I would be happy to buy the reincarnation theory if there were evidence to back it up -- in the dialogue, voiceovers, whatever.  As it stands, it seems to be a theory that fans have developed to explain what is never made clear, and in fact the evidence seems to argue against it.  I agree that the theory would solve the question, but I need evidence, and the series does not provide that.

By contrast, there is no question regarding the reincarnations in the movie Night of Dark Shadows.  Quentin is the reincarnation of Charles, etc., and most of the characters are shown to be reincarnations.  Reincarnation is also made explicitly clear at other times within the DS series, so if reincarnation is what is intended here, why didn't the writers simply say so?  For some reason they did not, and the logical conclusion would be that this was because reincarnation was not intended.

Longtime posters may remember that I asked Lara Parker during a forum at the last WTC festival if she intended to address this issue in her next book, and she assured us that she was aware of the conflict and would be dealing with it.

I agree with CB that the writers re-did Angelique's origins with 1840, but they obviously didn't dot the i's and cross the t's.  Did they deliberately want keep us guessing?

I think Countess du Pres's comment in 1795 can be explained (if we're going to develop theories) without resorting to Angelique casting spells over everyone, which would seem rather pointless.  Angelique may simply have presented herself as a young girl, unchanged from her days as a young girl in the 1692 colonies, if she had somehow gained immortality not long after that.  The countess says "I knew her when she was an uninteresting child."  She doesn't specify an age, and, as an older woman condescending toward a servant, she could easily refer to a 17- or 18-year-old Angelique as a "child."  The countess's other comment about knowing Angelique's mother could also be explained.  Perhaps Miranda's mother was involved in the Judah Zachary cult, too, and had knowledge of witchcraft.  Regardless, Mrs. Du Val could very well have traveled with Miranda out of the country, to Martinique.  Mother and daughter could have continued their studies of the dark arts together.

Being a practioner of witchcraft does not necessarily result in one obtaining an exhaulted social status.  In fact, historically "witches" were usually poor women.  So I have no problem with Angelique being only a servant in Martinique.

Cassandra, I like your theory, but think it could easily apply to the scenario as I've outlined it without resorting to her then dying and reincarnating.

They must have been playing the DS theme because of Hallowe'en 

Not long ago, I talked about the mythic dimension of disembodied heads, how there were ancient cults surrounding severed heads, and of the magical properties they have been thought to have had at various times in history.  I felt that the Dark Shadows writers were drawing on this archetype in making the head of Judah Zachary of focus of this storyline.

Now I'd llike to briefly draw attention to the other major mythic aspect of 1840, which is the ritualistic Mask of Ba'al.

Masks have been part of ancient ritual since prehistoric times when they were used by shamans in their spirit ceremonies.

Shamanism was the spiritual practice of most cultures before the development of religions.  The term comes from a Siberian word, and shamanism is thought to have originated in Siberia and Central Asia.  The shaman is analogous to the concept of priest, a broker between the earthly and supernatural spirit realm.

The purpose of the mask in shamanistic ceremonies was "to proclaim the incarnation of a mythological figure - a god, ancestor, or mystic animal. The mask effects the transubstantiation of the shaman, transforming him before everyone's eyes into the supernatural being he is impersonating"  (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/shaman.html).

The possession of Gerard by Judah Zachary is only complete when Gerard puts on the mask.

In using the mask in a ritualistic way, the Dark Shadows writers are drawing on ancient religious practices that have entered the realm of myth and archetype.

The other significant aspect of the mask is that it is referred to as the "mask of Baal [or Ba'al]."

Without getting into too much detail, ba'al refers to a class of gods of the ancient Canaanite people.  These gods had possession or lordship over various aspects of life.  Later it seems that the term became a proper name for one individual god.  The Hebrew people at various times practiced Baal worship, though this was always denounced by the prophets in the Bible.

I think the DS writers are using the term rather loosely, though, as a synonym for Satan.  Ba'al worship came to be associated with evil in the Jewish tradition, and the Christian interpretation makes the association one with Satan.  Angelique informs us that Judah Zachary was "a disciple of Lucifer's" and he is also referred to as the devil's son.  I think the writers are just using Ba'al as a somewhat exotic name that we are meant to associate with Satan.

I'm confused over the episode where Angelique has the flashback to the 1692 courtroom when she testifies against Judah Zachary.

I know it was explained during the last run that the voice of Judah Zachary was actually that of Keene Curtis.  The closing credits for the episode read:

Voice of Judah
Keene Curtis

Judah Zachary
Michael McGuire


I have a number of questions.  First, why did Keene Curtis do the voice of Judah rather than the actor who is playing him (Michael McGuire)?  That seems an unusual situation, to say the least.  Granted, Curtis' voice was fantastic, and maybe McGuire has a high-pitched whine or something ... but if that's the case, why would he have been cast in the part to begin with?

Second, was Keene's voice dubbed?  Was the hooded Judah Zachary Michael McGuire in that scene, or was it actually Keene Curtis.  Watching the tape a couple of times, it certainly LOOKS like the voice/words are coming directly out of the hooded actor's mouth ... i.e., it didn't look dubbed or like a voice over, with the actor only mouthing the words.

Could the hooded actor have been Keene Curtis, and then when there was a cutaway, was he then substituted with McGuire in the cut where Judah Zachary removes the hood?  THAT actor didn't look like McGuire to me, though -- was it Keene Curtis?

What about the other voiceovers, such as when Gerard is hearing Judah Zachary's voice?  It sounds to me like James Storm is doing JZ's voice in those sequences, which could be the case if they're trying to make it so that Judah's thoughts and personality are beginning to meld with Gerard's.

Interesting to get your take on the Jekyll and Hyde adaptations and Dan Curtis TV versions, Cyrus.

I didn't know about RLS possibly addressing realistic psychological disorders; I do know that dualism -- two sides of a single personality/character, and also explored with characters who have a double -- was a concept that interested Victorian writers, particularly Dickens, and RLS (not sure how much later he was).  I'd like to go back to the novella now -- I haven't actually read it since I was about 10 or 11.

I haven't seen the DC production of Hyde.  I sometimes have difficulty accepting the videotaped quality of the DS productions (DS excepted).  His "Dracula" (on film, and with much higher production values) remains my favorite because it remains the most faithful to the book, although there are significant departures (especially Jonathan Harker's fate in DC).  In the novel, Dracula actually is not seen much of the time.  A version of Dracula which begins very promisingly is the Jess Franco version with Christopher Lee.  Never has any actor looked more like Stoker describes him, especially at the beginning, with the iron gray hair and moustache.  Also the castle set was an actual castle in Spain and is as dark and gloomy and stoney as you'd imagine from the book.  DC's version was an interesting take, with a beautifully maintained, bright castle interiors.

I was about to send an IM a moment ago, and as I clicked the "Send" icon, a message box popped up saying that Internet Explorer (I think) had encountered a problem and the my act could not be completed, and that Internet Explorer had to shut down.

I had no choice but to click the "Close Now" option.  I then re-opened Internet Explorer and got into the forum again (which I seemed to still be logged into), then went to my Outbox, and was surprised to see a copy of the message there, since it didn't seem that it was going to send.

My question is, if it's in my Outbox, can I be assured that it was sent and that the recipient received it?

BTW, I had no idea how much activity there is on this "Testing" area ...

Now why did only SOME of those genders change??

 

Nevermind, I don't really need to know ...   


Receiving more info/input right now than my brain can safely process ...