DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '06 II => Topic started by: Patti Feinberg on November 04, 2006, 01:46:45 AM
-
Now that I've seen Buffy the Vampire Slayer & Angel through several times, there's a big question...
If Buffy (or Angel/Spike :-*, Giles, et all) encountered Barnabas, would she/they have staked him?
Put some thought in your answers...it should make for good reading ;D
Patti
who personally doesn't think Buffy would
-
Depends on which Barnabas they encountered. If they had met the Barnabas who had been first released from his coffin in 1967, [spoiler]who kidnapped Maggie, wanting to make her his Josette then wanting to kill her when she wouldn't give in[/spoiler] I think Barnabas would have been a goner.
However, if they had met the more conscious-stricken Barnabas, the one who wanted to save his family, such as [spoiler]wanting to prevent the fourth-coming disaster that would happen to the family caused by Gerard's ghost[/spoiler] then they might have been more merciful towards him.
-
Hmmmmm...
Kinda depends on what they saw him doing, yes? Mind you, I wonder if maybe Angel and Barnabas would be so repulsed by each others' brooding that maybe they'd stop it.
-
Hmmmmm...I wonder if maybe Angel and Barnabas would be so repulsed by each others' brooding that maybe they'd stop it.
nice one ;D
-
I'd have to agree that it would depend on what Barnabas they met.
Evil Barn was without a soul, and Buffy (eventually) killed soulless Angel, so it's safe to say she would've done the same thing with Barn, though A LOT sooner. Personally, I think Buffy probably would've staked him (at least in her early years....hell, in any of her years) just because of his mannerisms and etc.
"I'm not falling for that 'Oh I'm so manly and attractive and rustic and old-worldy' type. If I wanted that I'd just go to Giles." Buffy thinks. "Ew. Did I just say Giles was manly and attractive?"
Definitely woulda staked him early.
-
"I'm not falling for that 'Oh I'm so manly and attractive and rustic and old-worldy' type. If I wanted that I'd just go to Giles." Buffy thinks. "Ew. Did I just say Giles was manly and attractive?"
Definitely woulda staked him early.
I love this. You definitely know your Whedon characters!
The only thing I take issue with in your post is the assertion that Barnabas was soulless. This distinction was never clearly defined in the DS universe as it was in the Buffyverse, so that is something that would have to be ironed out. I don't think we can just assume that Barn had or did not have a soul during any given period. [hall2_smiley]
Wow... that was one amazingly geeky paragraph, even for me!! Bed time for ShadowsAtlanta!
-
The only thing I take issue with in your post is the assertion that Barnabas was soulless. This distinction was never clearly defined in the DS universe as it was in the Buffyverse, so that is something that would have to be ironed out. I don't think we can just assume that Barn had or did not have a soul during any given period. [hall2_smiley]
Wow... that was one amazingly geeky paragraph, even for me!! Bed time for ShadowsAtlanta!
That's true, but I was just applying the basic logic of "When Angel was evil (except when he burned Darla and Dru) he had no soul, and when Angel was good, he had a soul." Take out Angel's name and put in Barnabas'. Same thing.
Even though it wasn't clearly defined on DS, Barnabas' "guilt" or "conscience" over what he had done is basically the same concept that Joss came up with for Angel and eventually Spike's soul on Buffy. It makes them feel guilty for what they have done, thus turning them into a reluctant vampire.
And, not geeky at all. I'm right there with ya. [hall2_wink]
-
I don't see the soul issue as the same thing. It was very clearly defined on Buffy during the Angel/Angelus arc that Angel's lack of a soul is what made him Angelus and made him evil. He was completely twisted until Willow restored his soul at the last minute in "Becoming". In many ways, it was as if he were a different person.
There was no indication whatsoever in DS that when Barnabas was 'evil' he had no soul. Even in the beginning when he was at his darkest, there were moments where he came across as human and sympathetic and there is far, far less of a line between dark Barnabas and Barnabas the anti-hero than there is between Angelus and Angel. It's just an altogether different vampire lore. The soul wasn't a factor on Dark Shadows.
-
You know, I have to agree that Angel and Barnabas and the soul thing aren't EXACTLY the same, but there are some similarities I think.
I was just mulling this over, as a matter of fact, and realized that Barnabas and Angelique are so much alike that it's uncanny. Barnabas really has no room to criticize Angelique or say that he'll never love her. Here's why:
What did Ang. do? She did anything and everything she could to get the man that she loved, even if it meant killing people in her way, or doing obscene things to them.
Hmm. What did Barnabas do? He bit Willie, made him capture Maggie, beat Willie when he tried to help Maggie escape, made Julia kill Dr. Woodard so that he wouldn't find out that he was keeping Maggie, tried to kill Maggie when she wouldn't comply, then made Julia erase her mind when she remembered what had happened to her.
Seems awfully alike to me. So all this time Barnabas was a huge hypocrite, and I never realized it. Sometimes I can be slow.
-
I do think Angel became more of a hero than Barnabas is.
The difference between Barnabas and Angelique is that Barnabas was a good man who made one mistake and was cursed as a creature of the undead. If Barnabas had done those things pre-curse, I would call them the same. Sure, he became more like her in his early days as a vampire, but he had to be turned into a monster to become like that. The human 1795 Barnabas would never have done those things. We get no background reason for Angelique to be the way she is, we do for Barnabas. She's a regular human who happens to have powers and decides to use them in a horrible way. Barnabas was no longer completely human.
-
Well, we eventually learn something more. We learn Angelique was more-or-less recruited by Judah Zachary into the service of Diablos. Which makes her over a hundred years old in 1795, evidentally in love for the very first time. More, we discover (eventually) that the only way Diablos will "set her free" is if she gains the love of a mortal man. Barnabas was to be that man, just as later Quentin and then Skye Rumson were to do that.
One can argue she was essentially desperate, not only from loneliness and love, but also to be free from her evil Master.
I don't think that is enough, either, frankly. But then, I don't see much justification for much of Barnabas' actions either. Yeah, he felt bloodlust now and then but there were ways around that without torturing and killing people all around him. As I recall, it was established in the very first storyline that introduced Barnabas that he fed off cattle.
-
Well if you count Angelique's Descent as canon, then you do have a reason for Angelique being that way.
I know, I know, let the stoning commence. lol. Personally I don't think it's canon. Only the show is.
But, the mention of Diabolis letting Ang go if she gets the love of a man brings me to something else.....
[spoiler]In 1897 Ang tells Barnabas that she has to get the love of a mortal man in order to stay out of hell and live a normal life, which is what she wants. But, the catch is that she can't use magic to get him.[/spoiler]
Now I can't remember if she said that she can't use it to directly influence him, or she just can't use it at all. If it is the latter, then wouldn't she have been sent to the firey pits a long flipping time ago?
She used TONS of magic to get Barnabas to try to come to her--Making Joshua disappear, putting Vicki in danger with Trask, driving Josette to Jeremiah, etc etc. Not to mention that she used magic as a blackmailing force to get Quentin to let Amanda Harris go. Hmm. Seems fishy to me.
-
[spoiler]In 1897 Ang tells Barnabas that she has to get the love of a mortal man in order to stay out of hell and live a normal life, which is what she wants. But, the catch is that she can't use magic to get him.[/spoiler]
Now I can't remember if she said that she can't use it to directly influence him, or she just can't use it at all. If it is the latter, then wouldn't she have been sent to the firey pits a long flipping time ago?
She used TONS of magic to get Barnabas to try to come to her--Making Joshua disappear, putting Vicki in danger with Trask, driving Josette to Jeremiah, etc etc. Not to mention that she used magic as a blackmailing force to get Quentin to let Amanda Harris go. Hmm. Seems fishy to me.
Those are two separate stories. I don't think she had that arrangement with Diabolos in 1795. I think her being allowed to return had that deal as part of it and that was in 1897. So, while she used plenty of magic in 1795, in order to fulfill the "deal" in 1897, she wasn't supposed to use it.
-
The human 1795 Barnabas would never have done those things.
Yes, and remember, he [spoiler]was mortified at the thought of ACTUALLY killing another man (Jeremiah) in the duel when Angelique, trying to talk him out of having the duel, asks him, "Have you ever killed a man Barnabas?" He recoils in disgust and says vehemently, "Of course not!" suggesting that for him to kill a man would be the most repugnant thing he could ever do.[/spoiler]
-
Tough question, but I'd have to agree with the second poster here. Barnabas had his stages, which I personally like to call mood swings >:D . He went from bad to good in one full swing, soooo.... all things considered, and without stepping into spoiler territory, I'd say she wouldn't get anything out of staking him, b/c he was as pivotal to the Collinses as Angel and Spike were in the Jossverse. ;) ~DJ
-
But then, I don't see much justification for much of Barnabas' actions either. Yeah, he felt bloodlust now and then but there were ways around that without torturing and killing people all around him. As I recall, it was established in the very first storyline that introduced Barnabas that he fed off cattle.
This always did strike me as odd, that in the beginning, after he got released in 1967, he fed on the cattle but later on [spoiler]when we learned he first became a vampire in 1795, became one again in 1897 and during the Leviathan, 1970 PT storyline and 1840 he feeds on humans.[/spoiler] Maybe he just decided human blood tasted than animal blood in the longrun. [hall2_grin]
Seriously, Barnabas never chose to become a vampire. There were times he honestly did try and resist biting a victim, but the bloodlust was just too great for him. No matter how much he tried to resist, ultimately his bloodlust got the best of him. He did not enjoy being what he was. This to me proves he did have a soul.
-
As I recall, it was established in the very first storyline that introduced Barnabas that he fed off cattle.
Indeed he did, and since his friend Julia seemed to have a READY supply of blood, why not just recruit her to get him a nightly pint?! ;D
There were times he honestly did try and resist biting a victim, but the bloodlust was just too great for him. No matter how much he tried to resist, ultimately his bloodlust got the best of him. He did not enjoy being what he was.
Which backs-up what Frid has always said about his interpretation of the role and how he chose to play it, that he played Barnabas as a guy w/a 'hang-up', a sort of alcoholic who hates that he drinks every night, yet he can't escape the fact that he MUST drink. And then the guilt afterwards when he does.