FKSPOILR
Logfile LOG9605 Part 52
May 24-May 26, 1996
File: "FKSPOILR LOG9605" Part 52
TOPICS:
SPOILER: LK, HF -- N&N (long)
spoiler: lk, fourth season (2)
Reese (Spoiler LK, etc)
Nat's song?
SPOILERS: AtA and LK "Cuts" and "Intent"
Nick loved Nat! (5)
SPOILERS: LK (was RE: Nick loved Nat!) (6)
Something I have noticed
SPOILERS: Last Knight (ep 22) Tracy (2)
SPOILER: Last Knight
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 20:30:35 -0700
From: Cynthia Hoffman <choff@v.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK, HF -- N&N (long)
On Thu, 23 May 1996, Amy R. wrote:
> (With sugary fuzzies to the IBs, to make the pill of MHO easier to swallow.)
Thank for the thought, but I choose to disagree with you rather than
accept the sugar rush.
> 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
I opt for door number 2. Natalie is Nick's friend. He loves her as a
friend, and is protecting her in the same way that I would protect all of
my friends in the same situation.
> 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?
How can Nick lie that successfully to Lacroix? Canon provides for a link
between master and fledgling which allows one to know what the other is
feeling. The flashback in Killer Instinct shows that Lacroix did not
teach Nick all he needed to know about that link, which is why Nick cannot
always locate Lacroix, or tell what he's feeling. However, I have no
doubt that Lacroix is able to make that connection sing. He certainly
never seems to have any trouble locating his prodigal son.
The only way, IMHO, that Nick could get away with lying to Lacroix is if
Lacroix decided to allow it. This is contrary to everything we know and
love about Lacroix.
> Or is he lying to Nat, manipulating her through words and deeds: "how
> *we* feel," he says (emphasis mine). Which scene is true?
Nick has never said that he loves Natalie in a romantic way. So, he can
hardly be accused of lying. Perhaps this is a matter of semantics, but I
think that they are important to Nick. However, he definitely does
manipulate her.
> 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
Hmm... I don't understand this. Nick got himself all aroused by drooling
over Natalie. Any male (or female for that matter) in his position is
bound to find it hard to just pull back and pretend that nothing happened.
How does the tag show Nick's feelings for Natalie? Ostensibly, all of her
memory of the events at Azure have been taken away from her (I don't want
to get into *that* argument right now). If Nick was worried about her
feelings, why wouldn't an explanation suffice? I was doing it to save
your life would be acceptable to me. Then again, if I was Natalie and
thought I'd spent an evening with a vampire, I would be very suspicious of
the fact that I didn't remember what had happened. She does know all
about vampiric abilities, including hypnosis.
> 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.
Manipulative yes, but how is he cruel? Nick is a vampire. He has spent
centuries in that world, living outside of the human definitions of love,
faith and charity. Cruelty implies a conscious decision to hurt someone.
I don't think Nick is aware of the ramifications of his behaviour and
their effect on Natalie. He does not, after all, have a lot of experience
dealing with mortal emotions, especially the romantic ones.
In I Will Repay, Nick states that Natalie is the only one who has ever
believed in his humanity. A few years of life in Toronto with mortal
friends is not going to cause a 180 degree turnaround in Nick's emotional
makeup. While he has changed over the course of the show, he has not done
so to that extent.
> 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).
Okay, so he apologized to Janette and that makes it okay for him to use
her? Not in my book. And, if he is capable of using Janette, why would
you think that he is not capable of using Natalie? It seems to me that
the tendency to manipulate other people is an inherent part of Nick's
character.
> 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?
Nick never answers her, does he? If he loved her, if he was not using
her, if he wanted to commit to her, but was being prevented from doing so
by his vampiric nature, why would he not say so? It is an eminently
acceptable and valid reason for not doing any of those things.
> 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,
So, the fact that Nick doesn't correct Natalie's misapprehensions about
his feelings means that he loves her. Is Nick aware of exactly how far
Natalie's feelings have stretched? He has never shown himself to be the
best judge of the emotions of others.
If someone I loved said "you'll never understand how much I care" to me,
my response would be "try me". IMHO, Natalie doesn't push Nick to explain
himself because she doesn't really want to know the truth.
> 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?
How did Nick lie to Natalie? He never, ever, ever in any episode said
that he loved her. The closest he came was in BMV when he asked what they
were going to do about those feelings. He did not specify what feelings
he was talking about. Some people have chosen to interpret this is as
meaning romantic feelings. I choose to view it as lust (an equally valid
emotion). IMHO, lust and love are not the same thing.
> 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.
Nick never said anything to indicate that he accepted responsibility for
Natalie's empty life. On the contrary, in Only the Lonely, Nick
specifically tells Natalie that if he's not careful, he will have this
kind of effect on her life. He then suggests that she go out and have fun
in the mortal world.
IMHO, Nick's behaviour in LK is the direct result of Natalie's
manipulation. He desperately wants to be a part of the mortal world, with
the love and trust that that implies. She offers it to him on a silver
platter. I don't absolve him of responsibility for what happens to her.
He predicts the outcome, but proceeds anyway. The truth is that neither
Nick nor Nat ought to be making that type of decision at that particular
juncture in time. They are both suffering from emotional trauma, and
neither of them is thinking clearly.
> 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?
He doesn't love her. In LK, Nick knows exactly what is going to happen
when he bites Natalie. He just wants to get it over with ... perhaps
hoping that he won't get aroused enough to drain her completely, or simply
not wanting to prolong the agony.
In BMV, Nick is trying to persuade Lacroix not to kill Natalie. Nick is
fighting for his best friend's life. So, he overdoes it and slurps all
over her. If Nick really loved Natalie, wouldn't he be gentler, more
romantic? Even after Lacroix leaves, there is no romance in Nick's
actions towards Natalie.
> 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?
From the very beginning in Dark Knight, Natalie has consistently expressed
her distate for vampirism. The only exceptions are I Will Repay and A
More Pemanent Hell. In IWR, Natalie is trying to save her baby brother's
life. When Richard turns renegade, however, Natalie does not blame Nick
for staking him. AMPH is a little different. She actively goes out and
tries to have someone bring her across after Nick refuses. Again, though,
Natalie is under extreme emotional trauma in this episode. She believes
that mortal life as she knows it is about to end, and on top of this, has
spent hours and hours working alone in the morgue, doing autopsies and
covering up vampire kills. She is not thinking clearly. And, when it is
all over, Natalie is relieved that Nick prevented Spark from bringing her
across.
Given Natalie's consistently expressed desire not to become a vampire, and
her constant pressure and arguments with him over her "cures", why would
Nick assume that she wanted to become a vampire? It wasn't as if he was
listening to the images in her blood or anything.
> 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."
If Nick loved Natalie absolutely, without doubt or reservation, he would
not hesitate to jump at a sure cure for his vampirism. The very fact that
he is concerned that attempting this cure would result in Natalie's death
indicates to me that he does not love Nat enough and he knows it.
> 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
<several altruistic examples snipped>
> conclude that, in the third season, Nick sincerely believed he loved Natalie.
I don't think Nick is a manipulative creep. He never told Natalie he
loved her. He expressed doubts. He even encouraged her to go out and
find a mortal to love. He never lied to her.
I can't stop you from reading what you want into any given episode.
However, there is nothing in any word ever spoken by Nick which indicates
that he has told Natalie that he loves her, nor that he does in fact love
her. The opposite, however, can be proven from the dialogue.
> Why was he willing to bring them across, and not Natalie?
Nick brought Janette across because he loves her. She is his lover, his
sister and his friend. They spent many centuries loving and fighting
around the world. He knew Janette as a mortal for only a very short time.
The vampire Janette supported him, gave him a shoulder to cry on when he
was having problems functioning in the mortal world. She was his bridge
between the mortal and vampire worlds. In a fit of incredible
selfishness, he chose to ignore her clearly stated wishes and bring her
back across. Why? Because he loved her. Because he could not imagine
living in a world that does not contain her. Just like he says in Dead
Issue.
As for Tracy, Nick was suffering from emotional trauma and intense guilt.
He watched Tracy saying goodbye to Vachon and did nothing to help her. He
holds himself responsible for her death. She reproaches him with her
dying breath for not telling her that he was a vampire. So, he wants to
assuage his guilt by preventing her from dying.
Nick has refused to bring people across before. He has not loved any of
them. IMHO, he does not love Natalie except as a friend.
Jane (with Cynthia), both of whom hate debating BMV and are glad the cast
didn't like it either
Jane Credland/janes@i.......
Cynthia Hoffman/choff@v.......
Raven ** IB ** MBDtK
We cater to the occasional fetishist
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 00:44:59 CDT
From: "OREL, SARA" <FA55@n.......>
Subject: spoiler: lk, fourth season
Amy commented that the fourth season could start with a murder... I see
no reason (other than that the show has been a cop show with a twist)
for Nick to be a cop in the next season. There would be other ways for
him to pay back for his sins. He could be a lawyer (okay okay, he
couldn't be in day court, but he could research and write environmental
or criminal law briefs at night); he could work at cleaning up National
Park campgrounds and picnic-grounds (okay, okay, I am presenting some
really boring ideas here -- help me out people). He has clearly not
been exclusively a cop since he decided he would not kill people. He
spent time as an archaeology professor, and he was on the Titanic (why?
was that ever explained in BB, or in fanfic (haven't been on the fic
list for a while -- just no time...))looking mighty playboy-like, not
like a cop at all.
But other than the original concept (okay, okay, a very big
proviso) there is no reason for Nick to be a cop in the next season.
Perhaps he could be running a homeless shelter, or a battered women's
shelter, or a home for runaways. Any would be interesting and offer
story possibilities, don't you think? I'd be curious what you all think
about what Nick could/would be doing, IFF he survives into the fourth
season. Such discussions should probly stay on the spoiler list,
unfortunately.
I do not think Nick can stay in Toronto (bummer -- on the other
list, the discussion of why I watch FK? It was a chance to see Toronto,
where I lived for six years, every week, and then only after I started
watching did I discover that it was a vamp show -- would have watched
for the vamps, but the city brought me in... My best friend in T.O is
now moving back to Halifax, so I won't have anyone to freeload on
anymore. Bummer again). He has just killed Natalie -- I really
honestly do think that is what happened -- and even if they bury her,
her absence will be noted. I didn't see any indication that she left a
resignation note behind, so people won't expect her to just drop off the
face of the earth. I kinda like the symmetry of just leaving hte body
to be found, but I know that Nick wouldn't do that...
Anyway, Nick still has to face the board of inquiry in the double
shooting, and my guess is he will be made very clearly a scapegoat for
Tracey's death. She was the commissioner's daughter, after all. (should
have stayed in white collar crime, dearie). Someone will have to pay.
Nick will. And then you have all that he has worked for lost, and
Lacroix, his closest friend, is offering him some peace and
companionship, and they obviously have travelled well together in the
past. My take on the matter is that he will leave.
Anyway, my two cents worth. I'm curious to hear if those who
suggested a virtual season are still thinking in that direction?
Sara Orel
FA55%nemomus@a.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 06:30:06 -0700
From: "Andrew E. Nystrom" <wo991@f.......>
Subject: Reese (Spoiler LK, etc)
Does anyone think that Reese is long overdue to lose his job? Even
before he let this inmate run loose sans handcuffs and letting him get
another cop's gun, there was another ep where I see to recall a woman
bringing in a weapon to attack her brother, who was an inmate (I can't
remember all the details of that ep), and then there's that recent ep
where Reese broke a few rules on a vigilante kick.
I suspect if a 4th season or TV movie does appear, it'll continue the
tradition of a new police captain each year.
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 13:58:26 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: spoiler: lk, fourth season
I think Nick would have left Toronto too because of Nat and because
of the investigation into Tracy's and Dawkins' deaths. It's possible
that he would go back to feeding on people (feeling more damned by
what happened to Nat). As for jobs, Nick's got plenty of money and
doesn't *need* to work. If he still wanted to help people, he might
become a helpful drifter (like Caine on the original Kung Fu). Or
if he settled in one place, he could become a private investigator
(with a mortal friend who covered the day work). Janette could have
a club in the city where he was and LC could reprise his Nightcrawler
gig at another station. I don't know that he would want to be a cop
again for a while.
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 17:27:35 -0400
From: Diane Shea <KerrRaven@a.......>
Subject: Nat's song?
Is it just me or is the song by Voice From the Beehive called "Scary Kisses"
(or something like that) very appropriate for Nat?
Lyrics approximate;
Baby give me scary kisses, I want hits and I want misses...
If you give me safety in short a time I'll be driven crazy
I would rather run and fall, then take no chance at all
Run your finger through the flames, and I will do the same
Together we will fall, together we will rise
Together we will do everything but compromise
I had been thinking this earlier, but after LK it really seems to fit.
--Cousin Diane
Eternal Seducer
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 15:11:22 -0700
From: Karen Stortz <firefox4@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: AtA and LK "Cuts" and "Intent"
Sandra Gray:
Regarding your post from last Tuesday, it's more than kind of you to
apologise for any of your comments that may offend people on the list,
but in my opinion, it's completely unneccessary. We're not flaming
each other here. We're commenting on an <<entertainment product>> that
was offered for <<sale>>, with us as the end consumers. I don't have
to agree with everything you say (when it comes to Nat, I don't), but
you have every right to say it without apology to anyone.
Karen
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 18:59:38 -0500
From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject: Re: Nick loved Nat!
I moved this over to the Spoiler list, 'cause it refers to the dream
in Human Factor, and I am taking no chances. Hope everyone involved
in the original discussion is on this list.
At 04:27 PM 5/25/96 -0500, TippiNB wrote:
>I'm not saying one way or the other whether Nick loves Nat or not. I'm just
>saying it's kind of hard to use dreams as evidence.
Given that we're talking about a television show, the producers of the show
decided to put the dream scene in there. This is not the same as having
a dream in real life. The producers put the dream in for a reason, and so
I think we can use the dream as evidence.
Margie (treeleaf@i.......)
N&NPacker
Still looking for a Nick-LaCroix faction that works for me
(Becoming kind of partial to The Ties That Bind - Did someone suggest
that before?)
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 17:30:34 -0700
From: Cynthia Hoffman <choff@v.......>
Subject: Re: Nick loved Nat!
Moving this one from forkni for obvious reasons at this point.
Tippi wrote:
> >I'm not saying one way or the other whether Nick loves Nat or not. I'm just
> >saying it's kind of hard to use dreams as evidence.
Then Leslie I.Plummer wrote:
> Yes, Human Factor was before I was taping, so my memory was/is a little
> hazy. I think is was not a sleeping type of dream, but a life/goal
> dream or reflection on what had occurred in the ep. (no spoilers)
He was sound asleep on the couch and woke up abruptly to the sound of
Reese on his answering machine inviting him in to work. Dreams are
dreams, n'est-ce pas?
> A daydream? Manifestation of a deep fantasy of his? Can anyone help
> us here? Is HF on spoiler protection? If so, let's all take a step
> over the the FKPOILR list. (Sorry, if it IS protected...)
I've moved it for us. If that sequence was a deep fantasy of his, I vote
it was a fantasy about mortality and child rearing, NOT a fantasy about
having a future with Nat.
And my personal opinion of that particular sequence is bleh anyway. Those
goofy looks and idiotic dialogue were utterly out of character for both of
them, no matter what kind of fantasy it was.
Finally, for what it's worth, it's not that I think Nick doesn't love Nat;
I simply don't believe it's the romantic kind of googoo eyed love that the
Nick&NatPack thinks it is. It's a nice, sweet, loving friendship kind of
thing ... with a healthy dose of hormones. No more, no less.
Cynthia, starting to feel like a curmudgeon
Cynthia Hoffman/choff@v.......
Raven ** IB ** MBDtK
We cater to the occasional fetishist
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 21:12:33 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: SPOILERS: LK (was RE: Nick loved Nat!)
Personally, I don't know if it makes much difference now whether Nick
loves Nat or not since I think we're meant to think that they both
died in LK. Unless people want to subscribe to the idea that love can
continue in the same fashion in the afterlife.
But consider what the possibilities are if both of them survived.
Nat *was afraid* of the vampire in Nick. So is she still going to
care as much for Nick after almost dying or will she decide that she
can't accept the vampire or the prospect of becoming one herself. I
don't think Nick would ever have brought Nat across and I really can't
see LC particularly wanting to do that either. So, if Nat survived,
it was as a human (after being flown to a hospital for treatment).
But I think it would be equally possible for TPTB to decide that she
had died a mortal.
Imo, the only ways Nat could have been brought over were if LC did it
or if it happened spontaneously by accident (as with Jack in Bad
Blood). In the first instance, would Nick love Nat as much if she
was a vampire? I think his guilt (*however* she would come across,
he would feel he had a major hand in it) would cause problems in their
relationship. Nick might even not want to have anything to do with
her. Her being brought over does not, imo, guarantee that they would
be happy vampire lovers. And if Nick's guilt were not enough, what
about LC? If he's the same wicked selfish vampire that Tippi thinks
he should be, he's not going to want Nick to be happy with his love.
Taken to its extreme, LC could either assure Nick that Nat's *dead*
when he knew she was brought across and leave her to her own devices
or (if he brought her over) use his master bond to control her actions
and affections.
I think that *if* a movie (or a fourth season) is made, we won't see
Nat in it. Or if we do, the relationship between Nick and Nat will
be one of conflict. And what about Janette? She may not have liked
Nick bringing her back across in HF, but there is 800 years of
history between her and Nick so I believe they *will* come back
together again sometime. Nick's "near death" might have been felt
by her and have brought her back on the scene. Of course, maybe the
three of them (Nick, Nat, and Janette) could form a happy threesome,
( ;) ) but I rather doubt that myself.
One of the attractions for Nick to Nat was her mortality. He wouldn't
view her the same if she was a vampire. She would be instead a
constant reminder of his failure.
If a movie were made, unless Nat was brought back as a mortal (saved
by a quick transfusion at the hospital), I think it would be more
likely that we would see another mortal (or mortals) interacting with
Nick instead. I don't know about others, but I would find it odd to
see Nat take Janette's place as vampire confidante and lover for Nick
(I'd rather see Janette in that place, but no, I'm not an Immortal
Beloved because I still would want Nick to regain his mortality and
he would be less likely to do that if he was involved with a vampire
relationship).
It's possible, though, for one vampire relationship to work: Nick and
Janette. If Janette had truly come to understand Nick's quest and
want to become mortal again, they could seek for mortality together.
I suppose Nick and Nat could choose to do this too, but I don't see
them having such a smooth relationship if Nat was brought across
(but then again, I'm not a N&NPacker). Nat would have a disadvantage
of trying to adjust to her new state of vampirism. I think it would
be as hard for her to deal with it as it was for her brother Richard.
But hey, who knows what strange thing TPTB would come up with?
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 21:18:40 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: Nick loved Nat!
And fantasies are *fantasies*! I might fantasize (even dream) about
getting it on with Ger ;), but that's not something I have any
expectation of happening in real life!
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 21:34:41 -0400
From: Angie <alasher@e.......>
Subject: Something I have noticed
Has anyone noticed that Ger looks a whole lot like the "Christian/Gospel"
Singer Bryan Duncan? Man they are look alikes (If Nick would smile more!). I
bought my first Bryan Duncan cause it looked like Ger in the Music video.
Lasher
~~Unnamed Faction ~~
~~~~Cousin of the Knight(pending)~~~~
~~~~Bunny~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOO Member~~~~
**http://home.earthlink.net/~alasher**
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 18:57:10 -0700
From: Amy R. <akr@n.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: LK (was RE: Nick loved Nat!)
Sandra wrote:
> Janette. If Janette had truly come to understand Nick's quest and
> want to become mortal again, they could seek for mortality together.
Yes, and just after I got to see the *whole* HF, I suggested that this
was the proper way for Knighties to secure Janette for Nick. And I've
been putting "(Im)Mortal Beloved" among my affiliations ever since. :)
I'm going to cull quotes from BMV and MBIAV this weekend, in order to
address the N&N issue -- I think Nick loved Natalie, but that they would
have been better off with other people. However, I'm curious; besides
Cynthia and Jane, are there very many people who feel that there was
never any romantic love toward Nat from Nick? And is this a very old
debate -- did it start with OtL, with BMV, or in third season?
*** Amy, Lady of the Knight (akr@n.......) ***
"A man's spirit may be superior not only to his
fate but even to his own acts." -- Robert Ornstein
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 20:53:06 -0500
From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject: Re: Nick loved Nat!
At 05:30 PM 5/25/96 -0700, Cynthia Hoffman wrote:
>Finally, for what it's worth, it's not that I think Nick doesn't love Nat;
>I simply don't believe it's the romantic kind of googoo eyed love that the
>Nick&NatPack thinks it is. It's a nice, sweet, loving friendship kind of
>thing ... with a healthy dose of hormones. No more, no less.
About the kind of love Cynthia thinks Nick has for Nat, my question is,
what else do you need? Oh well, to each their own.
Margie (treeleaf@i.......)
N&NPacker
Still looking for a Nick-LaCroix faction that works for me
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 21:48:49 -0500
From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......>
Subject: Re: Nick loved Nat!
Margie wrote in referrence to the dream scene in Human Factor:
>Given that we're talking about a television show, the producers of the show
>decided to put the dream scene in there. This is not the same as having
>a dream in real life. The producers put the dream in for a reason, and so
>I think we can use the dream as evidence.
But if we start looking at it from a "what do the producers want us to
think" point of view, rather than treating the episodes at face value, we're
going to run into problems. When we read a novel, we shouldn't be thinking
"Well it must be true, because the writer put it in here. They must have
put it in here for a reason." Sure -- and that reason may be to deceive the
reader. We can't trust the writer. We can't look at the writer's reason --
we must look at the character's reason. (I've been a writer many years, and
I *wish* sometimes people would just take what I say as true. ;) )
To keep the analogy clear (relating TV to TV and real life to real life), we
can use the producer's desires only to prove that they *want* us to believe
Nick and Nat are in love. Remember, from a real life POV (which includes
the producer's POV), Nick and Nat don't exist -- they are mere characters.
We can't use their interpretation about the characters any more than we can
use F. Scott Fitzgerald's interpretation about whether or not Gatsby really
loved Daisy. The only person we can look to for answers is Gatsby.
The TV producers might shed insight into the *characters* of Nick and Nat,
but not into the *people* of Nick and Nat.
If Nick loves the girl, then why shouldn't we be able to find evidence in
*reality*? Maybe we can. Or maybe we can't. I'm not a N&Npacker, so
that's not my job. ;)
Take, for instance, the recent discussion on the Unnamed Faction loop.
Someone passed along Nigel Bennett's thoughts on vampire sexuality. Very
interesting reading, but we can't use it to prove one way or the other about
the FK vampires' sexuality. You can't use real life (in this case, NB) to
prove something that happens on TV (in this case, the FK vampires' sex
preferrences). It would be easy, true, but essentially useless.
WCT
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 21:49:56 -0500
From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: LK (was RE: Nick loved Nat!)
Sandra wrote:
>about LC? If he's the same wicked selfish vampire that Tippi thinks
>he should be, he's not going to want Nick to be happy with his love.
I never said that he *should* be wicked and selfish. Only that I want him
to be. ;)
To reiterate: I still don't think LC could have fatally staked Nick, either
way you look at it. If he's still selfish, then he's not going to want to
lose Nick. If he's the kinder gentler religious LC we see in AtA, then he's
not going to stake Nick because he won't risk sending the boy to hell.
Yes, I know, someone (maybe you?) brought up Christian theology about being
truly repentent, etc. Christians might agree on that theory (and not all of
them do; I've been to enough Sunday school to know that), but we're talking
about LC here. Given his history and past attitudes, I don't think that
*he* thinks one's being repentent is going to excuse one from hell.
I'm no optimist, you know. I'm quite surprised I feel this way. ;)
WCT
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 21:38:52 -0500
From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: LK (was RE: Nick loved Nat!)
At 06:57 PM 5/25/96 -0700, Amy R. wrote:
>I think Nick loved Natalie, but that they would have been better off
>with other people.
In a way, it's sort of impossible to talk about who Nick is better off
with, even if he and Natalie are both still alive. Nick doesn't even
know who he is yet; he's not going to be able to manage a relationship
with anybody.
>besides Cynthia and Jane, are there very many people who feel that there
>was never any romantic love toward Nat from Nick?
I see it like Cynthia does, if I understand what she's saying, but to me,
that _is_ romantic love.
>And is this a very old debate -- did it start with OtL, with BMV, or in
>third season?
It started when they met and just grew.
Margie (treeleaf@i.......)
N&NPacker
Still looking for a Nick-LaCroix faction that works for me
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 22:46:51 -0400
From: Catherine A Siemann <cas47@c.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: LK (was RE: Nick loved Nat!)
On Sat, 25 May 1996, Amy R. wrote:
> have been better off with other people. However, I'm curious; besides
> Cynthia and Jane, are there very many people who feel that there was
> never any romantic love toward Nat from Nick? And is this a very old
> debate -- did it start with OtL, with BMV, or in third season?
Well, for what it's worth -- and I'm a KFC&J (Known Friend of Cynthia &
Jane's) -- I never saw any romantic attraction between Nick & Nat and was
actually surprised when I got on the mailing list and read all the
Nick/Nat disucssions and romantic fanfic. When I first saw BMV (I
came to the show in the second season), I thought it was one of those
typical episodes where two just-friends characters suddenly "discover"
each other, but that things would be back to normal by the end of the
episode. Like when Hawkeye and Hot Lips got trapped somewhere on M*A*S*H
and ended up in each other's arms. I've never seen the chemistry between
them.
Catherine
cas47@c.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 23:32:59 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: LK (was RE: Nick loved Nat!)
Catherine Siemann writes:
>I've never seen the chemistry between them.
I didn't see much chemistry between Nick and Nat. The scene between
them that I got the most "charge" out of was the one in BMV where
Nick is slobbering over her after LC tells him to prove he doesn't
love her by bringing her over. And Nat was relativelly unconscious in
that. I've enjoyed many of Nick's "neck of the week" romantic
encounters more than his romantic encounters with Nat.
But there was a *lot* of chemistry between Nick and Janette. Even
when they weren't being all that romantic.
Of course there's more to love than just "chemistry". But Nick has
always struck me as a physical, passionate sort of guy so I would
think he'd appreciate some chemistry (I know I did ;) ).
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 01:22:31 -0500
From: Cyberspace Vanguard Magazine <vanguard@p.......>
Subject: Re: Fwd. Re: SPOILERS: Last Knight (ep 22) Tracy
>I thought this was a cool way to do it (and still do). However, I kept
>wondering when Reese was gonna notice the bullet holes in the back of
>Nick's jacket. No one *ever* seems to, though.
Not to mention the holes in the front of his shirt.
Nick Knight: The world's only owner of the vinyl and Leather Repair
Kit (remember those?)
I've got a question: More than once it's been mentioned that bullets
pass through a vampire uninterrupted. If that was always the case, then
Nat wouldn't be digging them out of Nick, right? So what gives?
--- TJ
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 01:23:55 -0500
From: Cyberspace Vanguard Magazine <vanguard@p.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Last Knight
>If you remember in Blackwing Nick is shown rebuttoning his shirt while
>Marion lies asleep in bed. I always took this to mean that he and she had
>been "together". Since she had taken the killer out of him , he was safe to
>have sex (and why didn't he run to Nat? HUH? No, I'm not a Natpacker but
Personally, I'm more likely to believe that THAT whole episode was a
hallucination than that LK was. <g>
I'm REALLY glad that I didn't find FK until about half-way through this
season. Had I started with Blackwing, HOD, etc., I never would have gotten
hooked.
---- TJ
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 01:35:33 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: Fwd. Re: SPOILERS: Last Knight (ep 22) Tracy
TJ writes:
>I've got a question: More than once it's been mentioned that bullets
>pass through a vampire uninterrupted. If that was always the case, then
>Nat wouldn't be digging them out of Nick, right? So what gives?
It's not always the case that bullets pass through FK vampires. But
neither is it impossible (just as it is not impossible for bullets to
pass through a mortal body). An example of a bullet that apparently
passed through Nick is is first season's For I Have Sinned. He takes
a bullet to the stomach while trying to save a mortal woman from
being kidnapped by a serial killer. She sees this happen and he
clutches his stomach and tells her to get help. But after she leaves,
he straightens up and goes away, and the camera shows the hole in the
wall behind him. There may be other episodes where bullets have
passed through Nick, but I can't recall any others right now.
--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/
