Moments that made you go "WHAT?!!!!"

[MagnusTrask]

This has nothing to do with whether we want to see Carl live or not.    The problem is that Barnabas killed him.   It's the immoraity or amorality of it.   And Carl wasn't like Willie at all.   You don't kill an innocent relative, a decent guy who just wanted to save his fiancee, to shut him up. 

Part of my point was that the murder was SO reprehensible AND stupidly self-destructive too, that it can't just be a writer's "blunder", a failed tactic to get JK out of DS.    The writers must have thought about what they were doing, and had some reason for it, dramatically.    Add to this the fact that this one act sets off everything that happens after this.     He's discovered partly because of the murder, and it makes Edward determined to slaughter Barnabas.     It's a pivotal moment for the writers, not a whim.

It's hard to see the act as an attempt to show something about the character of Barnabas when no character, no friend of Barnabas's, ever stops during all these events and says out loud, "Barnabas, what you've done is despicable (I can't get Daffy Duck out of my head after typing that)."     So an impression is left that we're supposed to approve.   Maybe they expected us to figure it out for ourselves, though.

[Joeytrom]

They could have did what they did with David Ford in 1795 and simply not have the character return at all.

[Pansity]

Barnabas did become a decent person, to me, just not in a simple way.     He would break the rules of ordinary accepted behavior, take risks with others' lives but would get their agreement first unless prevented, and take revenge himself instead of calling the police.    You can always see or infer what justifications he would have for this or that action, and the reasons tended to make sense.

Interesting thought occurred to me in reading your post.  Barnabas does think he knows better than anyone else what is best for them, but that's in large part noblesse oblige; the arrogance of his class.  Now, the fact that he tends to take justice into his own hands every chance he gets reminds me a lot of wild west justice.  And then it occurred to me that in his place and time, that was pretty much what was done.  If I am remembering right, it was well into the 1700s before even the city of London, the largest in the Western World at that time, had anything resembling a public police force.  Rich individuals hired their own law enforcement to attend to things, the famous Bow Street runners known to any regular reader of Regency era novels. (Collinsport itself seemed to have a jail and a sheriff and that was IT.The judges seemed to be from outside, likely the equivalent of Circuit Riders in the old west.)

So, to bring this sort of back on track, it struck me as interesting that taking the law into one's own hands was one aspect of his 18th century upbringing that he never seems to have unlearned.  Of course, we don't have any way to know if he even tried.

[Nancy]

That is an intriguing theory, Magnus.  I don't think anyone has presented quite this way before.  However, I have to disagree about Carl's murder being thought out by the writers.  The ratings went up when Barnabas was "bad" usually when he was biting people.  We don't know what was said to the writers by the producers when it was known Karlen was taking off.  It could have been a ratings driven decision and nothing more.

Nancy

Part of my point was that the murder was SO reprehensible AND stupidly self-destructive too, that it can't just be a writer's "blunder", a failed tactic to get JK out of DS.    The writers must have thought about what they were doing, and had some reason for it, dramatically.    Add to this the fact that this one act sets off everything that happens after this.     He's discovered partly because of the murder, and it makes Edward determined to slaughter Barnabas.     It's a pivotal moment for the writers, not a whim.

[Pansity]

ITA w/this!  There were other ppl who knew B's secret (Beth, Nora, Charity etc...) and he didn't kill any of them.  Instead he bit two to put them under his power and hynotized the other.  Why couldn't this have been done w/Carl??  And if the only reason for killing him off really was so that Johnny could go off the show to do a play, HELLO!!??  Just send he and Pansy away again.  Or, if killing Pansy was necessary so that her spirit could lighten Charity up, have Carl leave town because of grief.  Or, if it was integral for Carl to find out about Barnabas for dramatic effect, then lock his ass up in the tower room for the duration of the plotline, something OTHER than killing him.  That was the only time I was really pissed at Barnabas.  

Excellent points Buzz!  And, admittedly my memory is hazy on most of the early eps as I don't have them yet, but wasn't there a scene in Barn's early appearance where he wants to kill David for finding out about him, rather than do the mind wipe thing?

Back to the biting or hypnotizing angle -- it could well have done and then had the character disappear except for side references.  Done that to enough characters before.  And one would think that Barn would consider how useful Carl might have been as his human servant, too.  He could have gone places and done things that the gypsies would have been way out of place taking care of.  And, just a feeling I have from the body language the actor used, is that Quentin either legitimately thought, or had convinced himself, that Barn knew a way besides killing Carl to shut him up. 

What surprises me is that with all these lovely possible scenarios to play with, I have only seen ONE fanfiction story, either fanzine or on line,  where anyone did a "what if" on  Carl's death.  And I've yet to find anyone who has tried to rework the scene with Quentin and Carl in the mausoleum.

Of course, I was also surprised to find out that I was the only author to have ever done a story reworking Quentin and Amanda's not so excellent adventure.....

[Pansity]

This has nothing to do with whether we want to see Carl live or not.    The problem is that Barnabas killed him.   It's the immoraity or amorality of it.   And Carl wasn't like Willie at all.   You don't kill an innocent relative, a decent guy who just wanted to save his fiancee, to shut him up. 

Part of my point was that the murder was SO reprehensible AND stupidly self-destructive too, that it can't just be a writer's "blunder", a failed tactic to get JK out of DS.    The writers must have thought about what they were doing, and had some reason for it, dramatically.    Add to this the fact that this one act sets off everything that happens after this.     He's discovered partly because of the murder, and it makes Edward determined to slaughter Barnabas.     It's a pivotal moment for the writers, not a whim.

It's hard to see the act as an attempt to show something about the character of Barnabas when no character, no friend of Barnabas's, ever stops during all these events and says out loud, "Barnabas, what you've done is despicable (I can't get Daffy Duck out of my head after typing that)."     So an impression is left that we're supposed to approve.   Maybe they expected us to figure it out for ourselves, though.

Hmm some excellent points about this not showing us anything about the character of Barnabas -- but what if that was not the purpose?  Lets try looking at this from another angle, given that 1897 is not BARNABAS's story but QUENTIN'S story, in which Barnabas is in actuality just a supporting character.  How does the scene in the mausoleum and the following death of Carl carry Quentin's story forward?

Now, I must tell everyone up front that the scene in the mausoleum was the one that took me from just time shifting DS and taping over the eps each day  (If I have KEPT them all, I'd have had the series complete form the beginning!) to keeping every single episode I time shifted.  It's the classic last seat in the lifeboat scenario, and how the characters react tells you a LOT about them -- especially in the hands of talented actors like Karlen and Selby.  You have to feel for poor Carl, who thinks he has done something wonderful by finding the vampire, only to find his brother has apparently just lost his mind and locked him in WITH the vampire for no apparent reason.  When you see Quentin's reaction of remorse and guilt as he stands outside, you see a man who KNOWS what he has done and KNOWS how vile it is -- but is too much of a coward at this point to risk his life by either telling Carl the truth or letting him expose Barnabas. (Contrast this with the later scene when Petofi is trying to force Quentin to stake Barnabas -- and he KNOWS his uncursed survival depends on this, but in the end he CANNOT force himself to do it.  How much of this character development -- the strength needed to be unable to take the easy way out despite the consequences -- was based on his making the WRONG decision with Carl?)

Anyway, back to Barnabas -- as I said in an earlier post I think its likely that Quentin, when he returned, was hoping on some level that Barn had NOT killed Carl.  He DIDN'T say "you killed my brother!", but "Is my brother dead?".  Cut to the scene in the drawing room, when Barn actually DOES kill Carl  -- again under circumstances where a simple mind wipe would have been A LOT less MESSY. (That hand hanging out of the curtains is just TOO much!)  It's one of those cases where you would LOVE to have gotten your mitts on the actors at the time to find out what THEY were trying to put across.  However, the body language involved in Quentin's reaction gave me the impression that he didn't really believe Barn would do it until he saw Carl's dead body.  And he also looked scared out of his wits of Barnabas  -- note how fast he was to reassure Barn that he had had to do it. (And Barnabas at the time was showing no real guilt or remorse to need consolation.)  I get the feeling that Quentin's finely honed survival instincts had reasoned out that Carl had been killed for knowing about Barnabas -- and that he, Quentin, knew as much or more than Carl did. (Keep in mind that the audience knew that Q was safe, as he was the McGuffin that brought Barnabas to the past, but Quentin had no real idea what Barnabas' FULL motive for helping him was, so must have felt he was as expendable as Carl.)

So, the bottom line is that I think that though the reason the murder of Carl makes no sense from the pov of developing Barnabas' character, it does make sense for the character development and maturation of Quentin.  And, that being the goal, Barnabas' behavior was inconsistant with some earlier actions in HIS character development because consistancy with HIS character was not the purpose of the subplot at all.

[michael c]

but is part of the reason that people find barnabas' actions so despicable here being that carl was played by john karlen?

what if a new,unknown actor had been hired to play carl for his 11 episodes?would people still be so shocked?

conversely what if carl had been played with hair-touching finesse by roger davis?would some even find this mildly entertaining?

in other words is part of the outrage over this crime a transference of affection for john karlen/willie loomis?

true,they could have had barnabas place carl under his control(like beth and charity)but if karlen wanted to leave anyway what would have been the point of this?they got the most bang for their buck as this played out.

[MagnusTrask]

Pansity------ all that was great, and thanks.  I can't summon up any reponnse yet, but I can correct one impression I might have left... I wasn't saying the event didn't show us anything about BCs character.  I was trying to say that it's difficult for a viewer to interpret it as an attempt to say something about Barnabas's character, even though it's very possible that this is just what the writers were trying to do.    We hear no friend of BC's denouncing him for it, and almost always when the protagonist of a story does something, we're supposed to support it, at least unless there's some explanation via another character that the protagonist has done wrong.   Our point of view is supposed to be that of the main character, or so we assume instinctively, unless told explicitly otherwise.   It could be considered a daring sort of move to just have the "protagonist" unexpectedly slaughter someone just to protect his own pathetic little secret, and leave the audience to work out the morality for themselves, without it being laid out clearly for them.

In that situation, Quentin could very easily have been shocked, but more terrified for his own safety... in which case, we certainly wouldn't have heard any handy soliloquies (I've never used that word and don't know if i'm using it correctly) from him about how wrong the murder was.    I'm very glad that they didn't have him wander off someplace where he couldn't be overheard, and start saying aloud to himself that, oh no, Barnabas is a murderer, I'd better keep my mouth shut.

As for taking the law into his own hands, that's a great point about the arrogance of his class, and I didn't know the history you presented.    I also think, though, that our current outlook, that the police and courts should handle everything, may be a prejudice of our own era.     In the 60s, there were many series which had main characters in special circumstances, outside of mainstream society, which juries and judges would never understand.      There was an appreciation by writers sometimes of the fact that the majority often to have little imagination and tolerance.

[ProfStokes]

It's no trouble for me to separate a character from the actor.  I adore Thayer David as an actor, but I don't like all of his characters.  I didn't care when Matthew Morgan, Timothy Stokes or Mordecai Grimes died, but it did trouble me when Ben was killed.  Similarly, although I'm generally not a Roger Davis fan, I did like Peter Bradford.  It just so happens that I like John Karlen and I like each of his characters.  If, on the other hand, Roger Davis or Craig Slocum or one of the other actors had played Carl and could have done so with the same joie de vivre and zaniness that the character required, I believe I would still have become fond of Carl.  However, if another actor had been introduced to play the partl, I think it would have been a giveaway that this was a marked, throwaway character (like the infamous redshirts of "Star Trek") and the audience may have subconsciously realized it was better not to get attached to him. 

Wow, Pansity, your insights into the significance and purpose of the murder and how it may have affected Quentin's development are amazing and enlightening.  It's clear that you've analyzed this deeply.  Thank you for sharing your thoughts! 

ProfStokes

[Nancy]

Good point. One of my favorite characters was Dr. Woodard as played by Mr. Gerringer.  When Peter T. took over the role, he annoyed me so much that his death didn't bother me (apart from the fact the character was a good guy).

Nancy

but is part of the reason that people find barnabas' actions so despicable here being that carl was played by john karlen?

what if a new,unknown actor had been hired to play carl for his 11 episodes?would people still be so shocked?

conversely what if carl had been played with hair-touching finesse by roger davis?would some even find this mildly entertaining?

in other words is part of the outrage over this crime a transference of affection for john karlen/willie loomis?

true,they could have had barnabas place carl under his control(like beth and charity)but if karlen wanted to leave anyway what would have been the point of this?they got the most bang for their buck as this played out.

[michael c]

i agree nancy,

dr.woodard's final,confrontational scene was very anticlimactic for me due to the replacement of robert gerringer by another actor.it just didn't have the same effect.

if i recall this was also a kinescoped episode so it was lacking there as well.

it was a huge moment but for various reasons wasn't as impactful as it should have been.

[IluvBarnabas]

Now that you guys mention it, the recasting of Dr. Woodard from Robert Gerringer to Peter Turgeon was another Dark Shadows "WHAT?!!!!" moment for me.

[spoiler]Woodard's death[/spoiler] definitely would have had more impact for me if Gerringer had played him to the end

[Pansity]

Wow, Pansity, your insights into the significance and purpose of the murder and how it may have affected Quentin's development are amazing and enlightening.  It's clear that you've analyzed this deeply.  Thank you for sharing your thoughts! 

Thanks, ProfStokes.  I must say though that I can't take credit for coming up with that analysis on the fly.  It's something I had already had to think out for a fanfiction story.  In order to do it properly I HAD to understand the POV's of both Quentin and Carl, so I had watched the episodes like a hawk looking for minute bits of business that made up character, motivation, etc.

[Pansity]

Pansity------ all that was great, and thanks.  I can't summon up any reponnse yet, but I can correct one impression I might have left... I wasn't saying the event didn't show us anything about BCs character.  I was trying to say that it's difficult for a viewer to interpret it as an attempt to say something about Barnabas's character, even though it's very possible that this is just what the writers were trying to do.    We hear no friend of BC's denouncing him for it, and almost always when the protagonist of a story does something, we're supposed to support it, at least unless there's some explanation via another character that the protagonist has done wrong.   Our point of view is supposed to be that of the main character, or so we assume instinctively, unless told explicitly otherwise.   It could be considered a daring sort of move to just have the "protagonist" unexpectedly slaughter someone just to protect his own pathetic little secret, and leave the audience to work out the morality for themselves, without it being laid out clearly for them.

In that situation, Quentin could very easily have been shocked, but more terrified for his own safety... in which case, we certainly wouldn't have heard any handy soliloquies (I've never used that word and don't know if i'm using it correctly) from him about how wrong the murder was.    I'm very glad that they didn't have him wander off someplace where he couldn't be overheard, and start saying aloud to himself that, oh no, Barnabas is a murderer, I'd better keep my mouth shut.

As for taking the law into his own hands, that's a great point about the arrogance of his class, and I didn't know the history you presented.    I also think, though, that our current outlook, that the police and courts should handle everything, may be a prejudice of our own era.     In the 60s, there were many series which had main characters in special circumstances, outside of mainstream society, which juries and judges would never understand.      There was an appreciation by writers sometimes of the fact that the majority often to have little imagination and tolerance.

Will be looking forward to more thoughts from you on this Magnus.  I understand what you are trying to say regarding the writers and BC's character development.  So often it's hard to separate what the writers come up with and may later have to drop, or take in a different direction at the proverbial drop of a  hat from what fits with character continuity.

And LOL on Quentin wandering off somewhere for a convenient soliloquy (best I can tell you did get that right) to explain stuff that writers and actors are supposed to be putting across by dialog, action and "stage business" alone.  Thats one of the funny things with DS -- sometimes the writers do things so dumb and insulting to the intelligence that you want to shoot them, and other times they give you hints and innuendo and have enough respect for their audience that they expect you will "get it".

Oh, and the history I mentioned is just stuff I managed to pick up by osmosis, just from happening to read mysteries and romances and other types of books set in the right era.  Of course, the Wild West references I HAVE to credit to History Channel.  They have a great show called "Wild West Tech" that gives you a lot of nifty background on developments that led to other things in that time frame.

[Jackie]

let me throw this out there.

do people get upset that barnabas killed carl collins(a minor character at best)or that he killed a john karlen(a.k.a. willie loomis)character?

My aversion is the fact that Barnabas killed a family member, HIS family member, that could effect the outcome of the future he was trying to protect in the first place.  Barnabas had NO idea if Carl played an important role in the future of the Collins.  I understand the need to protect his secret though.  Remember when he was meeting Edith Collins in her room and she recognized him!  The tension was immense as he stepped towards her just before Edward walked into the room.  Does anyone think he would have killed the old woman right there and then?  Hard to say because she was on her death bed and just the fright send her into a delirium.  When I saw that scene, I though he was going to kill her but I think he has a soft spot for women.

Also by this time, I really felt Barnabas had repented his evil ways even though he was a vampire again.  That was just a minor afflicition he had to deal with while in the past.  Earlier, someone made an interesting point that they thought Barnabas was still basically selfish [true] and evil [my interpretation, not their words]. I still have a hard time believing that after all the ways the writers tried to convince us of how good he was now.