I didn't mean to offend anyone by the use of the word "drunk." It wasn't meant perjoratively. Alcoholism is an illness. I totally understand that. So is depression...
I know you were not minimizing the effects of those illnesses, Luciaphil. Unfortunately, seeing the word "choice" anywhere near the symptoms and consquences of those illnesses will set me off though I realize that was no one's intent.
I also didn't mean to write a book length response to your post.
The word drunk is one that recovering alcoholics use to describe themselves so if they aren't offended, I'm not either.
I've witnessed the raw pain those suffering from the diseases and those who nearly succeeded in terminating their lives, in one case, because her lack of insurance robbed her of the meds she needed to combat the suicidal ideations that are part and parcel of the disease. Those who are alcoholics tend to suffer from depression and other severe mental illness that drove them to self-medicate in the first place.
I understand perfectly why Naomi would kill herself. The son who loved and supported her was not only murdered but turned into a vile creatures whose instinct is to kill . . . not spread love and flowers throughout the universe which would please a mother, but kill. In fact, he already had so there was no question about it. Who murdered Barnabas and who let the dogs out?
Angelique.
She didn't just murder Barnabas, she chose to create a monster with the stipulation that anyone who loved him would die. She knew people at Collinwood loved him so it was to be expected they would die. Angelique was efficient and curse-specific. I guess the argument reflects that of those who debate whether or not the the creator of the Frankenstein monster is responsible for the murders of his creation or not.
In the context of the show:
Cassandra casts a spell on Liz causing her to be obsessed with death. To my way of thinking that's something that can directly be laid (or is it layed?) at Cassandra's door. There's a direct chain of causality.
Angelique sticks pin in a poppet of Sarah. Sarah collapses in pain. That's Angelique's fault. Not the fault of Barnabas for not loving her or marrying her, Angeliques. Again, direct chain of causality.
I agree with you on both counts.
But with Naomi? Who's to say? When we first see her, she's a character with a ton of problems: largely loveless marriage to a fairly cold man, nasty sister-in-law who has usurped her place in the running of the household. All before Angelique walks in the door. Maybe she'd be fine if Angelique never had shown up, maybe not. I don't see a direct chain of causality.
I agree with you. However, I feel you are leaving out two important aspects of Naomi's life in recounting the unhappy elements: she loved her children. Sarah died. That was devastating. She freaked when she saw her messy mouthed brother after his first bite and caught a bug as a result. If Barnabas had been eating a sloppy joe and got the stuff all over his mouth, took a walk and Sarah saw him, I don't think she would have had the same reaction. The story was for her that Barnabas went away and that was that. A story invented because he was, in fact, dead. Why was he dead? Okay, why was he messy? I guess the first bite was a bit of a trauma for him, along with the whole blood-letting thing. He didn't clean up. The whole thing can be see as a tragic chain of events. Did Angelique kill Sarah? No, but she is hardly blameless as she set off the chain of events and willingly did so, not caring at all about the outcome of creating and freeing what she knew was a killing machine.
And in terms of the "curse," I've said this before, there are plenty of characters who love Barnabas and manage to survive. Sometimes curses have power because we give them power.
Very true. And besides, couldn't kill off all the people who loved Barnabas. There would not be much of a plot!
As always, Luciphil, I love debating with you.
Nancy