Home Page How I Found Forever Knight Forkni-L Archives Main Page Forkni-L Earlier Years
My Forever Knight Fanfiction Links E-Mail Me

FKSPOILR

Logfile LOG9605 Part 35

May 18, 1996

File: "FKSPOILR LOG9605" Part 35

	TOPICS:
	Last Knight--tears  (2)
	SPOILER: AtA, 1/3
	SPOILER: AtA, 2/3
	SPOILER: AtA, 3/3
	Resurrections
	SPOILERS: Ashes to Ashes (ep 21) LaCroix Take 2 (2a/2b)
	SPOILERS: Ashes to Ashes (ep 21) LaCroix Take 2 (2b/2b)
	Spoiler: Ashes to Ashes

=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 May 1996 13:47:23 -0400
From:         Siona <siona@n.......>
Subject:      Re: Last Knight--tears

On Sat, 18 May 1996, Sharon Bhandari wrote:

> Ug, I need a support group or something!!!

We ARE a support group.

Siona@n.......
Dark Knightie!
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 May 1996 11:15:28 -0700
From:         Valery King <kingv@u.......>
Subject:      Re: Last Knight--tears

On Sat, 18 May 1996, Siona wrote:

> We ARE a support group.

Truer words were never said. In fact, I have been acting as a kind of
"crisis intervention counsellor" for net-less FK fans of my acquaintance.
I received a panicked call on my answering machine from a friend in
Portland yesterday, right after she'd watched her tape, and I "talked her
down" for about an hour. Then I received another call from another friend,
and did the same for her. I talked with a co-worker about it on Friday, as
well. And I expect when my SciFi Channel friends see it Monday, I'll get
another call or two. I am so incredibly grateful for all of you people.

I've never seen such emotional reaction from people over a tv show
before; perhaps that's what TPTB were after, and if so they succeeded.
However, if I were one of these PTB, this is NOT the kind of reaction I'd
want to elicit.

   [WARNING! Entirely emotional and irrationally bitter rant below!]

Crossbows and torches, anyone? How 'bout tar and feathers?

I apologize to people who liked it, but I've never felt so betrayed over a
mere "entertainment" in all my life. I couldn't even talk about it for
days (my apologies to people who emailed be asking about it, for not
responding to you). Maybe in a month or so I can be rational. Since I'm
going to the Ger-thering, for Ger's sake I hope so ;-)

--Valery
kingv@u.......
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 May 1996 12:22:38 -0700
From:         Amy R. <akr@m.......>
Subject:      SPOILER: AtA, 1/3

(I thought that I could lurk until LK aired, but I'm sure you all know me
better than that by now. <g> Hi, guys!  I'm home!  I missed you!  And
seeing all of Sandra's posts on AtA this morning compells me to subject
you all to this analysis.  I've been gone, so I'm sure most of my
observations are severely redundant by now, but they seem to challenge
some of Sandra's views, so I'll post anyway.)

(Bonnie, skip this; it's mostly in the snail-mail. <g>)

        Did everyone notice the sun?  It was a bit heavy-handed, as
symbolism goes, having Nick fall with his head precisely in the center of
the half-completed sun, but I loved it nonetheless.  Not only because it
forms a pair with the picture of the screaming face which hung directly
behind Divia when we first saw her in the loft, thus contrasting the two
of them through these banners, but because the very fact that Nick is
painting again is worth something.  And the fact that what he was painting
was a bright, yellow and orange sun, stylized in its realism, may well be
worth everything, all too soon.
        I'm told that the sun might have appeared, on the wall, in a
first-season episode.  If that's so, I'm still happy to find symbolism in
the fact that it was on the easel -- Nick must have felt it still needed
something; he might have wanted to complete something from first season,
and that sentiment has just the right feeling, heading into LK.

        That tag conversation is almost as riddled with double meanings as
the one in HF.  The ambiguity begins when Nick says, "She buried him next
to Screed.  She knows what they were."  Does he mean that she knows they
were vampires?  Or does he mean that she knows Vachon was Screed's master?
LC's response, "Indeed.  Is this going to be a problem?", suggests the
former, but when I first heard it, I assumed the latter.  If LC was
remarking on her knowing that they were vampires, then that means that he
had not previously known that Nick's partner knew about his people.  This
seems unlikely, given all the times Tracy went to the Raven looking for
Vachon.  On the other hand, why would LC notice one more mortal?  Of
course, this mortal was his son's partner, so it is surprising that he
would not recognize her, and yet....
        Nick then says, "Vachon once told me she's a resister... but...
I've seen you work around that."  Oh?  Really?  Does he mean like that
time in BMV, perhaps?  If so, that destroys my carefully constructed
proof from HF that Natalie in fact remembers that night in the Azure
(unless Nick missed what I picked up on -- he didn't have the CC, after
all).  On the other hand, perhaps he meant it more generally.  He could
even be referring to "Close Call," when LC allowed Schanke to talk
himself out of the idea that Nick's a vampire.  Whichever specific
instances Nick is alluding to, he is most definitely interpreting LC's
comment as a forgone conclusion about tampering with Tracy's memories.
        That he wanted to alter Tracy's memories didn't surprise me.
What specifically he wanted altered did.  I'm told that this has already
gone the rounds on list, so I'll leave it alone for now.

        Is it agreed that Tracy's last words to Vachon were, "I love you"?
The first time through, I thought she said, "Javier," softly, and with the
most gentle accent she'd ever put on the vowels.  The second time through,
I turned on the CC, and it plainly read, "I love you,"  before his, "Wish
me luck."
        So, despite what she said over his body, she did get the chance
to tell him how she felt -- she just didn't get the chance to explain and
explore all the ramifications of something that is never quite as simple
as those three words.  Quite technically, she got to tell him what she
felt, but never "how."

To be continued...

*** Amy, Lady of the Knight (akr@m.......) ***
"Now cracks a noble heart.  Good night, sweet prince;
And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!" -- W.S.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 May 1996 12:26:56 -0700
From:         Amy R. <akr@m.......>
Subject:      SPOILER: AtA, 2/3

(Continued)
        It seems appropriate that vampire baby Urs died instantly,
vampirically mature Nick managed to recover, and vampirically adolescent
Vachon lingered, strong enough to be lucid and sane and claim his own end,
but not strong enough to reject the backwash of evil from Divia's
poisonous touch, her seethingly corrupted soul.
        LC had a point when he said, "A child's innocence and
purity know no bounds.  Neither does its cruelty when evil comes upon its
soul."  How, but in the purest manifestation of childhood's inherent
cruelty, could Divia have become so very evil in such a short time?  She
only had twenty years after Pompeii, after all, before LC sealed her in
the tomb.  And yet that evil, evil LC blamed himself for passing on to
her, "magnified a hundred times by the one who brought her across," was a
part of her even then.

        What Divia asked of LC in the tomb, taken out of context, might
possibly be rationalized.  Certainly that is what LC was doing when he
tortured himself over his decision to destroy her; he was forgetting the
pure evil he had tried to bury, and only remembering the superficial plea
that had been the final straw.
        But Divia killed her master, and I cannot but believe LC had much
more proof than that of her evil.  Twenty years is a long time to be with
one who does not believe she is accountable to anyone, anything, without
accumulating atrocities even LC would be hard-pressed to stomach -- those
actions in which she took the pleasure which Vachon could not stand.  As a
general in the emperor's army, he "visited suffering upon [his] enemies in
unspeakable ways."  It is an important distinction that LC's evil -- and
it was evil -- was still always to a purpose.  Divia had no purpose beyond
the evil itself.  She reveled in it; it was what she existed for.  Divia
was immortalized as a child, and some of the sensibilities of childhood
were immortalized with her.  She need never know consequences, never think
beyond herself, beyond the moment.  And, because she is a vampire, her
gorging need never make her ill, need never force her to discover limits
or accept them as an adult.
        "But Divia killed her master"... Divia killed Qa'Ra, as LC tried to
kill Divia, as Nick tried to kill LC, though he has since regretted and
reconciled.  Only in Janette is the cycle truly broken.  Divia asked if LC
knew what it was like to be betrayed by his own child, "to be left alone
in the darkness."  Only LC and Nick know how close that barb struck, and
LC's eyes were wet as those lines were spoken -- golly, but I hope that
wasn't a trick of the light.  It is a great irony that we can now see so
much more of Nick in LC, and perhaps a greater irony that we can now see
so much of Nick in Divia.  In "Father's Day," Nick tells LC that Schanke's
list of things a father provides omits "freedom."  LC replies, "So would
I."  Nick's need to be free of LC's domination is strikingly similar to
Divia's complaint that her master "thought he controlled" her, tried to
"harness" her evil, and "make [her] in his image."  "I would choose my own
way," Divia declared, as LC did in rejecting her, as Nick has done in
repudiating LC.  How it must have hurt LC to hear from his son the words
of that daughter!  To see himself in Nick, at the moment of which he is
most ashamed, also forced him to see Divia in himself.

        Laurie was right -- this may well be the ultimate Light Cousin
episode.  We've never had these thoughts from LC before -- shame, guilt,
"there's enough misery in the world already," his instinctive turning to
Divia as she died.  He would have spared her if Nick had not stopped him.
That is rather an ironic inversion of BMV, isn't it?  There, he allowed
Fleur to live because of Nick's intervention.  Here, he allowed Divia to
die because of Nick's intervention.  At the end, under no duress, he even
refers to Nick's "resurgent goodness," and ties it directly to Nick's
search for his humanity.  The final words are, "I may even say a prayer,"
and acknowledging a power greater than himself is the first step in that
turn to humanity that Light Cousins roots for.

        Divia, buried these two thousand years, not only picked up
earrings and clothing and English and enough culture to get herself and a
body across the Atlantic in twenty-four hours (I don't see any reason to
assume she flew by herself; it's easier to explain how she could have
hidden on a plane, just as it's easier to explain how she could have
gotten from Pompeii to Egypt and back in a matter of months), but she
picked up the concept of damnation.  "If you kill me, my suffering will be
over," LC told her.  "You know, I'm not sure that's true," she replied.
"Damnation, come to think of it, is a fitting sentence for your crimes."
As this was after she attacked Nick, I assume she picked that thought off
the surface of his mind, where it probably always sits.  Her use of the
concept interests me, of course, not only because it's one LC has never
accepted while Nick and I have, but because she was buried before the real
rise of Christianity, and thus would have had only a sketchy cultural
analogue for that concept as applied in FK.

To be continued...

*** Amy, Lady of the Knight (akr@m.......) ***
"Now cracks a noble heart.  Good night, sweet prince;
And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!" -- W.S.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 May 1996 12:29:45 -0700
From:         Amy R. <akr@m.......>
Subject:      SPOILER: AtA, 3/3

(Continued)
        I see that there is not yet a consensus yet on why light poured
out of the tomb as it opened.  I'm chalking it up to the pure evil of the
place, which LC helpfully hypothesized "sustained her."  As to Divia's
master, she not only staked him, but saw that he was "scorched by the sun"
before she entombed him.  LC really wasn't thinking, not exposing her to
the sun -- or maybe he was thinking, thinking the same question that still
haunted him all these centuries later, "What can be said about a man that
kills his own daughter?"  Of course, that obvious nudge about "the evil
that permeated the tomb sustained her" is meant to explain not only her
survival, but the transformation of her vampirism.  It is not only the
poison that keeps the wounds she causes from healing, and it is not only
her willingness to slash with claw instead of fang.  She hardly fed on
Vachon, so I assume she attacked him for vengeance and information, not
blood.  Similarly, Natalie had nothing to say about unusual blood loss in
either the grave robber or in Urs.  Certainly, she would have noticed the
fang marks on Urs, but as she didn't comment on any in the Egyptian
corpse, I offer the idea that Divia never even fed on him at all -- though
the fact that his head was cut off does make it hard to tell.  Divia
survived all those centuries on pure evil.  To survive, she mutated from a
creature who fed on blood to one who feeds on hate and destruction.  In
AtA, we see her feed only on vampires, and then only on those whose loss
will hurt LC.

        Of course, that gives us a new dimension of FK relationships,
doesn't it?  It is only too obvious why Nick's loss would hurt LC; he is,
indeed, his favorite.  But Urs?  We've seen them no closer than employer
and employee.  And Vachon?  Their closest moment was reminiscing over the
good old days, in MBIAV.  But when Divia went after Nick, she said he was
the last, implying that she'd killed or driven away everyone else close to
LC; and in the end, Urs and Vachon are the only ones LC inquires after.
How close were they, beyond our sight?  Taunting LC, Divia said, "You must
exist forever with the knowledge that you destroyed everyone who was dear
to you.  Your friends, lovers, daughter, mother... and now your son."
Son=Nick.  Mother=Divia.  Daughter=Divia.  Lovers... well, it could be the
beginning of the "Daughter, mother, lover: why can't I be all three?"
triad she set up all that time ago, but the use of the plural demands
another interpretation.  Perhaps I was actually right with my hypothesis
about LC and Urs last month.  On the other hand, "friend" also is in the
plural, and while Vachon and Urs can be the "friends" as easily as Urs and
Divia can be the "lovers," the referents may also be simply beyond the
bounds of the cast.  We might be able to assume that others died as well.
If so, however, I wish we'd gotten a less ambiguous reference to them --
"Fever" made it quite clear that vampires were dying in significant
numbers; a body count for AtA would have been useful, as well.

        I'm still not quite sure what to make of Urs's dream.  It would be
simple, except that she insisted that she was awake for the apparition,
and she referred to the headless child as "she," so she couldn't have been
shown the body.  Playing with my idea about her and LC, the dream could
have been some sort of psychic residue from blood sharing, triggered by
Divia's arrival.  On the other hand, that is running on the ragged edge of
canon, and I'd prefer a more solid explanation.  I suppose it could be a
paralleling of Urs and Tracy, with Tracy's psychic sensitivity being shown
in also sensing a "presence" in the Raven, and Urs's greater vampiric
acuity producing the dream in addition.

        On a lighter note, was it noted that this is the second time in
two episodes that Natalie has said, "Oh, come on.  There has got to be
some kind of a rational explanation for this"? :) anyone want to tally all
the times she's said that?  I think there's a line in HF, too....

*** Amy, Lady of the Knight (akr@m.......) ***
"Now cracks a noble heart.  Good night, sweet prince;
And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!" -- W.S.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 May 1996 15:59:51 -0400
From:         Nancy McCaskey <mccaskn@p.......>
Subject:      Resurrections

>[On raising characters from the dead, Apache wrote]:

>                                        I'd say Jesus Christ but I don't
> want to get any painstaking historical analyses about how he was a real
> person, etc.

That's one reason my list is of *indisputably fictional* characters. :)

FWIW, I believe He was/is real...

You're right; such a debate would only cause trouble (especially when
people are still upset about the show being canceled).  One of the things
that really impresses me about FK fandom is the way the different
factions work together instead of splitting off into mutually-hostile
splinter groups.  I'd like to keep it that way! :)

=================Nancy McCaskey mccaskn@p.......================
  Be suspicious if your partner never stops for coffee and donuts.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 May 1996 19:00:02 -0500
From:         Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject:      SPOILERS: Ashes to Ashes (ep 21) LaCroix Take 2 (2a/2b)

This (part 2a) is part of a two-part post about LaCroix.

Sarah Welsh writes:
>And he's been hiding that pain for almost 2000 years behind a facade
>by which Nick was entirely taken in.

Oh, poor LC!  I don't see why people are so taken with LC's "pain" in
this (more later).

>No wonder that first-season LaCroix was so starkly evil -- we saw him
>only in Nick's flashbacks and fantasies.

But that doesn't mean that what Nick remembers didn't happen, or that
his fantasies weren't shaped by how LC acted.  Nick did not form his
opinions of LC being a bad guy out of thin air.

>And the LaCroix Nick knew was the one who refused to let any of his
>softer emotions show because of the scars he sustained from the whole
>Divia incident.

This is a bit much, isn't it?  When BMV aired, everyone talked about
how LC's love for Fleur has colored his relationship with Nick for
all the centuries afterward.  So now that he has this "pain" over
Divia, that supercedes Fleur being a big affect on his character?

>As we've gotten to see LaCroix in the present for ourselves, we began
>taking Nick's word as truth but have slowly been led to see him in a
>warmer and warmer light.

A *warmer and warmer* light.  Oooh, could he be becoming (gasp) a
*good guy*?  Sorry about the sarcasm, but, except for a couple other
folks (Laura Petix, for example) who seem to view what's been done to
LaCroix's character for the past two seasons as continuing degradation
of his character (imo, to something unrecognizable as LC), I can't see
why so many people seem to love seeing LC in a "warmer and warmer light".
LC's place in FK should be as Nick's adversary.  Otherwise, all conflict
must come from *outside* (which, imo, is not as entertaining).

>If I didn't know that TPTB didn't really think about it all that much,
>I'd say that the last two seasons had been carefully planned to show
>LaCroix becoming more and more a part of Nick's "real" world as
>opposed to some dark vampire universe off somewhere.

Yeah, like Voyager, let's just make everyone on FK be part of one big
happy family. :P  Actually, I think TPTB just took note of the
favorable way LC was being received and decided to capitalize on it.
How else to explain the concentration on LC the past two seasons?
We didn't get such development of Janette, did we?  Unfortunately, in
emphasizing LC so much, they've lost sight of what the series is
supposed to be about--Nick and his quest.  Although I've enjoyed a
lot of third season, I think we can all agree that Nick has certainly
not been center stage in a lot of it.  The show should not be "Forever
LaCroix" (or "Forever Vetter" either).  If they want an "ensemble"
show, it should be named "Forever Night".

>TPTB don't deserve such a seemingly well-thought-out progression of
>character, and they owe it all to the prodigious talent of Nigel
>Bennett.

Kind of ignoring the script writers here, aren't you?  With all due
respect to Mr. Bennett's acting (which is usually superb), he hasn't
come up with the episode storylines--the script writers have.  How
much JP, or Lalonde and Bedard, have had to do with the story decisions
I don't know.  Why do you assume that TPTB should get *no* credit for
what's been done with LC's character?

>What seemed to be callousness or cruelty in LaCroix can be seen as
>fear of vulnerability and of abandonment.

And that was impossible to see in first season?  If so, I certainly
don't think it was impossible to see in second season.  And a fear of
vulnerability and abandonment does *not* have to be for the reasons
given in AtA (or BMV or Father's Day).

>It says a lot that LaCroix returned in the second season with nary a
>word of reproach about Nick's trying to shish kebab him.

Yeah, that's why LC tried to frame Nick for murder in Killer Instinct
(I'm sure he thought Nick would live with him again if he ran Nick
out of his life in Toronto).

>he has killed those whom Nick loves for fear that his son wouldn't
>need him anymore.  Horrible and twisted?  Possibly.

Possibly?  Yeah, it's normal for a father to want to kill his son's
friends and lovers to keep him dependent on him.

I think he killed more out of jealousy and selfishness.  I don't think
AtA changes that.

>*Human?* Definitely.

*Human?*  People want LC to be *human*?  A lot of the debate over
whether LC is "evil" or not has centered on "LC is a *vampire* who
is above human morality".  You can't have it both ways, imo.  Accept
the LC in AtA and you accept that LC is *human*, not *vampire*.
Accept what is presented and LC's "satisfaction" with being a vampire,
his insistence that vampires are superior to humans is suspect--even
more, is a *lie*.  LC, who's been touted by others as someone of *honor*
and for the most part *honesty*, is revealed by AtA as a complete and
utter *sham*, full of self-deception to a *much vaster* degree than
Nick has *ever* shown.  And people *want* this image of LC?

>All this talk about Nick's angst, and LaCroix has been caught in a
>cycle of self-recrimination for millenia.

And Nick is *condemned* for his angst.  For LC it's "noble"?  Or
something to be "praised" or "understood" or "sympathised with"? (my
quotes in all cases so no one will give me flak about that)  Give me a
break!  No one perceives their attitude to LC in this as being just a
bit hypocritical?

>but what about her (Fleur) resemblance to Divia?

Yes, let's relate all we learned of LC in AtA to *every* past episode
of importance in his life.  See my comments above.

>He most probably believed that he didn't deserve to have love because
>of his shame over what Divia wanted.

Why?  He wasn't related to Fleur.  And this was 12 centuries after
what happened with Divia.  If what happened with Divia affected him
at all, it would have been to make him not want to show "weakness" or
let anyone "under his skin" too much.  I can't see why "shame" would
figure into the equation.

>he spared Natalie...because he loves Nick and wants something better
>for his child than he had for himself.

Yeah, that's why he's killed people Nick has been close to or even
just "acquainted" with (the nun in Capitol Offense).  I'm sorry, but
this idea just doesn't wash with me.

>I'm sure he thought that if Nick knew about Divia, he would hate him
>even more.

Why?  If LC had had sex with Divia, I can see where Nick would have
found that pretty horrible.  I think he didn't tell him for two more
important reasons:  pride (he wouldn't want to admit to a "child"
having brought him over) and fear of being perceived as weak (for
having cared about Divia, and having been repulsed by her suggestion
that they make love).

>he found acceptance and understanding where he most wanted it and
>least thought that he could find it.

On this I agree with you.

>NB has said that they were lovers before they met Nick.

While this is possible, it wasn't shown so we can't assume that it's
canon.  Rather than "lovers", it might only have been one encounter,
for all we know.  Besides, LC preferred to be in control of things.
Letting Janette see his "inner self" could have made it possible for
her to find "chinks in his armor" and possibly get her way rather than
obey him.

>I'm sure she got something from his blood--not his whole life story,
>as we were led to believe in Francesca

But why not?  If they were lovers, wouldn't it make sense that Janette
would remember quite a bit from their repeated couplings?  Goes to
show you how screwed up an idea "blood knowledge" is, doesn't it? :)

>she didn't know exactly what it was that LaCroix needed to exorcise,
>but she knew that there was something and hoped that his torture
>sessions would help.

Yeah, hasn't it helped?  2000 years and LC is still the same and,
according to you, still suffering from what happened with Divia.

Laura Petix writes:
>Actually, I was very disappointed with Lucius.  He acted so...*Nick*
>like!

And not just in the flashback where he beheaded Divia either.

>(re: killing Divia) I'd at least expect him to *think* about it,
>rather than acting *so* impulsively and irrationally.

Yes, and his actions in the present left a lot to be desired as well.
Where was his concern over who was after him?  He just waited and
almost quaked with fear.  He let Divia beat up on him and was also
apparently going to let her lop off his head.  LC, who prided himself
on having defeated death in Fever.  If he thought he would survive
being beheaded like Divia did, where was that in his demeanor?  He
looked to me like someone who was just going to fatalistically accept
his fate.  No one considers this stuff out of character?  When has LC
been so "frozen" for such a long period of time?  He's been momentarily
non-plussed (like when Nick begged for his help in SoB), but I don't
remember him ever being so unwilling to take action of his own as he
was in AtA.

>The LaCroix I *used to know* wasn't a squeamish, righteous brick.
>He was devious, twisted and depraved.  A lot more like his *mother*
>than his *son*.

Yes.  I could have maybe believed LC's character more in this had he
not been such a "wimp".  Why didn't he sense Divia?  Or her "evil"?
Or, if he did, *why* didn't he *do* anything about what he felt?
Why was he so willing to take whatever Divia dished out to him?

>I liked (and still do like) the LaCroix of first season, whom I
>consider to be the "real" LaCroix.

I prefer first season LaCroix too.  He was mysterious, larger than
life, and a force to be reckoned with (so strong that even after his
"death" his influence just in Nick's *memories* was something that Nick
had to struggle with and against becoming).  With his return to life
in second season and how he's been presented since then (with AtA
most particularly), he's been rendered ***ordinary***.

>Like Sandra Gray, it's my opinion that what has been going on over
>the past two seasons (and especially this season) has seriously
>weakened the show.

LC coming back and the more focus on him in second season was the
first weakenening (of both LC's character, and Nick's character by
comparison).  I don't know who to blame for the absence of Schanke
and Janette, but their absence in third season certainly has had a
detrimental effect as well.  Tracy and Vachon had potential that was
mostly untapped and for a while at the beginning of third season,
it seemed we were watching "Forever Vetter" rather than "Forever
Knight".  While I have liked third season, neither it nor second
season really measure up to first season, which I consider the best
season.

>I also loved seeing that Nick is still painting.

Is he?  I thought (haven't looked at my tape to see yet) that that
painting is the same one from False Witness, which was finished a
long time ago.

>LC is (should be) a loner who cares deeply for a few people...and
>cares nothing for the rest.

Yes, but in that respect I think they've kept that aspect of his
character.

>I don't think this softening of LC's character makes him *deeper*--
>it makes him more shallow.

It makes him ordinary.  AtA makes him a wuss.  AtA sets up LC to be
*redeemed* (gag!) and turn into being a *good guy* (double gag!!).

>He should be twisted--should have reasons for his behavior, but let
>them be twisted reasons;

Yes.  LC should be much more to Nick than "daddy".

>let them be reasons we have to work to find; reasons most people
>can't see or accept;

Yes.  Familiarity breeds contempt.

>let his reactions not be reactions a "normal" person would have!

Yes!

>No more incoherent musing from me for a while.

I wouldn't say you were incoherent.  I think you expressed yourself
very well.

(to be continued in part 2b)

--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 May 1996 19:00:47 -0500
From:         Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject:      SPOILERS: Ashes to Ashes (ep 21) LaCroix Take 2 (2b/2b)

This (part 2b) is the second part of a two part post on LC.

Sara Oral writes:
>(anyone for Forever Lacroix please stand up and shout

Sitting firmly in my seat with my mouth closed.  This is not the
first such statement I've read about wanting "Forever Lacroix" and
just goes to show just how skewed out of balance the show has become.
Well, once LK airs FK will be over.  The question then becomes what
do you want to try to get "revived"?  Forever Knight or Forever
LaCroix?

Janette Z writes:
>And LaCroix managed to be decent and almost...emotionally vulnerable
>.... (WOW!) and still be LaCroix.

I didn't see it that way.  You know, this makes me wonder if Nigel
Bennett's acting is what people have been reacting to rather than
looking at how the character is being presented.  Do people think
that if someone else was to do LC's part that it would be perceived
the same way?

I know I felt *temporarily* sympathetic to LC in Father's Day due,
I'm sure, to Nigel's wonderful acting.  But I felt jerked around by
*false* sympathy and *hated*, *despised* that episode for what it
did to LC: it tried to reduce his and Nick's relationship to father-and-
son, which kept being repeated--nay, *pounded* into our heads--after
that.  That's *all* we're supposed to see about their relationship?
Not imo, but apparently in TPTB's opinion.

Michelle Mark writes:
>Would you really want him to stay as seemingly one dimensional as he
>was during the first season?

I guess it depends on how you define one-dimensional.  To some extent,
first season dealt with archtypes of good and evil in the characters
of Nick and LC.  I enjoyed such "myth" aspects in first season.  This
doesn't mean I was totally against any expansion of LC's character
from the way he was presented in first season.  I just think that the
expansion was handled wrong and has gone *way* too far, to the point
of contributing to the imbalance of the show's original premise and
to the detriment of LC's character.

>Why is it so hard for people to believe that LC can feel love?

It's not that so much as *how* it's been done.  To me, what's been
done to "expand" on LC's character has just *weakened* it, imo.  I
don't think it benefits LC to make him a "tragic hero" type.  We
already have that in Nick.  I think that LC's character could have
been expanded in other ways.  For instance, the "torture" of the man
who looked like his father in Dead Air gave some insight into some of
what made LC so twisted.  Now, with AtA, can we look at that scene at
face value any more?

>He's not a vulcan for godssake!

No.  But Vulcans are *not* without emotion.  They've just learned to
not let their emotions control their lives.

>I'm not saying I want to see him go soft... and I like him when he's
>a mean SOB, however, I think it is OK for him to show other emotions
>as well.

I wouldn't mind seeing LC show some other emotions *occasionally*.
I just think TPTB have focused way to much on LC since his return and
have seemingly gone out of their way to make him more *normal* and
*misunderstood*.  BAH!  I don't want to watch that LC.

And, personally, I don't see how anyone after AtA can possibly be
comfortable watching him be a mean SOB.  They've gone too far into
giving LC the reflection to consider that he's been wrong in what he's
done for so many years.

Deb writes:
>(re: hypnotizing Tracy) and what was with LaCroix going along with
>Nick's request so easily?

Beats me.  Some Cousins might term it LC owing Nick a debt for saving
his life, I suppose.

>He doesn't ask Nick, he tells him. seems like Nick is the only one
>who's been changing lately.

Didn't you mean "isn't" rather than "is"?  If so, I agree.  LC is
definitely out of character.  The LC of the past would have fought
his own battles so as not to be beholden to anyone.

Tammy Stephanie Davis writes:
>But Mr. Bennett when ahead and spoiled my anticipation by revealing
>a sad and tragic immortal who after two thousand years is still
>haunted with guilt and pain over having killed his daughter...he
>made me feel sorrow and pity for Lacroix.

This was one instance where even Nigel Bennett's acting couldn't
sway me from the implausibility of what was being done with LC's
character.

Cynthia Hoffman writes:
>He says she "inherited" the evil from him, not that she's a chip off
>the old block.  That's your reading of it, right?

Gosh, do I have to label *all* my own quotes as being *my* quotes?
Other people have been expressing their opinions of this episode
and so have I.  Okay?

I wrote:
>>LC has been leery of initiating any sort of sexual relationship
>>with Nick for fear that Nick would react as he himself reacted to
>>Divia
Cynthia responds:
>But Nick isn't his son in the human way...It's not incest in the
>same way that being with Divia would be.  You don't raise those same
>objections regarding Laacroix's feelings about Janette or Francesca,
>do you?  Why raise them about Nick?

Yes, Nick is not his real *son*.  However, much has been made since
LC's return in second season of their relationship being *father and
son*.  That is part of the reason I raised this idea about Nick.
We didn't learn enough about Francesca, imo, to determine what sort
of relationship LC had to her.  He has only since kept Janette and
Nick close to him.  Considering Janette's prositution background and
my feeling that he picked her because she reminded him of Divia's
mother, Seline, makes me think that he wouldn't have perceived
Janette as a *daughter*.  It also seems fairly clear to me that of
the two of them, LC is more emotionally attached to Nick.  That's
why I didn't consider Janette or Francesca in the statement I made.

>And what exactly was out of character about him in this episode?

I hope I've explained that enough already.  To be fair, I think there
were some parts of the episode where LC did seem to be in character:
his reaction when Nick showed up to find the body, the questioning
by Reece scene, the scene of LC in jail having his sobering influence
on his jailmates, the scene where he tells Divia how much he once
loved her and how he despises her now (sorry, can't remember the
quote) which *should have been* the method to trip up Divia so that
LC could *attack* and *defeat* her (it smacked so much of some of the
things LC has said to Nick to rile him up).

>But there's a difference between evil and one dimensional, isn't
>there?

Yes, but I don't see where AtA has illuminated any of LC's reasons to
be evil.  If anything, it's showed what a wuss and a failure he is.
If he was *so* disturbed by Divia's evil that he beheaded her, what
excuse does he then have for all the evil acts he's committed since
then?  By rights, he should have had a moment of "epiphany" as Nick
did with killing Sylvaine in Love You to Death, and decided to be
a vampire who gave something of goodness back to the world like
Erica tried to do in Last Act.  LC as a mortal was a general, and not
a stupid man.  Yet look what he has been and done since killing Divia.
It makes no sense to me to so tear down a good "evil" character.  To
what purpose is it?

--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 May 1996 19:29:34 EDT
From:         Lisa McDavid <D020214@u.......>
Subject:      Spoiler: Ashes to Ashes

About Divia's line that damnation would be appropriate for LaCroix:

The Romans didn't call it damnation, but they did have the concept of
eternal punishment in the afterlife for sins on earth. So did the Greeks,
Good examples are Sysiphus, who was eternally condemned to roll a huge
stone up a steep hill only to have it roll back to the beginning just
as it reached the top, and Tantalus. Tantalus was condemned to spend
eternity thirsty in the midst of a pool of water which withdrew when he
bent to drink from it, and starving just under food that he could not
reach. (Hence the verb "to tantalize.")

Divia could have been thinking of something along those lines.

Cousin Lisa -- "That will be trouble."
Lisa McDavid
mcdavid-lisa@s.......
=========================================================================

Previous digest
Previous
This month's list
This month's list
Next digest
Next






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