DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Polls Archive => Topic started by: Mysterious Benefactor on February 25, 2007, 09:03:15 PM
-
This exchange (previously posted in the Alphabet Topic) has prompted this poll:
A is for admiration, which is what Vicki felt for Barnabas (though it was misguided during his early days as a vampire).
Some could argue that Vicki's admiration for Barnabas was misguided throughout most of their time together on the show - but that's a whole other discussion for another topic. (wink)
[spoiler]The fact that Barnabas made Vicki tell him the dream so she wouldn't suffer the effects of the dream curse any longer even when he knew once he had it himself it would make him revert to being a vampire, that act proved Barnabas was indeed worthy of Vicki's admiration if nothing else did IMO.[/spoiler]
But as you say that is for another topic another time. (wink2)
You'll note that I didn't actually say one way or the other what I think - only that some could argue the point. But to play devil's advocate for the downside for a moment (simply as a counterbalance to IluvBarnabas' point made in the above spoiler statement), one or even a dozen admirable acts doesn't necessarliy an admirable person make. Even the most vilest of tyrants or even serial killers can be perfectly capable of admirable acts from time to time. But in the overall moral scheme of things, could, would or should weighing those possibly admirable acts against other heineous acts ever make someone admirable as a whole? You decide. [wink2] (And remember that this is completely restricted to Barnabas' actions in the present in the years 1967 and 1968 because, for one, Vicki believes the Barn of 1795/96 was a completely different person.)
-
BC in 1967 was at his worst. In 1968, he just chose to act "nice" generally with occasional alarming moments of the supposed "old" Barnabas showing. He didn't become admirable, he just stopped murdering, and put a certain amount of work into looking out for his family and Vicky whom he was in love with... and this help mainly consisted of tending lab equipment and arguing with Adam. A start but no hero.
-
I'm not sure serial killers ever do admirable things. Sentimental, maybe.
I always thought Victoria was able to sense the decent Barnabas underneath, no matter how bad he got. Missing the trees for the forest. If you're looking for a pronouncement of whether BC was "good" or "bad", well, no one's really either. Those are abstracts.
-
Not a pronouncement of good or bad, which is a far more complicated discussion. Only whether or not the Barnabas of present day 1967 and 1968 is an example of someone who is admirable - meaning someone who is "deserving honor, great respect, the highest esteem, or admiration; exemplary, laudable, meritorious, praiseworthy, reputable."
-
I voted no. Barnabas is a gray character throughout the show, and though he later became the prime guardian of the Collins family's well-being, in 1967 and 1968 he was more of a monster. [spoiler]Throughout 1967, Barnabas was paranoid, willing to kill anyone who might have some inkling about his secret. He nearly destroyed Maggie because of his obsession with Josette, and let an innocent person take the fall. Let's not forget either how he tried to strangle Julia every five minutes.[/spoiler] The few good deeds Barnabas did for those he cared about do not outweigh his abuse of Willie and Maggie and his cavalier attitude toward Adam's needs. To me, those acts do not speak of an admirable, praiseworthy character deserving of esteem but of someone who is only selectively nice when his interests are threatened. [spoiler](e.g. Barnabas loves Vicki and therefore wants to protect her from the Dream Curse even if it costs him his mortality, but he didn't go to extremes to help Julia or Willie or Sam Evans when they had the dream. Getting Stokes to intervene in the curse was motivated by Barnabas's concern for himself, not his concern for the general wellbeing of other innocents who might also be affected by the curse).[/spoiler]
The character did evolve for the better throughout the series, albeit with major setbacks in 1897, but I don't think Barnabas ever became a paragon of morality.
ProfStokes
-
I agree with Prof. Stokes, with only the exception that i thought Barnabas was more of a gentleman to Vicki, than the second Burke Devlin, and Jeff Clark. I felt like as time went on, Barnabas was more suited for Vicki than the others. JVjr
-
I voted no, Barnabas was very, very, angry. If I had the same things happen to me I would be very angry and upset. I the beginning Barn was more like an animal that wanted to survive. He would do anything that he needed to survive.
There were very few people that Barnabas learned to trust and trust takes time. In 1968 he started to learn to trust people again. [spoiler]Just to think that he wanted his father to kill him but his father chained him in his coffin.[/spoiler]
Later in the show Barn become the protector of the family. He was raised to do that!
-
Although Barnabas had his few "moral moments," I don't think it was until the tail-end of the Adam storyline (actually, when it began to fishtail in with the beginning of the Quentin's ghost storyline) that he became a more solidly, selfless, moral person.
Gerard
-
Gerard, what you said is true, but remember that 1897 incident with a family memeber that was totally unnecessary and backtracked the character.
-
You're so right, Joey. But I guess I'll forgive Barnabas for that little slip-up and chalk it up to him just having a crabby day (or night). I'm sure he would've apologized once he felt better.........if he had the chance..........if you know what I mean.
Gerard
-
I voted no, Barnabas was very, very, angry.
You can't be admirable if you're angry?
If I had the same things happen to me I would be very angry and upset.
That's why I don't blame people for anger. What they do about it is another matter.
-
i think that vicki's "admiration" of barnabas in 1967 and 1968 are two totally different things.
i've been rewatching 1967 lately and i'm not 100 percent sure of what the writers were going for with vicki here in her blindness to barnabas' oddness.at one point she even threatens to call-off her engagement to burke if he doesn't stop his private investigation of barnabas.considering how desperately she was seeking an identity this doesn't make much sense.to us this comes across as extreme naivety but i think they needed for her to see him as kindly older gentleman and for her to be an innocent,trusting girl for this storyline to work.
at various points in 1967 barnabas' conscience does start to awaken but in general he is as mean as a hornet right up until the sceance that leads to the 1795 storyline.
after 1795 vicki's admiration of barnabas changes in that they become allied in their belief that cassandra is really angelique.they're on a slightly more level footing.
for most of 1968 barnabas' moral compass is all over the map.he's certainly not the bastard he was in 1967 but i wouldn't say he was morally admirable until the start of the quentin storyline.i skipped the late 1968 fake-vicki episodes and the conclusion of the adam plot(i just didn't care about it)and i was surprised at the change in the direction of the character when i returned to the show.with vicki gone and elizabeth and roger "away" for part of this storyline barnabas(and julia)does function as the show's skewed,by default "moral center".wierd. ::)
-
when i returned to the show.with vicki gone and elizabeth and roger "away" for part of this storyline barnabas(and julia)does function as the show's skewed,by default "moral center".wierd. ::)
Was Roger and Elizabeth a moral center, I don't know if anyone in the show is always moral center. They were people who hid things and the skeletons in the closet. At least Barn and Julia did fight for the survival of the familly. Liz and Roger just seemed to let things happen, they had blinders on much of the time. At least that is how it appeared. ::)
-
mcs--- that last bit of yours about BC/JH being a default moral center, I liked that, it reminds me of some unsettled feelings I get watching, that I then have to put into words.
Barnabas did a pretty good job of appearing benign most of the time in 1967. Not everyone had his/her radar peeled for stalkers and molestors and crazies back then, quite as much as we do now. His eccentricities would have appealed to VW, since she was obsessed with the past, and was romantic about it.
I think the business with Burke and the detective just showed VW's belief in Barnabas, and a desire to be fair and above board with people. Barnabas used this. Funny how he never thought to manipulate in this way before this point. The answer to all his problems seemed to be killing people right and left, up until then. Yet suddenly there he was, talking to Willie or Julia about the need to use "finesse"!
Roger and ECS may not have been a real "moral center", but they were a sort of "respectibility center". BC and Julia may have taken over in that regard.
-
well put mangus,
liz and roger were not so much a "moral" as a "respectabilty center".they provided a dose of normalcy and continuity at collinwood when so much going on around them was nuts.
when they disappear for a bit in late 1968/early 1969 barnabas and julia sort of take over that role as strange as that sounds.
-
i've been rewatching the part of the 1967 episodes where barnabas,convinced that david knows his "secret",decided that the boy needed to be done away with.
i had forgotten how much energy they had given to this little subplot.it's really quite shocking.
self-preservation is his modus operandi during this part of the show but still killing a child and a member of your own family is pretty harsh.this deed might spare barnabas exposure in the short-term(if david did indeed know what he was)but in the end would have thwarted alot of his bigger goals.for example.
the police:as julia rightly pointed out if david disappeared the police would conduct an investigation of the likes the town had never seen.it's one thing when a waitress and the daughter of the town drunk turns up missing but when it's the heir to the town's most prominent family it's quite another.they would search the old house top-to-bottom.no amount of stalling and double talk from willie would keep them out.
vicki:supposedly barnabas is in love with her.but if david died she would be emotionally destraught.inconsolable.at the very least the collins family would no longer need the services of a governess and she would leave.
elizabeth:it's made pretty clear that liz keeps the house and the business afloat for david's sake.she expects him to carry on the family name.neither roger or carolyn seem to have the inclination to take over the whole thing so she might have decided to sell the whole thing off...including the old house.
julia:she always said her arrangment with barnabas did not include the taking of a life.if david's killing did in fact take place she would have ratted him out anyways and this all would have been for naught.
-
Very good points. I have already said Barnabas was a little bit crazy then. I think they were still thinking of kiling him off. Later Barn did got back in time to save David.