter writes:
>Why does Nick...assume that this total knowing of the other has to
>be evil?
I don't think it's the "knowing", but the *result* of that knowing that
Nick has come to think is evil (the death of the bitten human). I
think that in the case of his relationships with Erica and Janette
that Nick probably enjoyed "sharing souls".
>If Nick could restrain himself to a few gentle, erotic sips
We'd have the desire to *possess* lead to Nat's eventual death or
being brought over. Crazy Love showed us what happened to Amalia.
Sipping apparently just makes for more desire for the person. And if
Amalia's reactions are what happens to a mortal so treated, Nat would
be *begging* Nick to take her. Nick's not a statue--he'd have to be
tempted by that.
Margie Hammet writes:
>in what way do vampires not have a life?
One of the reasons I didn't like the speech about blood drinking that
Nick gave Nat (even if it was good dialogue for Nick). I can only
assume that Nick means that vampires don't really feel "alive" unless
they are "living" the lives of their victims. But I haven't seen
that Nick doesn't have a life since switching over to cow blood.
Of course, Nick might consider not being able to be in the sun, eat,
have a family in the "normal" way as not being a "life" either. But
LC and, until recently, Janette seemed satisfied with their lives as
vampires.
>But what is the life they are getting from those whose blood they
>drink?
I don't know--memories of childbirth, food, dying? Maybe to an immortal
being, the experience of dying over and over is a major rush.
Michelle Mark
>I seem to recall...LC told Nick that vamps did NOT have souls.
Yes, in first season's False Witness, I believe.
>Now she can truly understand why it's "such a tough habit to break."
She has a better *idea*. I don't think that as a mortal she can ever
truly understand.
>"Imagine if you could know someone's soul just by sharing their
>blood..." Sign me up!
Yeah, I want to feel just like Manning or Hitler. :) There are some
souls that I wouldn't particularly want an in depth look at. Someone
who seemed desirable on the surface might really be undesirable if
you could see his soul. This idea that Gillian Horvath introduced
goes much farther than it needs to go. When Nick and Erica were a
couple in Last Act first season, they picked up things about each other
when sharing blood, but not to the extent that GH has indicated. If
we're to accept what GH has introduced with this episode (and we have
to since it's canon now), then that means that there would be *no*
secrets between two vampires who had a blood sharing relationship (a
mortal wouldn't get a vampire's thoughts and if so, it wouldn't matter
if the mortal died from the bite). It sounds okay in theory, but just
think of how much you'd know about how to push the other person's
buttons in an argument (and how much the other person would know how
to get to *you*).
>But the hair...was pretty scruffy,
Yep, definitely a bad hair day for Nick (and Tracy).
Melanie Moser writes:
>I thought those cages...were far to easy for Nick to open that quickly
He pulled the door off a locked safe in first season's Unreality TV.
Stephanie Babbitt writes:
>Why did LC and Nick have to leave Paris in such a hurry?
Maybe LC got carried away in his feeding again. :)
Cynthia Hoffman wanted to know why I thought what Nick said was Ricean.
It's true that Rice's vampires don't get stuff from the blood, but
they *do* get insights into a person's life by mind reading. I quote
the vampire Lestat watching an old woman he wants from _The Tale of the
Body Thief_: "How thoughtful she was in her solitude and silence, how
small, how contented, her concentration as fine as a light beam as she
read the paragraphs of this story she knew so well. Traveling,
traveling back to those days when she first read this book, at a crowded
soda fountain on Lexington Avenue in New York City, when she was a
smartly dressed young secretary in a red wool skirt and a white ruffled
blouse with pearl buttons on the cuffs. She worked in a stone office
tower, infinitely glamorous, with ornate brass doors on its elevators,
and dark yellow marble tile in its halls."
As for why this episode reminded me of Yarbro's St. Germain books,
I haven't decided. Maybe it's as someone said Francesca's french name
reminded me of one of St. Germain's lovers, Madelaine de Montalia.
Or maybe just the time period reminded me of _Hotel Transylvania_.
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 15:56:42 +0200
From: katrinka <STUKENDALCA@m.......>
Subject: spoiler: francesca
sorry about the bad spelling.
about vachon, wow, it was so nice to see him back, even though his hair
leangh changed from shot to shot. about the chevalle thing, vachon was a
soldiger remember, and he knew french, so it looked like it took him just
a second to realize that chevalle was french for knight. ( bad spelling,
don't flog me at once!)
also, wasn't the guy who played frank in the cracker episode where he
played a killer who couldn't cope with being bi-racial.
i thought the direction was wonderful, and i wish nigel could have done
some before now. lots of things where said by just looks.
i personally think that this ep is one of the best of the season along
with fever. i've already seen it five times since it aired.
katrinka
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 17:03:35 -0400
From: Angie <alasher@e.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Francesca
>I assumed since she had her "slaughterhouse" in
>the basement of her home, Frank would do it as well. Knowing the police
>were looking for her/him I don't think would have deterred him from what he
>had planned. I don't think the police would think he would hide them right
I think it all had to do with the conversation Nick had with her in "her"
dungeon about her attitude towards Humans i.e. are they only cattle to you.
Naturally, since Frank was showing signs of Schizophrenia, and Francesca
only coming out to kill, I would assume that like in many split personality
cases, the main personality doesn't always know about the "other(s)"
personality, and Francesca too the conscience time to hide the actual facts
from her host.
Just a thought on that....
Lasher
=====================
@-->-'- http://home.earthlink.net/~alasher
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/5069 --<-'-@
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 14:11:40 -0700
From: AKR <r@w.......>
Subject: SPOILER: Francesca, The Hurry
On Mon, 6 May 1996, Stephanie Babbitt wrote:
> I'll ask again: WHY do Nick and LC have to leave Paris in such a hurry? Are
> they actually referring to something that happened in an earlier ep? It's
> too early for the revolution.
:)
(Is Bobbie out there?) HL Cross-Over Alert! The answer is simple -- LC had
run into Darius for the first time since Rome, and he was desperate to get
Nick out of Paris before the two of them could meet. Imagine, Nick is
already at the point where he'll feed only on the "guilty," and he's wanted
to "go back" since the very night he came across -- Father Darius would have
listened and understood and advised and *absolved* Nick, and LC would have
lost him forever! :)
But, really, either this is another manifestation of that internal continuity
expansion I adore in Horvath's scripts, or I'm missing something. Does
someone recall any other flashbacks around this time? Considering how
closely we charted Nick and LC's whereabouts at the beginning of this
century for JD (thanks, Lisa!), it would be ironic if this was the only
flashback to the mid-eighteenth century.
In addition, Nick says, "It is rare to see one play with such... passion,
these days." What "these days"? What's going on in France, or the world, at
that time, to make Nick think passion, musical or otherwise, is rare? Is
this the remark of a bored vampire? I mean, aren't they verging on the "Age
of Enlightenment" there? Shouldn't there be more for Nick to be enthused
about? Is he in a mood, or is there a historical resonance I'm missing?
**** Amy, Lady of the Knight (AKR) r@w....... ****
"For how do I hold thee but by thy granting?" --W.S. Sonnet 87
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 17:21:16 -0400
From: Nancy McCaskey <mccaskn@p.......>
Subject: Francesca:Tracy:Hypnotism (Resistance)
> (4) Has there been any correlation (other than Nat's comment in OtL) between
> people who can't be hypnotized and resistors? Because Tracy, a potent resistor
> who has a number of secrets that she doesn't want to reveal, went under awfully
> easily at the end. (I'm one of those people who can't be hypnotized by anyone
Maybe resisters can choose not to resist. You also need to take the
situation into account: when Vachon first tried to whammy Tracy, he was a
stranger, and she realized he wasn't human. A psychologist, on the other
hand, needs to establish a trusting relationship from the beginning.
==================================================================
Nancy McCaskey mccaskn@p.......
==================================================================
Mercs have it all: fun, excitement, havoc and profit!
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 17:27:01 -0400
From: Marcia Tucker <ScFiMarci@a.......>
Subject: SPOILER: Francesca?
From: "Margaret L. Carter" <MLCVamp@a.......>
>>If Nat is ever brought across, I would want it to happen after a long, full
mortal life as Nick's lover, when she has had plenty of time to contemplate
all the implications and decide whether she *really* wants to share that kind
of immortality. <<
"Long, full mortal life as Nick's lover"??? Um, this is an oxymoron at best,
because Nick (which is precisely what he's afraid of) would most likely kill
her in the heat of passion. And the FK vamps do apparently remain appearing
to be the same age they were when brought over, so I'd doubt that Nat would
want to look much older than Nick.
Marcia Tucker
scfimarci@a.......
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 17:28:18 -0400
From: Angie <alasher@e.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Francesca, New Points
>Francesca than being her reincarnate. This stems, first, from the fact that
>possession is already FK canon, while reincarnation is new, and secondly from
>the fact that the therapist said that these strange feelings had been
>bothering Frank for only "three months" -- that this was all quite alien to
Amy - I believe I read it somewhere a long long time ago, that it is usually
a trauma of some time that will bring past life rememberences to the
forefront. Although you make a great point about the
possession/reincarnation theory, I am more than willing to go either way
with this, and since G.Horvath decided to go the reincarnation route, I am
more than willing to go along with GH.
Also, when you say that this ep brought more small but important touches to
the story i.e. the reporter, Marcot, the 86th, I agree with you whole
heartedly. THe script was marvelous, the flashbacks superb and actually
meaningful, and the timing of them was perfect. This is above and beyond,
one of the best eps I ever saw.
Lasher
=====================
@-->-'- http://home.earthlink.net/~alasher
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/5069 --<-'-@
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 16:15:33 -0500
From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Francesca, New Points
At 12:59 PM 5/7/96 -0700, AKR wrote:
>Nick's speech in the morgue. "And know every secret. To let them
>know yours." This could be a revelation that there is a psychic
>feedback from the vampire to his or her victim.
At the AOL chat last night, I asked Gillian Horvath if that line meant
the human that the vampire was feeding on also shared the vampire's memories,
etc., or if that just applied to vampires feeding on each other. She said
it applied to humans also.
She also said that the memories disappear in about two hours also, just
like the abilities the vampire gets from the victim.
>Oh, does anyone want me to hypothesize on how this all ties in with HF? <g>
Of course.
Margie (treeleaf@i.......)
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 17:40:56 -0400
From: Michelle Mark <Raindance2@a.......>
Subject: Francesca-bad humor ;)
Roxanne Wrote:
<<What do you suppose LaCroix would have said if he'd seen Frank?>>
"Nice lipstick. Wanna borrow my eyebrow pencil?"
Hey! No one said a Cousin can't have a sense of humor, even at Uncle's
expense!
Cousin Michelle~CSS~Truly Depraved~Thong Snapper~Seducer~
SKL: "Faciemus ut Dewus Mountainus e Tuo Nasone Exeat!"
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 14:54:46 -0700
From: LC Fenster <lucienlc@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Francesca
Paula wrote:
>>Perhaps. Personally, I think they (Nat and LC) have a lot in common,
>>apart from Nick, in their attitudes toward things, and I was pleased
>I don't know about anybody else, but I think these are very
>Valentine-like attitudes!!!(beg) It's spreading,
er, Paula - I've been a LC/Nat partisan for longer than the Valentines
have existed, and since I'm in the middle of a very Nat/LC oriented
piece of fiction on fkfic, I don't think this is exactly a surprise to
anyone who knows me <g>. I simply decline to join the Valentines for
personal reasons.
Ob-spoiler - regarding the place where Frank/Francesca was keeping
his/her victims, Gillian admitted in the chat last night that this was
sort of glossed over. Nick figured out the place from knowing her ways
and habits in the past, but as to where/what that place was ... It's
kind of left to the imagination <g>.
LaurieCF
Cousin M+B+D+T+K
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 15:51:50 -0700
From: AKR <r@w.......>
Subject: SPOILER: Francesca, Evil
Knightie Sandra wrote:
> > "Because he's evil? Sorry." YES! He is, Nat! :)
Cousin Gehirn wrote:
> I was really hoping the was a mass exodus of all the Knighties
> and the three Lite Cousins, running into the kitchen to grab a cup
> of herbal tea during that particular moment.... No such luck, eh?
Not a chance. :)
But, for starters, Idalia and I are not "Lite Cousins." We are Light
Cousins, and we feel the distinction is important (talk to Paula for her
definition; it differs). Light Cousins are philosophically like Knighties.
We like LC, yes; we admire his knowledge, his confidence, his magnetism, his
dedication, his adherence to his code... everything that Cousins admire. The
difference is that we want to redeem LC. We want him to embrace his human
side, to face what he felt in AMPH, BMV, Fever, and many others. We want him
to acknowledge the evil he has done, and reject it. We want him to learn
from Nick's quest, if not necessarily embrace it. The Light Cousins want to
turn LC to the Light, pretty literally. Thus, we believe in at least
three things: 1) LC has done evil. 2) LC has a great capacity for good.
3) LC should do good instead of evil in the future.
I was enthralled by the scene in Francesca where Nat tells Nick that his evil
cannot be *destroyed* by simply becoming human. Three cheers for Nat! Yes,
I am a Knightie, and not only do I want to see Nick regain his mortality, I
want to see him cleanse his soul, but Nick's insistence on merging the two
goals is part of what has kept him from reaching them.
Nat: No, I don't believe evil *can* be destroyed. Controlled maybe,
like we're trying to do with you, but never destroyed.
Nick: Then why are we bothering?
Nat: Because evil is a part of the human condition, Nick. Curing you
won't eradicate the evil in you, but it will help you to control it.
I do not think that this piece of dialogue is at odds with either Nat's
conception of vampirism or her scientific approach. Nat is able to see Nick
as a whole person who happens to be a vampire, while Nick mentally separates
his vampiric sins from his human ones. By all rights, his soul is burdened
with both, and will remain so, alive, dead, or undead, until he gains
absolution/ accepts forgiveness.
Nick's comment, however, seems to reveal that it is the eradication of his
evil that is his chief goal, not mortality. I approve of this, naturally.
Apache writes:
>'Near Death' also seemed to say that Nick could cleanse his soul even
>while remaining a vampire. That was the whole point of the vision of
>the worm-ridden body.
Sandra writes:
> My impression was that the guide was showing Nick that *nothing* he
> did on his own would cleanse his soul, that the only thing that would
> make a difference was for Nick to ask for God's forgiveness.
Though I agree that the Guide was attempting to make a point about the
necessity of accepting divine grace, and that Nick missed it through his
stubborn adherence to the idea that if he just works hard enough he can earn
his own salvation, I do not think that we are expected to accept that
"nothing" Nick does affects his soul. That is a very fatalistic thought,
with overtones of predestination. I think that Apache is correct in pointing
to the worm-ridden body as an indicator of the extremely slow progress Nick
is making in restitution. This is really the same point Nat was making to
Nick in the morgue -- there is no magic cure for seven centuries of killing.
Evil cannot be simply destroyed; it must be replaced with good.
When Nick asks why LC would mess with his head, I'm pretty much at a loss.
Unless it's a leftover from the injury in NiQ, Nick is setting aside
*centuries* of manipulation by LC. Heck, LC plays with Nick's mind *every
night* on the radio. It must be a part of the give-and-take of the argument
with Nat. Whatever, it is certainly a sign of a new understanding of his
relationship with LC. If LC has been deliberately modulating his
possessiveness since FD, then it looks as if the strategy has worked, doesn't
it? Regained a son, indeed.
Her comment is much easier to understand. "Because he's evil? Sorry." It's
right on the tip of her tongue, but she knows it's too flip, too easy. LC is
more complicated than simple "evil" would suggest. But the line is so
delightful, and the sentiment so tempting... :)
> From: Lisa Prince <Moonlight@g.......>
> Excuse me, but this argument is truly rather elitist. Just because
> we're *sentinent* and they're not, we have the right to slaughter
> them? Since a cow is *less intelligent* than we are, shouldn't it
> be our responsibility to take care of them and protect them?
When I use the term "sentient," I intend to imply a great deal more than a
level of intelligence. I intend to imply both self-awareness and the
possession of a soul. I don't believe that most animals have souls; humans
-- and vampires and sentient aliens, should they ever exist -- do. Do we
have a "right" to slaughter cows? Maybe, though I doubt it. We certainly
have no right to cause them unnecessary suffering. But is a human killing a
cow for food less wrong than a vampire killing a human for food would be?
Yes. Vampires were human; they procreate through humans; they develop
relationships with humans; they depend, as LC said in AMPH, on the human
culture to make their existence worthwhile. Not to mention that, as Sandra
pointed out, vampire souls are the same souls they had as humans.
That's what makes that little exchange in Francesca so amusing, really.
There's Nick, spouting the Knightie line. There's Francesca, the archetypal
Cousin. :) LC would be so proud of her.
> On another note: If vampires killing humans for sustenance is
> wrong, isn't a vampire killing another vampire even more of a
> problem?
Yes. Killing a vampire without draining him must be on the same
moral level as killing a mortal without draining him. Now, killing Spark in
AMPH should not weigh much on Nick, as it was necessary to save Nat's life.
And killing Richard in IWR was similarly necessary to save Sarah and Nat.
But if Nick has killed any vampires for reasons other than defense or
accident, then those incidents must also count as murders. Luckily, the only
one I can think of is Elizabeth in IWR, so I don't have to suffer too much on
Nick's behalf in making this admission (Francesca would fall under
self-defense, imho, which is different than *murder*).
Nick does have a problem in this regard, because he generally views
all vampires as damned. He thus thinks that it is less wrong to kill a
damned vampire than a mortal with a chance at salvation. He's a bit dense
that way, and it goes back to his inability to accept the possibility of
living as a moral vampire, which Laurie convinced me of (though no one has
yet convinced me that LC, Janette, Vachon, or even Urs fill the bill).
Of course, it would be much easier to be a moral mortal, which is what
he's shooting for.
> She believed that their essence would live on through her. Isn't
> giving them a portion of immortality better than allowing them to
> die all together?
We have a kind of immortality in our art, in our children, in the
memories of our friends. Francesca deprived her victims of all these things,
in cutting short the time they had to develop them. More importantly, as
Nick said, the effects would last "maybe two hours, no more." Only
Francesca's arrogance allowed her to assume more.
> M+B+D+T+K
<Sigh> So I add Lisa to the list.
Having fun at your private party, guys?
**** Amy, Lady of the Knight (AKR) r@w....... ****
"For how do I hold thee but by thy granting?" --W.S. Sonnet 87
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 19:13:09 -0400
From: Dotti Rhodes <dottir@w.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Francesca, New Points
At 12:59 PM 5/7/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Denied human relationships through his fear
>for those he loves, denied vampiric relationships through
>his fear for his own soul... poor, lonely Nick.
>
Oh, man, it makes me want to just burst into tears for Nick. That was such
an amazing speech - and so expertly directed by Nigel. Too kewl.
It's too bad Gillian was tied to Highlander for so much of the time, can you
imagine what the third season would have been like if she had written 90% of
the scripts. Oh mama!!
Dotti R
Knightie 4-Ever
dottir@w.......
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 19:28:10 -0400
From: Dotti Rhodes <dottir@w.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Francesca, The Hurry
At 02:11 PM 5/7/96 -0700, you wrote:
>> I'll ask again: WHY do Nick and LC have to leave Paris in such a hurry?
Are they actually referring to something that happened in an earlier ep?
It's too early for the revolution.
No, it does not allude to an previous episode. I just assumed they got
caught and had to get the hell out of town before they were torched and staked.
>
Dotti R
Knightie 4-Ever
dottir@w.......
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 18:58:13 -0500
From: John & Donna Spert <jjs@i.......>
Subject: Re: Francesca--Bovine Implications
On Mon, 6 May 1996, Margie Hammet wrote:
> that every time Nick drinks down cow's blood he has all manner of insights
> into bovine memory and experience?
I was reminded of the time that Nat kept nagging Nick to nibble on some
hamburger. Bad moove, Nat! Next time suggest a salad.
Nick would never eat beef. It's due to his fear of being steaked.
John
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 18:21:41 -0700
From: Cynthia Hoffman <choff@v.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Francesca, The Hurry
> >> I'll ask again: WHY do Nick and LC have to leave Paris in such a hurry?
I dunno. But it does seem to be a favorite line of Gillian's.
She uses it in Father's Day as well.
Cynthia
Cynthia Hoffman/choff@v.......
Raven ** IB ** MBDtK
We cater to the occasional fetishist
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 21:22:11 -0400
From: Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsd@u.......>
Subject: Re: Francesca--Bovine Implications
On Tue, 7 May 1996, John & Donna Spert wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 1996, Margie Hammet wrote:
> > that every time Nick drinks down cow's blood he has all manner of insights
> > into bovine memory and experience?
>
> I was reminded of the time that Nat kept nagging Nick to nibble on some
> hamburger. Bad moove, Nat! Next time suggest a salad.
>
> Nick would never eat beef. It's due to his fear of being steaked.
<BIIIIIG GROOOOOOAN>
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 19:52:21 -0500
From: John & Donna Spert <jjs@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Francesca, Evil
On Tue, 7 May 1996, AKR wrote:
> Nick does have a problem in this regard, because he generally views
> all vampires as damned. He thus thinks that it is less wrong to kill a
> damned vampire than a mortal with a chance at salvation. He's a bit dense
> that way, and it goes back to his inability to accept the possibility of
> living as a moral vampire, which Laurie convinced me of (though no one has
> yet convinced me that LC, Janette, Vachon, or even Urs fill the bill).
> Of course, it would be much easier to be a moral mortal, which is what
> he's shooting for.
> **** Amy, Lady of the Knight (AKR) r@w....... ****
I think living as a moral vampire has a lot to do with your attitudes
toward people before crossing over.
LaCroix was a Roman nobleman and general. They owned slaves, the head of
a household had the power of life and death over his family, and the world
was composed of Romans and everyone else. He spent his mortal life
convinced that he was one of the elite. Becoming a vampire, with their
extraordinary abilities, makes him feel that much more above the masses.
To him, humanity exists as a source of food and amusement. That's why I
think the changes to the Raven are consistent with his attitudes. He
gives the clientele a chance to degrade itself, proving vampires are
superior, plus he gets to watch the monkeys perform. After 2,000 years,
you find novelty where you can. Remember the guy holding a hostage at
gun point in the Raven? "A floor show."
Nick was born into medieval nobility, giving him the life long notion that
he and his kind are special. When he was brought across, his attitude was
that he could do as he wished. Steal a treasure (Blood Money), keep a
basement of blood donors (Fallen Idol), he did as he pleased. Now he
wants to be mortal again... Well he's got a lot to make up for! People
have commented on how judgemental Natalie has gotten. I believe she's
just following Nick's lead. He despises how he acted over the course of
centuries, and constantly chews over events that he blew centuries ago. I
believe there have been enough flashbacks to show that LaCroix often tried
to hold Nick back from some of his excesses. LaCroix, despite some real
moral problems, does have a sense of moderation. Nick does not. If he's
going to prey on humanity, it's no holds barred. If he's going to feel
remorse, he wallows in it. I often feel that Nick regards himself as a
good person corrupted by the curse of vampirism. What he really is is
someone who's no better than the rest of us; someone who fell prey to the
"power corrupts" syndrome. Until he faces that, he'll keep looking for
miracle cures, which may remove the vampirism, but will never solve his
lack of control or balance.
Vachon appears to have been a simple soldier, not nobly born. My
impression is that he essentially said, "I'm going to live forever?
Party on, dude!" He set out to see the world and experience life in its
fullness. When the chance to do good crosses his path, he takes it
(Blackwing). Sometimes he messes up, as in bringing Urs across. But he
moves on with his life, and tries to do better next time. This is why
Tracy has a far more comfortable relationship with him than Natalie has
with Nick. To Vachon, and therefore to Tracy, "it's an alternate
lifestyle" (with apologies to Woody Allen). To Nick, and therefore to
Natalie, it's something which twists one's mind until you have to exert
control at all times to avoid going into a feeding frenzy. I think the
problem is not in our vampirism, but in ourselves (to mangle Shakespeare).
Janette and Urs both came from abused backgrounds. Even though Janette
was nobly born, we all saw what that was worth. Both of them have taken
their experiences to heart and try to help other women in need. Janette
is older, doubtless has more money, and has been able to do more. But
neither seems to have the will to use their longevity, and its
implications for accumulating money, to found organizations or do other
large-scale work for improving how society treats women. I suspect that
the way they were raised has deeply conditioned them into a passive role
in life.
So all in all, I think it means that whatever kind of person you are,
vampirism merely gives you the means to be that person for a lot longer.
John
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 21:18:01 -0400
From: Dalton Spence <dalton.spence@f.......>
Subject: Re: Bovine Implications
Nick's regular blood supply comes from meat packing plants, right? While
I make no claims to expertise in the meat packing industry, I believe
that most of the cattle slaughtered for meat are NOT COWS (ie. female
bovines, which are mainly used to produce milk and calves) but STEERS!
If the blood does, in fact, contain the life experiences of it's donor,
please consider what the most traumatic experiences in a steer's life
would be! <VEG> Could this be the REAL problem with Nat's love life?
Dalton S. Spence, B.Sc. <ag775@f.......>
Home Page: http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ag775/home.html
(This could also explain Screed's lifestyle.)
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 18:39:30 -0700
From: AKR <r@w.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Francesca, Evil
> Anyway, my main question is why is it acceptable for Nick to kill
> one of his own without being considered evil?
It is not. Murder of a vampire is just as evil as murder of a mortal.
But Nick is no more intrinsically evil by virtue of the evil acts he has
committed than is LC. A character is more than any of the single actions
that reveal it. And when he sincerely regrets them, he may be forgiven
them.
Just wanted to clarify... :)
**** Amy, Lady of the Knight (AKR) r@w....... ****
"For how do I hold thee but by thy granting?" --W.S. Sonnet 87
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 21:08:43 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: Bovine Implications
Dalton Spence writes:
>please consider what the most traumatic experience in a steer's life
>would be! <VEG> Could this be the REAL problem with Nat's love life?
LOL! Hey, maybe his diet is why the litovuterine had an effect
(albeit temporary) in The Fix? ;)
>(This could also explain Screed's lifestyle.)
Ah, but rats breed like...rats! They've got to be more prolific than
rabbits. So Screed should have been terminally horny. :) Or, of
course, maybe he "desired" rats. ;)
To bring this back on the topic of Francesca, maybe she offered Nick
the blood of Faubert for two reasons: she saw in him that he had
enjoyed such blood in the past (he *did* take a second sip) and LC
put her up to it (in the hope of getting Nick to give up his "code").
--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/
