DARK SHADOWS FORUMS

General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '07 I => Topic started by: Joeytrom on May 09, 2007, 10:57:55 PM

Title: Kittys fate
Post by: Joeytrom on May 09, 2007, 10:57:55 PM
They never really went into detail as to what happened with her & I am still confused on some points.

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

Did she really go to 1796 with Barnabas or did Barnabas just believe that Kitty was inhabiting Jostte's body?   It seems the Leviathan's may have led Barnabas to think she was really in 1796 with him.   They could have had him imagine she was entering Josette's portrait at the end of 1897.  Another thing is that if Josette dies again by suicide (poison), where does Kitty go?  Are they both killed at the same time?  I tend to think Kitty never really left 1897 and after her confusion passed, she went back to Edward and ended up marrying him.
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on May 09, 2007, 11:11:09 PM
Did she really go to 1796 with Barnabas or did Barnabas just believe that Kitty was inhabiting Jostte's body?

In Ep #885, soon after Kitty and Barnabas pass through the portrait, Josette talks to Natalie about having just had a dream about being in another time, detailing the events that had just happened to Kitty. Not definitive evidence that Kitty traveled back to 1796 - but a pretty good indication that was the case.

Quote
Aother thing is that if Josette dies again by suicide (poison), where does Kitty go?

A good question. Presumably she died as well. It's always dangerous to presume almost anything on DS (;)), but on DS life essences/life forces/whatever tend to inhabit their original bodies when time traveling (Eve did this with Danielle Roget's trip to 1796). If Josette died, and her life force and Kitty's are one and the same, which, considering Kitty is Josette's reincarnation, would seem to make sense, that could be a strong indication that Kitty died as well. But in the DS world, where nothing is ever consistent, there's probably a whole world of speculation open here.
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: loril54 on May 10, 2007, 12:56:25 AM
Then don't we have the problem of her coming to Collinwood in the first place and see Barnabas in 1897. Does that mean the her marriage didn't happen either.

Maybe Rachel then would have ended up marrying the english Lord.  ??? ::)
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: MagnusTrask on May 10, 2007, 05:07:48 AM
The 1796 stuff doesn't prevent Kitty's earlier life in 1897 and prior to 1897.    If I suddenly right now go back to 1900 (like if my time machine gets Y2K), my 1900 is the latest thing to happen to me.     For me 1900 comes after 2006.     Personal timelines are what matter.

There was no Kitty body anymore since hers merged with 1796 Josette's, so Kitty died with Josette unless her soul was snatched away by someone.   The bizarre thing is, they basically say Kitty IS the reincarnation of Josette.    So.... it's like Barnabas got staked in 1897 for real, say, and then there was a 1969 soul and a supressed 1897 soul both entering the afterlife as spirits simultaneously.    This is insoluble since 1897 BC has to survive bodily till 1969 for 1969 BC to exist.

With Kitty/Josette.... when both die in 1796, Josette reincarnates, eventually to become Kitty and find herself back in herself in time for... not exactly the same suicide but... sort of.     Or poison twice with jumping never happening.  It's all slightly confusing.     So... does the Kitty version of Josette also get reincarnated, separately?
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: arashi on May 10, 2007, 05:45:19 AM
The 1796 stuff doesn't prevent Kitty's earlier life in 1897 and prior to 1897.    If I suddenly right now go back to 1900 (like if my time machine gets Y2K), my 1900 is the latest thing to happen to me.     For me 1900 comes after 2006. Personal timelines are what matter.

Interesting, I like this description of Time Travel.
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Lydia on May 10, 2007, 06:26:07 AM
Getting back to basics: I don't understand the idea that Kitty was the reincarnation of Josette.  They don't seem like the same person to me, and the differences don't strike me as being simply a result of environment.  Kitty had a sense of humor, but I don't remember Josette having one.  Josette seemed to be an invader in Kitty's life - rather like Pansy Faye taking over Charity Trask's body, but one step better.  This leads me to the enchanting possibility that Petofi worked the whole Kitty/Josette trick in order get Barnabas out of his hair - but I can't remember the 1897 chronology clearly enough to be able to work out how that might have come about.

I keep reading MagnusTrask's post and trying to make complete sense of it, but so far have been unsuccessful in my attempts, which is a pity, because what I do get is very interesting.  Please note, though, Magnus, even if your time machine gets Y2K, you should also check to make sure it is aware that there was no February 29, 1900.  It would be inconvenient to find yourself living a day that never happened.
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on May 10, 2007, 06:46:04 AM
They don't seem like the same person to me, and the differences don't strike me as being simply a result of environment.  Kitty had a sense of humor, but I don't remember Josette having one.

Well, poor Josette never had much to laugh about.

Quote
This leads me to the enchanting possibility that Petofi worked the whole Kitty/Josette trick in order get Barnabas out of his hair - but I can't remember the 1897 chronology clearly enough to be able to work out how that might have come about.

Actually, the realization that Kitty is truly Josette's reincarnation comes about while Quentin and not Petofi is in possession of Petofi's body and the powers of the hand.  ;)  And for most of the time that Kitty is having visions of Josette's past, Barnabas is thought to be staked dead in his coffin in the cave and permanently out of the way. And even from the way things play out during Kitty's initial appearance, it seems unlikely that Petofi had anything to do with her arrival - and very soon after that arrival (in the next episode, in fact), Barnabas is staked.
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Lydia on May 10, 2007, 07:32:00 AM
I'm well aware of the problems with the theory that Petofi called in Josette.  In fact, I seem to remember that he denied quite convincingly that he had had anything to do with Kitty's problem.  But I still like the idea.  Perhaps I'd like it less if it didn't seem just about impossible.
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on May 10, 2007, 07:51:51 AM
Perhaps I'd like it less if it didn't seem just about impossible.

OK.  :)  Well, when it comes to almost anything, I'm all for dreaming the impossible is possible - especially in a show like DS.  ;)
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Gerard on May 10, 2007, 12:14:48 PM
I think I recall reading in one of the Almanac books that while Barnabas initially thought that Rachel was the reincarnation of Josette, she wasn't (they just looked alike, but there the simularity ended), while Kitty was, in fact, Josette's reincarnation.  But it's interesting to see how the lives of Josette and Kitty were different.  Josette was born in wealth and lived a pampered lifestyle, making her somewhat spoiled.  Kitty was born in the duldrums of nineteenth century working class and had to "claw" her way to the top (in this case, by marriage).  When she lost it all because her dearly, beloved deceased wealthy husband blew it all on candy, she had to rely on her working class fight-for-what-you-want senses in order to maintain the comfy, upper-class life to which she had become accustomed.  I wonder if it had happened to Josette, how would she have dealt with it?  She never had to fight for anything and probably would have no idea what to do.  If she lost everything that meant something to her, she undoubtedly would've just curled up and died.  Come to think of it, she did.

Gerard
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Lydia on May 10, 2007, 02:22:37 PM
I wonder if it had happened to Josette, how would she have dealt with it?  She never had to fight for anything and probably would have no idea what to do.  If she lost everything that meant something to her, she undoubtedly would've just curled up and died.  Come to think of it, she did.
I can't let that pass, even though this topic is supposed to be about Kitty rather than Josette.  Josette had guts.  She could fight.  She impresses me every time I watch the 1795 storyline. 
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on May 10, 2007, 02:37:07 PM
Well, the sad fact is that when Josette thought she'd lost everything, she drank poison and ended her life. In Ep #886, as Gerard points out, she literally curled up and died. It's pretty hard to argue against that. Apparently whatever fight there may have been in her at one time was completely gone...
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: MagnusTrask on May 10, 2007, 04:27:39 PM
As for Kitty's dissimilarity to Josette... we aren't supposed to be reincarnated with an identical personality.    It would be a bit of a coincidence if her personality was all that similar.  Besides, environment does make for bigger changes in personality than what we see here.    Reincarnation knows no gender boundaries... that's irrelevant in this case, but it just shows what changes can take place.
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: ProfStokes on May 10, 2007, 07:17:50 PM
Reincarnation knows no gender boundaries...
Oh boy.  What would Barnabas have done if Willie, Roger, or even Harry Johnson had turned out to be the reincarnation of his beloved Josette?

ProfStokes
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on May 10, 2007, 07:27:57 PM
Harry Johnson as Josette!  [wow]  The mind boggles!!  [lghy]
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: MsCriseyde on May 10, 2007, 08:15:26 PM
Reincarnation knows no gender boundaries...
Oh boy.  What would Barnabas have done if Willie, Roger, or even Harry Johnson had turned out to be the reincarnation of his beloved Josette?
On a somewhat related note, speaking of gender, I've been watching the Adam/Eve storyline, just prior to Eve's creation, when they seem to be auditioning every female for the role of "life force." I could see someone having a field day with what the need for a female "life force" donor says about how the series perceives sex and gender.

What would've happened if they had opted for a male life force for Eve? Better yet, what if Adam had volunteered his own "life force" in much the same way the biblical Adam's rib became the source for Eve?

I have to find interesting questions to ponder since the episodes are so very boring.  ;D
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: MagnusTrask on May 10, 2007, 09:37:17 PM
And Barnabas is forced to keep saying "Harry Johnson"!   
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Midnite on May 11, 2007, 01:56:39 AM
What would've happened if they had opted for a male life force for Eve?

Honestly, can anyone look at pictures of Leona Eltridge ...
link to Robservation #595
... and not suspect that they HAD opted for a male life force for Eve?
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: MsCriseyde on May 11, 2007, 03:02:43 AM
Honestly, can anyone look at pictures of Leona Eltridge ...
link to Robservation #595
... and not suspect that they HAD opted for a male life force for Eve?
[laughing4] I had completely forgotten about that. (My brain's been a little fried lately.)
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Brandon Collins on May 11, 2007, 05:19:25 AM
I don't really see the problem that some seem to be having with Kitty being the reincarnation of Josette. Reincarnation doesn't meant that a duplicate of the same person is made. Like Magnus said, reincarnation knows no bounds. So, I could be reincarnated as a poor, black, asian, arab, or otherwise non-white person who has no friends and does drugs. That would be a COMPLETLY TURN AROUND from what I am now, and my soul would still be the same.

Reincarnation, to me, means that a soul is created by God, or whomever you wish to believe is upstairs, and sent to earth to live a life. The body they inhabit dies, and they return to heaven (or whatever you percieve to be up there) and then after a while the spirit or soul, whichever you wish to call it, returns to another Earth-bound body and lives out another, completely separate and probably completely different life. The soul, during the transfer, doesn't retain the memories of it's previous lives consciously. The memories are there, make no mistake, but it's not stored in the same place where you store a memory of what you had for breakfast yesterday morning.

So, it's completely logical to me that Josette's soul could re-enter this world in Kitty's body, and she would have no memory whatsoever of who she was before, or that she even lived before, and be leading a completely separate life that just-so-happened to crossover one point, Collinwood, same as the life before.
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Lydia on May 12, 2007, 02:54:15 AM
As for Kitty's dissimilarity to Josette... we aren't supposed to be reincarnated with an identical personality.    It would be a bit of a coincidence if her personality was all that similar.
So, if reincarnation wasn't supposed to make Kitty particularly like Josette, why was Barnabas overjoyed that he had found the reincarnation of Josette?
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: MagnusTrask on May 12, 2007, 03:36:16 AM
Well, closer to the bull's-eye than Maggie Evans or VW, I guess.    BC wanted to reawaken the old personality.
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: onyx_treasure on May 12, 2007, 09:47:02 PM
Oh boy.  What would Barnabas have done if Willie, Roger, or even Harry Johnson had turned out to be the reincarnation of his beloved Josette?

     I know what Barnabas would do if it were Harry Johnson  [puke]
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on May 13, 2007, 06:09:38 PM
I know what Barnabas would do if it were Harry Johnson  [puke]

The image of Harry done up in Josette's wedding dress would be enough to make almost anyone [puke]

  ;D
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: MagnusTrask on May 13, 2007, 08:28:36 PM
Almost?   It's amazing that a keyboard can still work with so much puke on it....
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on May 13, 2007, 08:44:58 PM
Well, regardless of how ugly a woman Harry might make, there would certainly be some people who'd get off on it/him. Appeal is, after all, very much in the eye of the beholder.  ;)
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: MagnusTrask on May 13, 2007, 10:52:50 PM
Well, regardless of how ugly a woman Harry might make, there would certainly be some people who'd get off on it/him. Appeal is, after all, very much in the eye of the beholder.  ;)

Of course.   And there's no one who can't be improved by adopting a cooler and more appropriate look.   I'd tell him to try shaving his head, but I'm wacky.    "It"....!!
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Gerard on May 13, 2007, 11:32:41 PM
All I can picture is Barnabas entering Josette's room, finding Harry standing there under his spell wearing Josette's wedding gown asking:  "Does this make me look fat?"

Gerard
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on May 13, 2007, 11:46:23 PM
Where's CastleBee when now could be the perfect opportunity for her to possibly use her talents to photoshop us what would surely be another one of her hilarious graphics?  [lghy]
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Willie on May 14, 2007, 03:28:59 PM
All I can picture is Barnabas entering Josette's room, finding Harry standing there under his spell wearing Josette's wedding gown asking:  "Does this make me look fat?"

Thanks for giving me my morning chuckle!  ;D

Just to stir things up a bit, when Tate painted that Blackmore guy who was in charge of the prison that Aristede escaped from, he came to life with memories and personality intact.  Yet when he painted Amanda, she came to life not knowing who she was, and with some sort of "psychic link" or whatever to Josette.  It's not really logically consistent - on the one hand he brings people back to life, while on the other hand he creates reincarnations.
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Midnite on May 14, 2007, 05:18:09 PM
Just to stir things up a bit, when Tate painted that Blackmore guy who was in charge of the prison that Aristede escaped from, he came to life with memories and personality intact.  Yet when he painted Amanda, she came to life not knowing who she was, and with some sort of "psychic link" or whatever to Josette.  It's not really logically consistent - on the one hand he brings people back to life, while on the other hand he creates reincarnations.

Spoiler:
Tate created Amanda from his imagining of the perfect woman <gurgle>.  She didn't exist before 1895, so when we first see her, her memories go back only 2 years.  But Garth Blackwood, whom he resurrected straight from hell (at Petofi's instruction), was the real Master of Dartmoor Prison before Aristede killed him.  So Amanda became a mortal woman after Tate painted her, but Blackwood, once human, became a demon/ghost (take your pick) after Tate painted him.
  I hate to say it, but it all actually does make logical sense.

Amanda was not the reincarnation of Josette; only Kitty had that distinction.  The two women lived at the same time, and were even in Collinsport simultaneously.
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Josette on May 15, 2007, 07:44:53 AM
Just to stir things up a bit, when Tate painted that Blackmore guy who was in charge of the prison that Aristede escaped from, he came to life with memories and personality intact.  Yet when he painted Amanda, she came to life not knowing who she was, and with some sort of "psychic link" or whatever to Josette.  It's not really logically consistent - on the one hand he brings people back to life, while on the other hand he creates reincarnations.

I don't recall any psychic link between Amanda and Josette - it was Lady Kitty who was the reincarnation of Josette.  Otherwise, Garth Blackwood (Master of Dartmoor Prison) had been a real person, so apparently he returned with his memories.  Amanda hadn't previously existed.  She was a painting from Tate's imagination, his "dream woman" and then came alive.  There were no memories or personality to come with her.  Her first memories are of when she was "created."
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Willie on May 15, 2007, 01:38:39 PM
Sorry, I got Amanda and Kitty mixed up there.  Never mind  ;D  With so much reincarnation and making new people and bringing the dead back to life, my little brain boggles.
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on May 15, 2007, 03:59:56 PM
With so much reincarnation and making new people and bringing the dead back to life, my little brain boggles.

Understandable.  :)
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Gerard on May 15, 2007, 04:37:49 PM
Sorry, I got Amanda and Kitty mixed up there.  Never mind  ;D  With so much reincarnation and making new people and bringing the dead back to life, my little brain boggles.

The people living in Collinwood undoubtedly would get highly confused, too.  Their Christmas card lists must've been a mess.

Gerard
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: MagnusTrask on May 15, 2007, 05:20:33 PM
OT, sorry---The inconsistency for me was that when Tate painted Amanda, she came into being out on the street someplace instead of right there in the room, as nameless mute startled guy did.   Garth was outside someplace too.    If all the things he'd made up in his life plopped into existence out on the sidewalk, that explains his being unaware of his power.   Why they stopped doing that is the confusing thing.
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Midnite on May 15, 2007, 06:19:22 PM
Sorry, I got Amanda and Kitty mixed up there.  Never mind  ;D

No need to apologize, Willie.  I thought that might be the case.  If you've seen one gold digger...  ;)
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Uncle Roger on March 18, 2012, 09:12:18 AM
If Barnabas and Angelique were not around, would the Josette aspect of Kitty's personality ever manifested itself?
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Cousin_Barnabas on March 18, 2012, 09:20:20 AM
That's an interesting question, Uncle Roger.  I am certain that Kitty would have still felt something.  She probably would have looked at the portrait of Barnabas and could have even attempted to free him, but[spoiler] I am sure that the Kitty side of her (which was very strong in the beginning) would have taken hold before she got too far.  It was really Barnabas that brought Josette out.  [/spoiler]
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: MagnusTrask on October 19, 2012, 09:49:39 PM
If there's anything to this "fate" idea, would Kitty even have ended up at Collinwood, or have been reincarnated as Kitty at all, if Barnabas was not going to be at Collinwood in 1897?
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: quentincollins on June 02, 2013, 11:17:35 PM
I wonder what happened with Kitty in the original timeline without Barnabas around. I think there's a good chance she did marry Edward. I know in one of the eps in the first year, maybe during the Laura storyline, Liz makes a reference to a piece of jewelry left to her by her grandmother, which ironicaly was probably Laura, but it could have been Kitty - or a maternal grandmother, but that seems less likely.
It would be neat if Big Finish did a story or two with Kitty. I'd think there would be a story in her rise and fall in England, and if they managed to get her back to 1897 after the trip to 1796 I wouldn't mind at all.
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: MagnusTrask on June 02, 2013, 11:39:22 PM
It was my understanding that Kitty merged back into her previous incarnation as Josette, then that one being died "again" from poison.
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: quentincollins on June 02, 2013, 11:47:34 PM
Yes, that is what seems to have happened. I accept it's a strech to get any other interpretation out of what we see. I just like the idea of Kitty marrying Edward and being part of the family. I at least tell think that might have been what happened in the original timeline.
I do think there could be a good audio about Kitty's life before she came to Collinwood, especially with Petofi's involvement with her husband's suicide.
This is just a crazy theory. I've read a fan theory before that Josette could've had a twin sister that died at birth or infancy, and that Rachel was the reincarnation of the twin - and possibly Maggie was the reincarnation of Rachel.
After KLS played Josette's mother in the audio The Crimson Pearl, it occured to me that Rachel and/or Maggie could be the reincarnation of Josette's mother. All of this is based on their appearance which in "real life" has nothing to do with reincarnation, but I'm just using DS logic. I don't really think this is the case, but it's still fun to speculate and make up wild theories, DS is very good at inspiring the imagination.
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Uncle Roger on June 02, 2013, 11:54:33 PM
Some back story would be nice. It could be interesting to see how Edward became acquainted with Kitty and her husband. I.would really like to see how Count Petofi became involved with the Hampshires and what part Petofi played in Gerald's death. Suicide, wasn't it?
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: quentincollins on June 03, 2013, 12:04:42 AM
I'm pretty sure that Edward and Gerald Soames were old friends. Kitty was a family governess for the Soames family. I'm not sure if she was actually a governess for Gerald's children. If she were then he was a widower I guess.
I do remember that Petofi played some part in financially ruining Gerald which drove him to suicide.
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: Cousin_Barnabas on June 03, 2013, 12:09:49 AM
It was my understanding that Kitty merged back into her previous incarnation as Josette, then that one being died "again" from poison.

And that was a really dumb way to end it.  I know that there was little possibility of bringing Josette back to the present with Maggie and all, but at least have her die the way she was always supposed to have...  Geez.

My preference would have been to have the painting launch Barnabas and Josette forward, thus Maggie and Josette would exist in the same time.  Or they could have even had Josette assume control of Maggie's body [spoiler]a la Peter Bradford and Jeff Clark.[/spoiler] That would have made Leviathans all the more entertaining.  But, oh no...
Title: Re: Kittys fate
Post by: quentincollins on June 03, 2013, 12:16:40 AM
Interesting idea about Josette coming to the modern day. I wouldn't want Maggie to be replaced by Josette full time, but a temporary possesion would've been really interesting, with Josette in the modern world and Barnabas trying to make a go of things with her.
I do really hate that Josette's iconic death over Widow's Hill was replaced with death by poison.
Josette going over Widow's Hill, with it's ambiguity if she fell or jumped, was motivated by her fighting not to become a vampire. Josette drinking poison because she thinks Barnabas left her is pretty weak by comparison.