FKSPOILR
Logfile LOG9605 Part 50
May 23-May 24, 1996
File: "FKSPOILR LOG9605" Part 50
TOPICS:
SPOILER: Last Knight
SPOILER: Last Knight, addendum
Spoilers:LK,AtA; LaCroix
Spoiler: AtA, LK, JD, HF, re: characters
SPOILER: LK, HF -- N&N (long)
Last Knight: An observation in non-continuity (2)
A Call to Dottie
SPOILER: LK, HF -- Flashback Sequence
Misc Questions/Some Last Knight
Rules for vampire/mortal lovemaking
ADMIN: Willfully Breaking List Rules.
Did He? (was: Re: Spoilers:LK,AtA; LaCroix) (3)
Moo! (LK spoiler) (3)
SPOILER: Last Knight (re: Moo!)
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 15:39:57 -0500
From: Robbi Egersdorf <egersdor@m.......>
Subject: SPOILER: Last Knight
I don't believe that I have ever seen an ep of FK that was so complicated
(C&C is the closest) as Last Knight. I have never *consumed* any other
piece of "entertainment" as this one. (Can we call it entertainment. To me
it is so much more and the word falls far short of explaining what it is.)
Follows if an observation:
Last Knight is focused on and pervaded by death from the moment that we see
the water running in the bath.
There are four separate and distinct parts to this story:
First - Life, speaking of how precious it is in the face of loss of that
life. We see someone who has been in so much pain, that the only answer for
them is death. Natalie's friend, Dr. Laura Haynes commits suicide and draws
her into taking a close look at her own life and what is important to her.
Second - Love, she faces that the great love of her life is Nicholas and how
unattainable he is to her from where she stands. She makes a rash decision
to force Nick to take their relationship to the next plane.
Third - Guilt, Tracy is shot and will die soon. Nick sees himself as the
cause. He carries the guilt of the death of many that he has been close to
in the past and the depth of pain is difficult for another to imagine.
Fourth - Moving on, Lacroix convinces Nick that the best solution is moving
on. Moving had meant starting another life and leaving this one behind.
Nick was unable at this point to accept and then decided maybe it would be
best for all concerned if he did. With the fact that Natalie sacrificed
herself, he could no longer live with the guilt of his life and decided the
best way to move on would be for him to die.
Now I want to focus on the scene where Natalie convinces Nick to try
Janette's cure. Nick is brought to the point where he is no longer able to
deny Natalie her request. It is very obvious to me that Natalie is
terrified during the whole process, even before the fangs breach her flesh.
Nick is terrified that he will take her life and so, fulfills his worst
nightmare and takes to much. In this situation, IMHO there is no room for
foreplay with the utter fear that was between the two lovers.
(I've watched it 10 times now. Am I a glutton for punishment or what?)
Robbi
Knightie
Long Live the Knight
egersdor@m.......
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 15:46:42 -0500
From: Robbi Egersdorf <egersdor@m.......>
Subject: SPOILER: Last Knight, addendum
Sorry, I sent my last post before I finished. I left out the fourth and
last part.
Fourth - Faith, in what is next to come. Natalie convinces Nick that faith
is what is needed for them to be together and gives him the last piece that
he needs to be able to bring himself to attempting what she asked of him.
How could he deny her, even through the fear and pain that it caused him?
Robbi
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 17:10:44 PST
From: "P. L. Montgomery" <plcm@j.......>
Subject: Re: Spoilers:LK,AtA; LaCroix
Idalia Kakesako <idaliak@i.......> writes:
>I don't necessarily think that LC *did* stake Nick fatally, but
>I do think he was quite *capable* of doing so, and that he might've
>done so out of his love for Nick.
Au contraire, I think LeCroix is way too selfish to want to lose Nick.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 18:42:23 -0500
From: John & Donna Spert <jjs@i.......>
Subject: Spoiler: AtA, LK, JD, HF, re: characters
Hi, it's Donna this time. I've been pretty emotional about these last two
episodes, mostly because in reading this group I see so many of you have
been hurt by them. I felt pretty cold watching them because if they
weren't the last two shows, I think the characters would have fared
better. Because of you, and because this show and its character have
become dear to me, my heart cannot stay hardened. My understanding of the
TV industry is that the executive producer(s), in this case Misters
Parriott and Slan, are resposable for the content and script approval of
the episodes. Please forgive me if I've mislaid the blame. This has been
a wonderful series from what I have seen (missed first season). However
IMO the last two episodes are a sad cheat for the viewers, the characters,
and the point of the show itself.
Art is, IMO as a former singer, a gift you give away. Yes, people get
paid, but that's the logistics of it. People, creative and technical,
deserve to be paid for their time and efforts, there are costumes and
props to buy, studios to rent, etc. Yes, these characters were created
by Mr. Parriott and he does have the right to do with them as he chooses,
but as art they are also ours by proxy. I feel I've every right to say
they were treated cruelly, and in treating them so we were given a poor
ending to a very fine show.
This show has all along been about Nick's quest for humanity through
atonement. Each show we were shown something of the human condition. We
were given morality lessons without the soapbox, not an easy thing to do.
We were shown the good and the bad sides of human life. Jane Doe is a
good example of this; we have the brutality of the murderer, the horror of
his crimes, but also the compassion of people as shown with Natalie and
Tracy: "We know, we care, and now we're going to do something about it."
Alas, in Jane Doe, we also got a harbinger of things to come; the cheat
of suicide: "No justice Joe". In the end that's what this poor show got,
no justice.
The high ideals this show strove for gave it a mythic quality. While
there are many myths in our culture, I think everyone is familiar with fairy
tales so I'll use those to illustrate my point (actually they can be
controversial, but that's off topic). When I think of fairy tales as myth,
the ones that first spring to mind are the heroic type like Sleeping
Beauty wherein the Princess is released from her sleep by someone who had
the courage and the tenacity to reach her, not ones like The Little
Mermaid in which she fails to gets what she wants so she kills herself.
What was the thinking behind these last two episodes? What are we to
make of them? I sure don't know but I think about every day, when I read
this list and I know you do too.
Death provides closure, surely everyone who has lost a loved one knows
that. But this isn't real life, this is fiction. Death as closure in
fiction is hard to justify and still satisfy the audience when it's a
character you've been rooting for. Yes, there is the noble death, as in A
Tale of Two Cities, but that's not what we got. There is also closure
without trashing most of your characters, but we didn't get that either.
Of the new third season characters only Reese survives! For me the third
season new characters added depth to this show and changed it from a show
I very much liked to my favorite show this year; only seeing Janette more
often could have made it better. The deaths of Cohen and Schanke were sad
and I cried, but they justified it dramaticly and the actors wanted to move
on, their right to do so. Screed showed us personally what the fever was
doing to the vampire community; dramaticly another fine death. But of
Tracy, Vachon and Urs, what am I to think? The show's dead, we don't need
them any more, get out the scythe and mow 'em down?
What can I think of Nick and Nat? She gave him an ultimatum, he lost
control, LaCroix goads him into taking some responsiblity, so he tries to
kill her but can't cause he's mortal because of her (HF). She's not
drained so she comes across (Bad Blood). Nick tries to get LaCroix to
clean up his dirty work. Is this how it had to end with no nobility, no
atonement for Nick, and his mortality gained through Nat's love and his
lack of control? BOO HISS. They deserved better. The show itself
deserved better.
Thank you all who bore with me on this long rant. I know you loved
this show too.
Donna Spert
jjs@i.......
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 17:57:26 -0700
From: Amy R. <akr@n.......>
Subject: SPOILER: LK, HF -- N&N (long)
(With sugary fuzzies to the IBs, to make the pill of MHO easier to swallow.)
The interpretation of Nick's feelings for Natalie, which make all the
difference in interpreting LK, really hinges on four episodes: OtLonely,
BMV, MBIAV and HF. (NiQ shows that he instinctively finds her attractive,
but that's not love, and he doesn't have his memory.)
I will leave OtLonely aside, because I have never heard anyone argue that
Nat does not love Nick, and Nick's behavior in OtLonely is sadly
inconclusive. He could be discovering that he's in love with her, or he
could be doing exactly what he said in her apartment: behaving as a
loving, if overprotective, big brother -- a tendency we've seen him
manifest toward Tracy as well as Fleur.
However, in BMV we come to the central problem: who is Nick lying to? Is
he lying to LC, bluffing that he's merely humoring Nat in order to
perfect his charade of humanity? Or is he lying to Nat, manipulating her
through words and deeds: "how *we* feel," he says (emphasis mine). Which
scene is true? They can't both be.
The way Nick holds Natalie to him after LC leaves has always been a big
mark in favor of his feelings for Nat, as is the tag. The fact that Nick
pulls back from Natalie after the encounter with LC is generally taken as
sacrificing his feelings for Nat's safety; if indeed it is all just what
he tells LC, then why does he not continue it (beyond the obvious that it
would make him a world-class creep)? Taking BMV alone, the alternatives
seem to be that either Nick sincerely believes he loves Natalie, or that
he is cruel and manipulative beyond even LC's darkest hopes.
I, of course, as a Bright and Shiny Knightie, am unwilling to accept that
Nick is using Natalie in that way without a lot more proof (at least he
apologized to Janette when he used her, and at least Janette knew why he
did what he did). So let us move to MBIAV, which only intensifies the
problem.
In MBIAV, Natalie actually articulates the questions that have been
raised about BMV; is Nick just using her? If not, why can't he say so?
Why can't he come up with some way to commit to her? Love needn't be
physical, after all. Nick never articulates an answer to this, and in
the end, prompted by whatever he said in that card, Natalie takes his
very silence as proof of his affection -- and Nick lets her! He echoes
that "you'll never understand how much I care" line from OtLonely, which,
while it may not be "I love you," once again brings up the question: is
he in love, or is he the biggest jerk on the planet?
As near as I can tell, the question of Nick's feelings for Natalie has to
come down to an interpretation of Nick. Is he the kind of man who would
lie to the woman who is ostensibly his best pal, for years, preventing
her from finding real happiness, just in order to add another level to
his mask of normality?
If he is, and yet is still the King of Angst we know (which seems like a
huge contradiction; playing with Nat's heart is not the road to
redemption) then his behavior in LK may be explained as giving in to his
guilt for what he has put Natalie through. If, in fact, he has been
selfishly keeping her hanging, then he is responsible for the "empty
life" she feared.
On the other hand, how then do you reconcile the much-lamented lack of
foreplay in LK with the oft-swooned-over scene in BMV? When it is
assumed that Nick loves Natalie, it is assumed that Nick was stalling for
time and attempting to convince LC that Nat did not really matter to him
in the most direct way he knew. Thus, his lapse in LK -- while truly to
be reprimanded -- is taken as in fact the result of his feelings for Nat.
If Nick does not believe he loves Nat, then his brotherly feelings and
the value he puts on human life were enough to save her in BMV, through
the same "stalling" rationale. But, if this is true, then why was he
willing to bring Tracy over? If Nick does not love Nat, then why does he
value her mortal life above his partner's?
Further, what he said at the end of HF must be taken into account. He
did not say that Janette's cure would not work for them because he didn't
love Nat. He said, "I can't take that kind of chance with your life."
He was clearly implying that he did love Nat, as Janette's cure clearly
required *love*.
As I am unable to reconcile the idea that Nick is a manipulative creep
with his other behavior -- working as a cop to help humanity, helping his
friend in FitP, worrying about the homeless kids in DK, donating the harp
in QoH, not to mention his ever-present sense of right and wrong and the
self-torture that accompanies any wrong act -- then I am compelled to
conclude that, in the third season, Nick sincerely believed he loved Natalie.
In the end, even as she lay dying, he refused to "condemn her to this
darkness." When she was healthy and he refused (AMPH and LK), as he
refused Emily Weiss (StF), the refusal made sense in line with the value
Nick places on mortal life. When she lay dying and he still refused, the
decision contrasts with the fact that he brought the dying Janette back
across against her will, and that he would have brought the dying Tracy
across if Nat hadn't shown up and thrown the dichotomy in his face.
Why was he willing to bring them across, and not Natalie?
He loved her.
**** Amy, Lady of the Knight (akr@n.......) ****
"...what once they were, men who fought beneath the
sun, for Glory, God, or Spanish Gold." -- Susan Garrett
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 17:57:12 -0700
From: Antonia Spadafina <asginger@i.......>
Subject: Last Knight: An observation in non-continuity
Hi all--
I've been NOMAIL for awhile (silly NETCOM has been having major infarctions in
my area and I shut off the mail so I wouldn't be inundated. But I'm going into
withdrawal.
I noticed something a little out of whack in LK. See if what I say is off the
wall.
1) In LK Natalie tells Nick that her life changed 6 years ago on April 14th,
the day he showed up on her slab.
2) Nat then flashes back to OtL where we learned that Nat was celebrating her
30th birthday.
3) The OtL f/b then flashes back to what I guess is DK, where we learn it was
Nat's 28th birthday when Nat ended up in the morgue.
My math's not great, but does this really equal 6 years?
I'm confused.
Can anyone help this math challenged individual?
I've turned mail back on just before posting this.
Toni S.
Knightie from NYC
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 17:59:54 -0700
From: Antonia Spadafina <asginger@i.......>
Subject: A Call to Dottie
Hi all--
Sorry to waste public bandwidth on a private concern, but I'm trying
to contact Dottie Rhodes.
If you're out there, sweetie, please email me at either:
asginger@i....... _OR_ antonia_spadafina@s.......
Or if anyone can contact Dottie, please pass along my email addy's.
Her's is not responding.
Thanks very much,
Toni S.
Knightie from NYC
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 18:00:57 -0700
From: Amy R. <akr@n.......>
Subject: SPOILER: LK, HF -- Flashback Sequence
The fact that the sequence of flashbacks, which Natalie receives as Nick
is draining her, ends with Janette has been taken, in some quarters, as
an indication that Nick's heart has truly been with Janette all along.
This is a plausible explanation; though I insist that Nick consciously
believed he loved Nat, I think that he would have been better off with
Janette, and that he may have allowed his guilt, subconsciously, to
convince him that he loved Nat because he felt he ought to.
However, I can think of alternate interpretations for the way that
sequence ended.
It begins with 4 incidents of draining women, the last of whom, Alissa,
he intended to bring across and failed. 8 flashes later, he is finishing
off Amalia, the only other person (to my knowledge) from whom he's ever
tried to "sip." 5 flashes later, he's thinking of kissing Janette, just
after he has come across himself.
I think that these three spots -- with the CL flash in the middle -- mark
off important moments in the (forgive the term) draining of Nat.
I still don't know who the woman in the very first flash is, but the
second, Sylvaine, he intended to kill. The third, Lisette, he simply
lost control over. From the last, Alissa, he took too much to bring her
across. It seems like a progression from raw instinct to conscious
decision. Probably it was merely representative of Nat being overwhelmed
by images of all the people he's ever drained, but the flash of Amalia
came separately from these.
Why? My theory: that was the point of no return. That was the moment
at which he should have pulled back, and Nat would have been able to
recover as Janette's Robert did.
He didn't, though, and after that point the flashes become more
profound. The memories before that point are of death, hunger, fear, and
pain. The memories after that point include himself as a mortal, riding
in the sun, and reaching out for a cross in a church, in what may have
been his first spiritual moment since he came over. They also include
his final encounter with LC in DK.
And then, at last, comes the memory of kissing Janette (ND, HF). Why, if
not because of his feelings for Janette, would that memory come across at
this point? I posit that it, like the memory of Amalia, marked an
important point in Nat's draining, the point at which she began to come
across, needing only her decision and his blood to complete the process
-- assuming she was drained no further.
Looking beyond the obvious liplock with Janette, that moment recalls other
important things. Nick had just made the choice to live as a vampire
rather than die as a mortal; he'd seized on LC's offered wrist and tasted
his master's blood; and when he reached for Janette, he was under the
influence of the first hunger described in Fever. This moment, this
memory, may be much less about Janette than it is about crossing over.
9zL
***,* Amy, Lady of the Knight (akr@n.......) ****
"It's the basis for this new astrophysics theory of mine."
-- Vachon, by Bonnela
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 22:01:16 -0400
From: esalmas <esalmas@g.......>
Subject: Misc Questions/Some Last Knight
Does anyone know what was the last scene of the series that was filmed? Is
there a blooper reel for this season?
Based on the speculation about whether or not the bullets went through Nick
and hit Tracy, is there any cannon -- or do I just mark it all up to the
typical inconsistencies that fans write fiction about to make it "all
better?" In early episodes the bullets went through Nick -- then there are
some where Nat has to dig them out -- then, of course, there is the famous
bullet in the head that caused his amnesia. (Is it still in there? That may
explain his behavior -- just a thought.)
Eileen Salmas
esalmas@g.......
"The truth is out there. It's just not in my jurisdiction."
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 12:12:38 +1000
From: MARY YOUNG <md.young@s.......>
Subject: Rules for vampire/mortal lovemaking
ok i couldnt resist
RULES FOR THE VAMPIRE
1. If your name is Nick DO SOME FOREPLAY
2. Show him/her (the mortal) how big they are
3. Make sure your fangs are sharp
4. Dont suck too hard you might get backwash comming out of your nose
5. Bite other unusual areas of the body for maximum excitement
RULES FOR THE MORTAL
1. Dont blush when the vamp tells you you are beautiful
2. Wear something that hides bloodstains
3. Dont hold your other artery on the other side of your neck the vamp
will get a faceful
4. Make sure you have not made love to any other vampires this will be
revealed on the flashbacks
5. Dont tell the vamp that you give blood to the bloodbank they will get
jelous of the competition!!
there you may make any comments to
md.young@s.......
or send your suggestions to the list
from
Janettes Fangs
Ravenette 4 eva
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 21:23:42 -0700
From: Idalia Kakesako <idaliak@i.......>
Subject: Re: Last Knight: An observation in non-continuity
At 05:57 PM 5/23/96 -0700, Toni S. wrote:
>1) In LK Natalie tells Nick that her life changed 6 years ago on April 14th,
> the day he showed up on her slab.
>2) Nat then flashes back to OtL where we learned that Nat was celebrating her
>30th birthday.
Okay so far.
>3) The OtL f/b then flashes back to what I guess is DK, where we learn it was
>Nat's 28th birthday when Nat ended up in the morgue.
>
>My math's not great, but does this really equal 6 years?
The flashback inside the flashback to OTL is *not* from DK, but was just a
flashback to two years earlier when Nat was 28. From what I understand, the
first season of Forever Knight takes place *two years* after Nat had met
Nick. So, yes, it does add up.
Hope this helps.
Idalia Kakesako <idaliak@i.......>
Light Cousin, NatPacker, N&NPacker; TTwF
"I blame you for the moonlit skies and the dream that died ..."
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 07:01:01 -0400
From: The Phoenix <jap8@c.......>
Subject: ADMIN: Willfully Breaking List Rules.
Hear ye, hear ye.
It has come to my attention that a certain few people think it's okay to
break the rules of these three lists, and to ignore anything I, or Jamie,
or Laurie, or Allison, or anyone currently on my staff says.
Let me tell each and every one of you... This is NOT the case. It is
*NOT* okay to flagrantly violate list rules. We put them in place for a
reason, and it's not to give you your jollies when you break them.
Certainly, the List Staff is more than tolerant of people, giving everyone
the benefit of the doubt. After all, we're all human (even the Cousins),
and we all make mistakes. However, our beliefs in not being a bunch of
hardasses has apparently caused an adverse reaction... we're not tough, so
people think they can get away with, if you'll pardon the expression,
murder.
Again, this is *NOT* the case.
From now on, we'll be looking for every little last violation of list
rules, and the offenders will be punished accordingly. First violation is
generally a week's nomailing. Second is a week's noposting. Third is a
permanent noposting. Honest mistakes can generally be forgiven.
These rules and the subsequent punishments are not here for you to sneer
at and say 'They wouldn't punish me.' From now on, WE WILL.
This is no bullshit, no joke, no nothing. Enough is enough.
Red,
Listowner, putting both feet down.
/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
The Tastiest Crayon, Her Royal Redness, Jaye the First, the Phoenix.
jap8@c....... // http://cac.psu.edu/~jap8/
MIAWOL.
/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 06:59:04 -0500
From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......>
Subject: Did He? (was: Re: Spoilers:LK,AtA; LaCroix)
At 05:10 PM 5/23/96 PST, you wrote:
> Idalia Kakesako <idaliak@i.......> writes:
>>I don't necessarily think that LC *did* stake Nick fatally, but
>>I do think he was quite *capable* of doing so, and that he might've
>>done so out of his love for Nick.
>
>Au contraire, I think LeCroix is way too selfish to want to lose Nick.
>
Here's the way I look at it:
Either way, LC is not going to stake Nick. Follow me here. If LC is this
new person after AtA, with all this insight into spirituality ("I may even
say a prayer.") and love, then he's NOT going to stake Nick. Why? C'mon,
Nick's last act is to kill Nat (she's not dead yet, but she will be if
nothing is done for her and it will be on Nick's head). LC wouldn't risk
sending someone he loves to hell.
And if he is still the same, loveable, wicked, selfish LC I know and love,
then of course he isn't going to stake Nick. Why? Because he's too
selfish. He's spent the past 100 years trying to keep Nick from becoming
mortal, so why would he suddenly acquiesce now?
Either way, he couldn't have done it. So sayeth I. ;)
Wicked Cousin Tippi
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 07:24:56 -0500
From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......>
Subject: Moo! (LK spoiler)
Some discussion has been going on about Nick's lovemaking techniques, or
lack thereof. Every time I think about it (and yes, I have nothing better
to do than be a sex therapist for TV show vampires!), I do that thing where
you slap your forehead and say "I coulda had a V8!" I keep thinking, why
didn't Nick do that? "I coulda had a cow!"
After 6 years of feeling warm and tingly for Natalie, he couldn't spend a
*little* time preparing? Mood music? Candles? Handcuffs (for protection,
not for kinkiness)?
For gawdsake, boy, suck down a litre or 2 of cow's blood! That way you'd
only have to take a little from Nat! Yeesh!
No point in saying all this NOW, of course. Deed's done. The moment has
passed. Pfft! I just had that one little rant left in me.
Wicked Cousin Tippi
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 09:10:23 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: Did He? (was: Re: Spoilers:LK,AtA; LaCroix)
Wicked Cousin Tippi writes:
>Nick's last act is to kill Nat... LC wouldn't risk sending someone
>he loves to hell.
But there are two things that you're ignoring. One is if we are supposed
to believe that Nick had faith and love for Nat with his promise that
they would be together no matter what happened, then Nick would have
been repentant for Nat's murder. In Christian theology, which is what
Nick has in his basic upbringing, the worst serial killer will be
accepted by God on his deathbed if he is truly repentant and asks for
God's forgiveness. Certainly Nick's grief should indicate that he was
sorry for having killed Nat.
Second is LC's emotional state at the time. I took the bust of LC on
the bar as evidence that LK is not long after AtA (I think he was
planning to leave it behind). LC wanted to leave the painful memories
of what happened with Divia behind him by leaving Toronto. Perhaps
in his own misery he was finally able to see Nick's pain.
Finally, a third thing I just thought of. If LC was indeed his same
wicked, selfish self, Nick not responding to any of his arguments
in a favorable way would have shown even LC that he had lost Nick for
good. LC may have viewed Nick's quest to become mortal again as a
death sentence, but Nick would not even have been searching for that
anymore. Nick would have been looking for death even if as a vampire.
What would LC do in that case? Stay with Nick around the clock to
make sure he didn't walk into the sun or stake himself or engage in
any other self-destructive behavior? I can't see him wanting to do
that for a long time.
LC doesn't have to want to be redeemed himself in order to understand
it's importance to Nick. The fact that Nick still doubted at the end
didn't act as LC hoped to make Nick turn back to him. Nick couldn't
take any more. LC would have to be truly heartless not to see that.
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 09:19:55 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: Moo! (LK spoiler)
Wicked Cousin Tippi writes:
>he couldn't spend a *little* time preparing? Mood music? Candles?
>Handcuffs...? ...suck down a litre or 2 of cow's blood!
Hey, I think Nat should take more of the blame for what happened to
her than Nick. Nick has always been one to let his emotional state
take priority over his good judgment. *Nat* is supposed to be the
logical, practical one. Why wasn't she thinking about taking some
precautions to insure that things went better? Although the answer
to that might be that she was afraid that to suggest any "preparations"
would give Nick time to think that he didn't want to do anything at
all with her. Still, I resent Nick being totally blamed. Nat was
stupid too.
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 08:17:55 -0700
From: Russell Kurtz <russtms@e.......>
Subject: Re: Did He? (was: Re: Spoilers:LK,AtA; LaCroix)
Wicked Cousin Tippi said
>
>Here's the way I look at it:
>
>Either way, LC is not going to stake Nick.
YES! But let's look at a possible different scenario...(and I won't even
have to resort to "Dallas"-style "it was all a dream" idiocy)
LC has had major insights into his own spirituality, and his regard for (I
would even say love of) Nick this season--reaching the peak in Ashes to
Ashes. But, underneath, he's still the selfish man we all know and love
(notice I *don't* say he's evil). The combination of wanting to keep Nick
with him (selfish), and wanting what he thinks is best for Nick
(spiritual/loving), here's how I see a possible outcome of Last Knight
(Note this is *not* canon!):
After being overwhelmed with emotion by Nick telling him "You are my
closest friend" (note tears in LC's eyes!), LC realizes it would be for the
best if Nick and his love will live forever. Therefore:
a. LC stakes Nick, but not fatally, just enough to immobilize him
b. LC then brings Nat across
c. LC removes the stake and the three share enough blood for Nick and Nat
to be strong. Finally,
d. the three of them go to the Coroner's office, break things up to make
it look like a crime, steal some human blood (for Nat's "first hunger"),
steal two or three cadavers of approximately the right sizes, falsify
records to make it seem that these are Nick, Nat, and possibly LC, take the
cadavers to Nick's, burn the place down (make it look like suicide--or
possibly just Nat smoking in bed), and high-tail it for France (where at
least Nick and LC can pass as natives).
Possible? yes. Likely? about as likely as a fourth season.
Cousin Russ
with severe Woofpacker leanings
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 10:50:38 -0500
From: John & Donna Spert <jjs@i.......>
Subject: Re: Moo! (LK spoiler)
On Fri, 24 May 1996, Sandra Gray wrote:
> Hey, I think Nat should take more of the blame for what happened to
> her than Nick. Nick has always been one to let his emotional state
> take priority over his good judgment. *Nat* is supposed to be the
> logical, practical one.
That's the thing. Nat always has been the logical, practical one. She's
pulled him out of bad emotional states many times. Now she needs him to be
logical and clear-headed. What does she get? Slurp.
John
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 12:37:27 -0400
From: Allison Percy <percy91@w.......>
Subject: SPOILER: Last Knight (re: Moo!)
TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......> said:
> After 6 years of feeling warm and tingly for Natalie, he couldn't spend a
> *little* time preparing? Mood music? Candles? Handcuffs [...snip...]
> For gawdsake, boy, suck down a litre or 2 of cow's blood! That way you'd
> only have to take a little from Nat! Yeesh!
I totally agree about the mood music, candles, and handcuffs (hey, I'm
thinking of having Ophelia5's fanfic story "Physical Therapy" tattooed on
the inside of my eyelids; it'd save a lot of time trying to find the thing
to re-read it). ;^)
However, I've always wondered whether drinking a lot of blood would help
or hurt in this kind of circumstance. Do we know whether it would really
satisfy the vampire's hunger, or is it a case of "drink more, want more"?
When Nick finally drained Amalia in the flashback from Crazy Love, I think
I remember LC saying something about how Nick's hunger for the next one
would already be starting. So maybe Nick thought it would be safer not to
toss his low-blood diet out the window. Maybe cutting back on blood also
cuts back somewhat on the hunger for blood (although in Feeding the Beast
we saw that when he *totally* stopped drinking blood, he ended up going
over the deep end). Perhaps he thought that if he guzzled down a couple
of bottles of cow, it would just start up the raging bloodthirst again.
Just a thought... I think I'm leaning toward believing that Nick
couldn't stop because his feelings were overwhelming him in Natalie's
case. It didn't look like it was about *hunger* to me.
-- Allison Percy (percy91@w....... -or- AlliePercy@a.......) --
------ List Babysitter (FORKNI-L, FKSPOILR, FKFIC-L) for a week --------
- *Free* copy of list rules! http://cac.psu.edu/~jap8/FK/FKRules.html --
-------------------------- Rule #1: BE NICE! --------------------------
-- Babysitter's Addendum: Read the Rules and Think Before You Post! ---
=========================================================================
Knight graphics and parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/
