Last Knight (Spoilers)
Debbie Erickson
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
A
H
E
A
D
I just finished watching the last episode of Forever Knight. For
months, I'd heard Nat died in this ep, but I didn't want to believe it!
I *hated* the way they put closure to the series! I'm a NatPacker and
fully expected/hoped that Nick was about to become mortal and share a
happily-ever-after with Nat.
In the very last scene, it *lloks* like LaCroix is killing Nick. I
don't think he has it in him. In his own way, LaCroix sees Nick as a
son. They never show the spear making contact with Nick, so it's
entirely possible that LaCroix could change his mind in mid-strike. I
mean, what if LaCroix can't go thru with it? Nick would still be
alive.
Some questions surface here, too. First, I didn't see
Ashes-to-Ashes. Did Vachon die in that ep? If not, will he be back
for the sequel, I hope? :) In the beginning of the series, Nick tried
killing LaCroix and couldn't. LaCroix was staked to a wall and
survived. So maybe Nick can't be killed that way, either. I think
that would leave room for a return of Nick, LaCroix, Jannette, and
Vachon in a resurected series if we can ever get a studio's attention.
Let's see... We could have them come back in Los Angeles. Nick would be
in the police force and could rid the city of the gangster vamps from
Kindred! LOL!
Debbie
debi...@quick.net
tar...@imap2.asu.edu
Debbie Erickson (debi...@quick.net) wrote:
: S
: P
: O
: I
: L
: E
: R
: S
: A
: H
: E
: A
: D
[...]
: Some questions surface here, too. First, I didn't see
: Ashes-to-Ashes. Did Vachon die in that ep? If not, will he be back
: for the sequel, I hope? :) In the beginning of the series, Nick tried
: killing LaCroix and couldn't. LaCroix was staked to a wall and
: survived. So maybe Nick can't be killed that way, either. I think
: that would leave room for a return of Nick, LaCroix, Jannette, and
: Vachon in a resurected series if we can ever get a studio's attention.
Vachon croaked too. This season was a graveyard of characters. Schanke,
Cohen, Janette, Screed, Vachon, Urs, Divia, Tracy, Natalie, and Nick.
Natalie would have committed suicide just over the workload.
Ben Buckner
buc...@enuxsa.eas.asu.edu
BHelfersta
Remember, the camera cut away after Lacrox said, "Damn you Nicholas!" They
didn't SHOW Nick being staked.
(The Mysterious Story Teller)
David Rosson
: Remember, the camera cut away after Lacrox said, "Damn you Nicholas!" They
Yeah I remember. I can't get that damn line out of my head. It keeps
replaying repeatedly in perfect clarity....AAAAARGH!!!
Sharon O'Neil
>months, I'd heard Nat died in this ep, but I didn't want to believe it!
> I *hated* the way they put closure to the series! I'm a NatPacker and
>fully expected/hoped that Nick was about to become mortal and share a
>happily-ever-after with Nat.
I loved it. It would be wrong for there to be a happy ending. It was
not going to happen. FK is good because it is a dark show.
>Some questions surface here, too. First, I didn't see
>Ashes-to-Ashes. Did Vachon die in that ep? If not, will he be back
>for the sequel, I hope? :)
He, in fact, staked himself right in front of Tracy.
>Let's see... We could have them come back in Los Angeles. Nick would be
>in the police force and could rid the city of the gangster vamps from
>Kindred! LOL!
The show ending with a perfect tragedic ending. I wouldn't change
a thing.
Nick is a true tragic hero. His pride destroyed him. He wanted to
change but he never could. The only way he could possibly become
mortal would be to have faith and to seek forgiveness from God and
he never was able to do that. He even said in the last episode that
faith is a mortal folly. His fear is that of dying. He wanted to
be forgiven, but never was willing to do what he needed to be forgiven
In fact, one would say that he was always forgiven but never really
truly believed it. His real ultimate sin was one of despair.
JohnGorno
In article <4nnqa9$v...@news.quick.net>, debi...@quick.net (Debbie
Erickson) writes:
>In the very last scene, it *looks* like LaCroix is killing Nick. I
>don't think he has it in him. In his own way, LaCroix sees Nick as a
>son. They never show the spear making contact with Nick, so it's
>entirely possible that LaCroix could change his mind in mid-strike. I
>mean, what if LaCroix can't go thru with it? Nick would still be
>alive.
>
The terrible thing (as he sees it) for Lacroix is not merely destroying
Nick. After all, he does it by choice. It is that Nick forces him to act
out of love, violating his narrow, selfish, material view of existence.
Nick forces Lacroix to validate Nat's faith in the afterlife and the
triumphant power of love, and to sacrifice his son in its name.
Remember that Lacroix deeply fears the possibility of God (consider: "A
More Permanent Hell," the comet episode), a fear that I think of as
fatalistic: he doubts, and that is weakness, so he would rather have the
certainty of nothingness than an uncertain faith. I think that his
attitude towards Nick's quest was always of the same quality: he was
being cruel to be kind, to protect Nick from the pain and ultimate
disappointment he was subjecting himself to. His role in the past is of
the harsh Father, who scathes his son in the attempt to make him tougher
(reasonable for a Roman general). As is common, the effect was reversed,
and the son driven away from his Father's philosophy. Only in the present
does Lacroix start to treat Nick as a grown man, with patience and
respect, and Nick responds by not blaming him so much and allowing him to
be in his life.
He always seemed to me to have some shred of decency: he protests too
hard, and understands Nick's qualms too well to not understand them, hence
he must have felt them once, or shares them yet. Recall, in one flashback
to Nick's first victim: "It is called guilt, Nicolas: the last vestige
of your humanity. You must abandon it or it will torment you always."
How would he know?). One wonders whether Lacroix once shared Nick's
quest, or at least his motivation to become a "moral vampire." His
interaction with Divia in the tomb isn't very Lacroix-ish, yet.
Embittered by his failure, it would make sense for him to reject it
altogether and attempt to turn his son from this bitter path, to make Nick
the perfect vampire his Father could never be ("Coach Dad," to coin a
label: "What are you, weak!? I want twenty laps, you maggot!")
Leaving aside any speculation on Lacroix's past, I assert that these human
qualities exist in Lacroix, hidded behind a bulwark of studied cynicism,
self-interest, and habit. But now Nick has infected him. Lacroix can not
deny the reality of his act, and its basis. He can no longer deny that he
feels compassion, sympathy, pity, love, doubt, obligation, memory,
remorse, and oh yes, guilt! His suppressed humanity will now surely be
loose again. "Last Knight"'s conclusion fundamentally changes Lacroix,
and he will be a much more interesting and varied personality after it,
with no small resemblance to the dear departed. This is the only clearly
triumphant aspect of this whole dark episode, and ironic.
JF
Mike Miller
Ah, the guilt issue...yes, as per AtA, we see a definitely more "human"
side to LaCroix--and we finally have an answer as to why he is the way
is--it is, in fact more than just the vamipiric nature, as he claims to
Nick that it is, and that this dark nature is not as given to vamipires
as he tries to make everyone believe that it is. There a stark albeit
maginifcent contrast between LC & Nick on this issue. (Sorry if I'm
stumbling on this--I think faster than I type, and unfortunately my STM
isn't as strong as I'd like...)
We now know that LC, too has suffered form guilt, as you pointed
out--and has been for over a thousand years, wihtout ever having
confided in ANYONE!! While I do think that it's *touching* that LC
chooses Nick to be his confidante, imagine the amount of guilt that he
must have racked up and REPRESSED over that time period!!! Is it any
wonder, really, that he would be as evil as has been for some many
centuries, given what he has had to live with? And as we know from LK,
he would not consider suicide (Like Erica, "Last Act") as option for the
end to his pain. In today's world, I would venture to say that he would
be spending a significant portion of his life in therapy, but of course
that isn't a possibility. ;)
As for Nick--remember in "Blackwing", when Marian took some of
his"darkness" she took his guilt, and when that happened his morals of
not killing innocent humans lessened. So...my assumption is that just
being a vampire alone does not give them an inherently dark nature, nor
does it make everything clear--Vashon and Urs-and Screed-are not "dark",
and certainly sone uncertainty can occur, as we see with Janette. It is
the guilt--the perception of it, the reaction to it-- that makes them
who they are. LC internlaizes it, doesn't know how to deal with it, and
prefers to ignore its existance all-together, and it eats at him, making
him kill inscrminately , perhaps in an effort to purge or lessen the
guilt? Nick, however, chooses to take his guilt and turn it into
something more positive--his quest for humanity, which also leads him to
make the moral judgment not to kill any who are "innocent", and then
kills only when "necessary".
OK, I'll quit now. Any thoughts on this matter? Any and all comments
accepted. :)
~~Christina~~