DARK SHADOWS FORUMS

General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '03 I => Topic started by: Julia99 on February 15, 2003, 07:40:44 AM

Title: Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: Julia99 on February 15, 2003, 07:40:44 AM
 Why does Trask want Charity to marry Quentin?  If the Reverend wants control of the family fortune, he should have Charity marry the befumbled Edward. . .then thru that marriage gain control of Jamison. . .Quentin ain't got nuttin' but his pretty face. . .what am i missing?  
Title: Re: Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: jennifer on February 15, 2003, 09:34:42 AM
The man is just so irritating and i agree makes no sense
He knows quentin has no money or control of the estate, a bad risk also for his daughter!

jennifer
Title: Re: Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: Cassandra on February 15, 2003, 02:10:59 PM
Quote
 Why does Trask want Charity to marry Quentin?  If the Reverend wants control of the family fortune, he should have Charity marry the befumbled Edward. . .then thru that marriage gain control of Jamison. . .Quentin ain't got nuttin' but his pretty face. . .what am i missing?  



I would think so too but now that Edward has lost his marbles and is being locked up in the Tower room Trask is already thinking about making plans to have him committed along with his dear wife Judith.  Since Quentin is the only "normal" one still around at Collinwood he's throwing her off on him.  If Carl was still around he'd probably do the same with him.  He's so darn desperate to take over that family he'll try anything!

If Jamison was a few years older he'd probably do the same with him! lol!!
Title: Re: Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: Julia99 on February 15, 2003, 08:10:14 PM
But see Cass that's my point. . with Edward being bonkers and thinking he's a servant, Task could easily manipulate him (as he does Charity) into marriage.  Then Charity is Jamison's "mother" and with an incapacitated husband, she gains some control over the "son".   Much clearer step to power than messing around with the SELFISH/WOLFISH one. . ?? duh, i should've written for this show. . .oh wait it do. .
Title: Re: Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: dom on February 15, 2003, 09:17:09 PM
Edward is most likely still legally married to Laura. I doubt that Edward divorced her or has had her declared legally dead (family name pride, etc.). And if the coast were legally clear for Charity to marry Edward, it could be contested (by Quentin, if need be) because Edward is mentally ill. Trask the elder also considers Jamison bonkers as well (and therefore not a threat). And if I'm not mistaken, Judith has willed all to Trask (through trickery with help from Evan). I don't know if Quentin would have a legal leg to stand on but perhaps by having him married to Charity, Trask could get rid of him too and in turn would have gotten rid of the last possible threat to his taking complete control of the Colllins' holdings, being any claim Quentin has to the family fortune would automatically (and legally) be transferred to his wife upon his death.

And after all is said and done, I doubt that even Trask would assume that he could get Charity to marry Edward. He is smart (or is it evil) enough to know that his young daughter would more likely be a lot less resistant to marrying the younger and more dashing Quentin.
Title: Re: Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: Midnite on February 15, 2003, 11:04:03 PM
I'm a little fuzzy on the logic of turning Edward into an valet for his "moment of truth".  Ideas, anybody?
Title: Re: Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: RingoCollins on February 16, 2003, 02:56:20 AM
Well, without my jester hat on, that Eddy behaves outwardly as if everyone is beneath him and that they should be his servant, while in reality in his deep subconscious he knows that the facade he puts on is merely that, a false front of 'know-it-allness' and arrogance. So his moment o'truth comes out by actually placing him in the role of gentleman's gentleman, literally licking the boot of his master.  There is a bit of irony there, too [esp. if he does the ironing for the shirts of the master] that he ends up treating those that he has looked down on for so long with an unknowing respect.  So maybe the Kiss of Truth could be called the Kiss of Irony.

[I am glad dinner will be ready soon, so I can get my [jester] hat back out]

I just want your extra time,
Ringo [who is watching the grill as I type this!]
Title: Re: Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: Patti Feinberg on February 16, 2003, 03:11:15 AM
I liked on Fridays ep (2nd I think) when Ed told Trask, "I've seen several mistakes by my late ?master?lord?, and I've never told anyone."
Hello, you just  told Trask ;D

Love Louis portrayal!!!

Patti
Title: Re: Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: Midnite on February 16, 2003, 10:30:26 PM
Quote
Well, without my jester hat on, that Eddy behaves outwardly as if everyone is beneath him and that they should be his servant, while in reality in his deep subconscious he knows that the facade he puts on is merely that, a false front of 'know-it-allness' and arrogance. So his moment o'truth comes out by actually placing him in the role of gentleman's gentleman, literally licking the boot of his master.  There is a bit of irony there, too [esp. if he does the ironing for the shirts of the master] that he ends up treating those that he has looked down on for so long with an unknowing respect.  So maybe the Kiss of Truth could be called the Kiss of Irony.

[I am glad dinner will be ready soon, so I can get my [jester] hat back out]

Again with the food??!!  ;)

Ringo, as far as I'm concerned you can put that scholar's hat on any time you want!  Your explanation is the best I've heard.  Thanks for clearing it up for me.

Loved when you called him "Jeeves" in that other post thingie.
Title: Re: Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: Gerard on February 17, 2003, 12:05:46 AM
To me, it kinda makes sense that Edward would become a valet, gentleman's gentleman, head butler, Hazel, whatever.  As Edward Collins, stiff Victorian concerned about family honor and all that jazz, he was obsessed with it to the point of maximum stress.  It was a load of responsibility.  However, as a sophisticated domestic, he no longer carries that load, and yet remains in an environment to which he is accustomed (refined and all that).  He can still be concerned about family well-being, but it doesn't have to consume him, as it's someone else's family, not his.  Edward, as a fancy-pants butler, can now have the best of both worlds and none of the malarkey of either.

Gerard
Title: Re: Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: WileyS on February 17, 2003, 12:30:05 AM
Quote
Well, without my jester hat on, that Eddy behaves outwardly as if everyone is beneath him and that they should be his servant, while in reality in his deep subconscious he knows that the facade he puts on is merely that, a false front of 'know-it-allness' and arrogance. So his moment o'truth comes out by actually placing him in the role of gentleman's gentleman, literally licking the boot of his master.  There is a bit of irony there, too [esp. if he does the ironing for the shirts of the master] that he ends up treating those that he has looked down on for so long with an unknowing respect.  So maybe the Kiss of Truth could be called the Kiss of Irony.


I agree with this Ringo.... it would also humiliate Edward after the fact.
Title: Re: Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: Luciaphile on February 17, 2003, 12:45:45 AM
I'm a bit lost on the logic of pushing his daughter at Quentin as well. I think Dom's explanation of Edward's marital status is plausible (although he'd probably have less problem getting that taken care of without having to resort to divorce--a couple of witnesses saying she burned to death would probably suffice; it's not like they'd have forensic investigators sifting through the rubble of the burned building looking for body parts back then), but having said that, it still doesn't explain why Quentin is still Candidate #1.

I would have thought that Trask would have aimed farther afield, perhaps Bangor or Boston, looking for an independently wealthy and less disreputable future son-in-law.
Title: Re: Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: Connie on February 17, 2003, 12:54:51 AM
I love Louis Edmonds in this role.  He is just soooooo magnificent.  So perfect.  What a treat.  
(Also love him as Quentin's father in 1840 - so endearing)

-CLC
Title: Re:Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: Joeytrom on February 19, 2003, 09:44:33 PM
Actually, when Roger married Cassandra, she told him Laura was not legally dead.  This is another pattern with the Collins men and Laura Collins.
Title: Re: Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: Carol on February 20, 2003, 03:06:04 AM
I love Louis Edmonds in this role.  He is just soooooo magnificent.  So perfect.  What a treat.  -CLC 
Edward reminds me of that butler on the new ALL detergent commercials. He has to have everything just so--right down to the clean towels.
Title: Re: Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: jennifer on February 20, 2003, 07:51:43 AM
To me, it kinda makes sense that Edward would become a valet, gentleman's gentleman, head butler, Hazel, whatever.  As Edward Collins, stiff Victorian concerned about family honor and all that jazz, he was obsessed with it to the point of maximum stress.  It was a load of responsibility.  However, as a sophisticated domestic, he no longer carries that load, and yet remains in an environment to which he is accustomed (refined and all that).  He can still be concerned about family well-being, but it doesn't have to consume him, as it's someone else's family, not his.  Edward, as a fancy-pants butler, can now have the best of both worlds and none of the malarkey of either.

Gerard

also Alice from The Brady bunch and French fron Family  Affair i need a house servant with no life!!!!!!!

jennifer
Title: Re:Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: Cassandra on February 22, 2003, 09:16:25 AM
Jennifer Wrote:
Quote
also Alice from The Brady bunch

Wasn't Alice having a fling with Sam the butcher? LOL!!


Cassandra
Title: Re:Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: Connie on February 22, 2003, 09:29:19 AM
Wasn't Alice having a fling with Sam the butcher? LOL!! 

Yes, but they never consumated the relationship.  They just went bowling a lot.  (Eh!  Same thing)

 ???
Title: Re:Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: RingoCollins on February 22, 2003, 05:54:23 PM
Jennifer Wrote:
Quote
also Alice from The Brady bunch

Wasn't Alice having a fling with Sam the butcher? LOL!!


Cassandra

Ya know, that one is SOOOOO easy, I think I am just gonna let that one go ..... and if I were to 'deliver' some 'unbeatable' 'cuts' they would probably be too 'raw' for the folks here that might like to 'mince' words.  Well done, Cassandra.

Ringo, the Rare ::)
Title: Re:Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: Miss_Winthrop on February 22, 2003, 07:32:51 PM
Didn't Trask consider the possiblity of a little olive branch if Quentin and Charity got together?  Also, I believe in Victorian times, it took years to have someone declared legally dead such as the case of Laura.  But still, Judith did control the bulk of the money and he reasoned it would be much quicker to get it out of her than wait around for Laura's death certificate or risk a baby interfering with his plans so he has to elminate Minerva, Jamison and Nora.
Title: Re:Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: Dawn on February 25, 2003, 07:24:01 AM
Well, we ARE talking Trask here.  Logic?  His only concern was to get people out of the way as quickly as possible by whatever means possible.  Maybe Charity was becoming a liability in his GRAND SCHEME.   :-
Title: Re: Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: Maggie Evans on February 26, 2003, 02:45:05 AM
The man is just so irritating and i agree makes no sense
He knows quentin has no money or control of the estate, a bad risk also for his daughter!

jennifer
Trask Irritating?...who dares to say such devilish things about the almightee Trask ?! ;)
I have to say..I looooooooove Trask..he absolutely cracks me up..I don't know how any of the actors worked with him and didn't just fall over laughing..he's hysterical~
Title: Re:Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: Julia99 on February 26, 2003, 07:57:02 AM
I agree Maggie. . .he's great.  And i often forget there is a 30-year old actor in there. .that he isn't some uptight, Ebenezer type of character. . .Jerry Lacey is great!
Title: Re:Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: Maggie Evans on February 26, 2003, 11:07:32 AM
I agree Maggie. . .he's great.  And i often forget there is a 30-year old actor in there. .that he isn't some uptight, Ebenezer type of character. . .Jerry Lacey is great!
^5 Julia  ;)
Title: Re:Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: jennifer on February 27, 2003, 06:45:15 AM
Jennifer Wrote:
Quote
also Alice from The Brady bunch

Wasn't Alice having a fling with Sam the butcher? LOL!!


Cassandra

yeah but she used to dump him every time the Brady's had a problem (every 5 seconds)!(wasn't he from Mchale's navy)

jennifer
Title: Re: Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: jennifer on February 27, 2003, 06:48:45 AM
Trask Irritating?...who dares to say such devilish things about the almightee Trask ?! ;)
I have to say..I looooooooove Trask..he absolutely cracks me up..I don't know how any of the actors worked with him and didn't just fall over laughing..he's hysterical~

of course Lacy is great love the actor not
Gregory He makes him so evil He is one of the great  actors of the show


jennifer
do wish amanda and him had run off though!
Title: Re:Traskian logic? Please explain
Post by: RingoCollins on February 28, 2003, 01:23:21 AM
.... Sam the butcher? LOL!!....
Quote
....wasn't he from Mchale's navy)

jennifer

Sam [Allan Melvin] wasn't in Mchales navy, but he was in uniform as one of Phil Silver's troop [Henshaw], and with Gomer Pyle [Hacker]and he also was Dick Van D.'s army pal in an ep or two as well.  He was a regular on All in the Family later years, but my favorite shot of him is in the Andy Griffith show [an odd fave of mine], in the ep where he is a con man that gets busted by Barn [the OTHER Barn] and threated to beat him up if he caught him out of uniform.  So the image of him with Tim Conway and that bunch of nuts is an easy leap.

Cheers,
It's me, It's me, It's Ringo C. 8)
Title: Re: Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: Maggie Evans on February 28, 2003, 04:17:35 AM
Trask Irritating?...who dares to say such devilish things about the almightee Trask ?! ;)
I have to say..I looooooooove Trask..he absolutely cracks me up..I don't know how any of the actors worked with him and didn't just fall over laughing..he's hysterical~

of course Lacy is great love the actor not
Gregory He makes him so evil He is one of the great  actors of the show


jennifer
do wish amanda and him had run off though!
hehehe..now You have to admit..Gregory would be fun to have in your house...to pull pranks on ;D
Amanda isn't worthy of thee Almighty Trask! ;)
Title: Re: Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: sheenasma on February 28, 2003, 01:58:27 PM
I'm a little fuzzy on the logic of turning Edward into an valet for his "moment of truth".  Ideas, anybody?

Not what he sees himself as, but maybe as what he feels he has become since Judith inheirited?  Or even all his life, while being primed to become the heir?  A servant to the family name?

n
Title: Re: Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: onyx_treasure on February 28, 2003, 03:34:17 PM
I'm a little fuzzy on the logic of turning Edward into an valet for his "moment of truth".  Ideas, anybody?

Not what he sees himself as, but maybe as what he feels he has become since Judith inheirited?  Or even all his life, while being primed to become the heir?  A servant to the family name?
n
    Thank you, Sheenasma.  That is how I see this, too.  Poor Edward always away on family business and then to find out he is not the heir but a mere employee of his family.  I wonder if he got a salary or just room and board.
Title: Re:Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: Cassandra on March 03, 2003, 11:18:45 PM
Onyx Treasure,
I love your Avatar!  It looks just like my cat "Meow"   :) :)


Cassandra
Title: Re:Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: onyx_treasure on March 04, 2003, 01:19:23 AM
     Thank you, Cassandra ;D  Penny is very tiny.  She is over a year old and weighs in at about 5+ pounds.  She holds her own, though.  My two other cats are huge.  Molly is a whopping 17 pounds and Peaches is a Maine Coon(very large cat).  Thats why I chose Penny for my avatar.  Molly and Peaches would never fit into such a tiny picture.  All three are former shelter kitties.
Title: Re:Traskian logic?  Please explain
Post by: Cassandra on March 05, 2003, 02:43:53 AM
     Thank you, Cassandra ;D  Penny is very tiny.  She is over a year old and weighs in at about 5+ pounds.  She holds her own, though.  My two other cats are huge.  Molly is a whopping 17 pounds and Peaches is a Maine Coon(very large cat).  Thats why I chose Penny for my avatar.  Molly and Peaches would never fit into such a tiny picture.  All three are former shelter kitties.

Awww, she is adorable!  I was wondering though if it's just this type of breed because my Meow is small also and he's 5 years old now, so I knew right after the first year that he wasn't going to get much bigger.  But like your Penny, even though he is small, he sure can hold his own! In fact, he's the toughest out of the whole lot (I've got 6!) I have to watch he doesn't get outside because he actually goes after the Feral cats to attack them! :)

Cassandra[/font]