DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '07 I => Topic started by: MagnusTrask on June 07, 2007, 08:50:55 PM
-
Split from a discussion beginning here:
Re: Discuss - Ep #0314
Sarah could have had something to say about that family incident in 1897, when BC was found out. Why didn't she pop up then? for the first time?
-
Perhaps because she knew that wasn't actually the Barn of 1897, but the Barn of 1969...
-
Perhaps because she knew that wasn't actually the Barn of 1897, but the Barn of 1969...
Would that make a difference? Killing is killing. I don't let Barnabas off the hook the slightest bit for that event in 1897, I don't know if anyone else does.... I think Sarah of 1897 would sense her brother is back, killing someone, but since he wasn't doing harm before that, perhaps it's only action she's alerted by, not intent, and either way, she didn't have much of a chance to awaken and intervene given how fast things were moving.
I don't know how much Sarah (8 years old?) could comprehend about a 1969 brother inhabiting an 1897 brother. At most, I think she'd sense something strange and mysterious was happening with him, and if she got any real sense of it, this would take time, and she'd process and express it in ways we might find difficult to interpret. She's speaking from an alien perspective.
I doubt she'd care. I think she'd want to take Barney out to the woodshed.
Sarah and her perspective is one of the most interesting things about DS to me, now. Lydia probably agrees.
-
Would that make a difference? Killing is killing.
Well, the difference would be that in Barnabas' personal timeline Sarah has already told him that she'll never appear to him until he's good. And, obviously, killing someone isn't good.
but since he wasn't doing harm before that
As for not doing harm, I suppose that all depends on the degrees of harm one is considering. True, Barn hadn't killed anyone up to that point. But he had attacked Sandor, Charity, Beth and Dirk (which in turn had enabled Dirk to cause all sorts of havoc along with the death of Pansy and the extremely tragic death of Rachel), he'd forced Sandor to do things against his will, and he all too often treated Magda like she was some slave who was simply there to do his bidding - and whenever she balked, he'd threaten to kill Sandor. Not exactly the behavior of a sweet and lovable Mr. Nice Guy. ;)
-
Well, the difference would be that in Barnabas' personal timeline Sarah has already told him that she'll never appear to him until he's good. And, obviously, killing someone isn't good.
Sarah of 1897 doesn't know about BC's personal timeline, or her part in it, or the future.
Alright, let me fine-tune here and say I'm talking about Sarah not appearing visibly, but stopping Barnabas's actions. While 1897 Sarah wouldn't know about 1967 Sarah's promises, her feelings and inclinations would be similar, and she wouldn't "appear" but would be alerted into coming back and interfering, if more incidents like the one in question were to happen.
I'm missing the Sandor portion of 1897. Threats and mistreatment are presumably not enough to rouse a slumbering ghost though. Once roused, she's take notice of those things.
-
Sarah of 1897 doesn't know about BC's personal timeline, or her part in it, or the future.
Sarah is a supernatural/metaphysical spirit/entity, and as such I don't know that we can say with 100% certainty that she wouldn't be aware of many things - past, present and future. Spirits might possess a timeless degree of knowledge - it just might be a matter of tapping into it. Who's to say that they're not completely unconstrained by reality as we know it or that they don't primarily reside within a higher plane of existence from which they might cross to appear in this reality?
(For instance, though not a spirit, but as someone who had died (and done so numerous times :D) Angelique knew that before Barnabas' time in 1897 came to an end, someone would stake him. And there may be other examples on DS that I'm forgetting at the moment...)
-
MB--Sure, it's always possible ghosts know the future, but I would wait until someone chose to write them that way, and made it viable. One thing I don't like about 1968 is how loose they are with everything. Suddenly, this or that being has this or that power just because the script says so. (The end of 1968 and start to 1969, with the appearance of Chris Jennings, is a big relief, because they stop throwing random supernatural things at us, and begin with a well-thought-out extended viable storyline, that's more believable.)
So, until they surprise me with a viable atemporal ghost, which they won't since DS was cancelled and it's over, I'll take it for granted that any Sarah who exists in 1897 is totally of 1897... not connected to the future, anyway. Ang is a different creature.
-
Sure, it's always possible ghosts know the future, but I would wait until someone chose to write them that way, and made it viable. ... So, until they surprise me with a viable atemporal ghost, which they won't since DS was cancelled and it's over, I'll take it for granted that any Sarah who exists in 1897 is totally of 1897... not connected to the future, anyway.
And that's certainly your prerogative - though others may not necessarily feel similarly. ;)
Actually, now that I think about it, I seem to recall the ghost of Bill Malloy warning Vicki of dire future consequences that could befall her if she didn't leave Collinwood. There may also be other examples that I can't think of at the moment.
-
Actually, now that I think about it, I seem to recall the ghost of Bill Malloy warning Vicki of dire future consequences that could befall her if she didn't leave Collinwood. There may also be other examples that I can't think of at the moment.
Which means that it's not written in stone, which suggests they don't know "the future" but just what might happen. It sounds as if that could have been a prediction based on what's known (by a ghost, who has better supernatural information than the rest of us) to be happening in the present. I wouldn't know. I'm guessing that was pre-Barnabas. I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just trying to be conservative about it.
-
I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just trying to be conservative about it.
But at the very least, that example opens the door to a possibility. ;)
-
Which means that it's not written in stone, which suggests they don't know "the future" but just what might happen. It sounds as if that could have been a prediction based on what's known (by a ghost, who has better supernatural information than the rest of us) to be happening in the present. I wouldn't know. I'm guessing that was pre-Barnabas. I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just trying to be conservative about it.
[Very spoilery]
I think an example of Sarah's precognition occurs later in ep #344, when she appears (though only her flute playing is heard) to tell David of an imminent catastrophic event that has no basis in current events:
DAVID: Do you hear that?
CAROLYN: Yes.
DAVID: It's Sarah! Something's going to happen! Soon, very soon!
CAROLYN: What?
DAVID: Nobody knows it yet, but it's going to happen far, far away.
CAROLYN: Where?
DAVID: No one knows yet, but it's going to make us all very sad for a long time. No one's going to cause it, and no one can stop it. It's going to be an accident.
CAROLYN: Who's it going to happen to?
DAVID: Nobody knows yet.
CAROLYN: David, none of this is real. It can't be!
DAVID: It is, and there's nothing we can do about it. Nothing.
In the next scene, David bids goodbye to Burke.
-
Actually going by what happened in 1967, Sarah's spirit should have materialized once Barnabas is released from his coffin in 1897. They didnt want to go that route again as there was already a ghost story going on in the present time.
-
They would have needed another Sarah, the currant Sarah would have been to old.
-
Actually going by what happened in 1967, Sarah's spirit should have materialized once Barnabas is released from his coffin in 1897. They didnt want to go that route again as there was already a ghost story going on in the present time.
How do we know that she didn't materialize, but she just didn't necessarily show herself to anyone we saw in the 1897 storyline? Or if she did appear to any of the characters we know (other than Barn ;)), they were under orders from Sarah to keep it a complete secret? Either premise could make for an interesting fanfic, particularly Sarah's views on everything Barn did in 1897...
-
This is a great subject. Lydia needs to chime in on this, more.
Again, though I may have said it on another thread, I think it takes enoremous provocation to rouse a ghost from whatever unimaginable
"other place" they normally inhabit... perhaps a limbo in which they rest in peace. Think how much it may take sometimes to wake you up!
Barnabas leaving the coffin in 1897 (though I don't know that part of the story) would not be enough. If there were dead vampire victims then, the yes, after a couple of those, Sarah might notice. And by the incident with the family member, later, Sarah might be ready to intervene. But how do we know what different conditions there may be for Sarah, in the afterlife, compared to 1967? Maybe she's not as connected to the living world at that point, for whatever reason.
Midnite: "Precognition" yes, but that doesn't necessarily extend to future centuries. Some living individuals in DS get a sense of imminent danger, and are right, but they still don't have a road map to what's going to happen in a hundred years. Anyway, David keeps going on about how "nobody knows" what it is, or when, or how.... "nobody" might very well include Sarah. She didn't give specifics after all... maybe she was telling all she knew.
I'm glad it's this vague. It's good to discuss this, but if we knew for sure it would be boring.
-
Maybe during the time of 1897, she was in another body, and not able to come to do anyting. If she had reincarnated and had another life at that time. That would make it hard for her to come back. Maybe in 1967, she was again just a spirit and not in a body, that made it possible for her to come back.
As to the previous coment about the accident with Burke, maybe she was watching over burke because at some point , Barnabas wanted to do away with him.
:- Would we have accepted another Sarah, Sharon was a lot older then and we know that ghost don't age, It's hard to be 10 when you are not. :-
-
Lydia needs to chime in on this, more.
I'm feeling like Lurch right now.
The problem with chiming in is that my ideas on the subject are a little too off the wall. I'm figuring the response (if any) will be, "No, that's not right." But here goes, anyway:
The reason Sarah did not appear in 1897 was that Barnabas did not summon her, the way he unconsciously did in 1967. In 1967 he was being Evil Barnabas, and his good self, which had not been totally extinguished, struggled to express itself and finally did so by calling forth Sarah's ghost. In 1897, Barnabas was being Good Barnabas. Any bad acts that he committed were for the sake of saving David and Chris. After all, everybody knows that the end justifies the means. So Sarah rested in peace. She never was the soul of innocence and virtue that Barnabas envisioned her as, so the simple fact that Barnabas was killing and maiming scads of innocent victims was not enough to rouse her.
I don't remember Sarah assisting in David's premonition of disaster, but Midnite's quote makes it clear that she did. (I just read a book whose moral was: "Check your sources!" but I trust Midnite to get this right.) But it's not clear from the quote (and I'm too tired to go check the episode myself) that Sarah was the one with precognition. Maybe David had it but didn't realize it, and Sarah sensed it and pulled it to the surface of David's mind - and the reason that the premonition was so vague was that it wasn't ready to be pulled out and examined. Premature birth of foreknowledge is notoriously dangerous.
-
In 1897, Barnabas was being Good Barnabas. Any bad acts that he committed were for the sake of saving David and Chris.
Hmmm - in many instances, yes - but somehow attacking Sophie Baker (and presumably killing her since none of his dockside doxies ever survive) doesn't strike one as having had anything to do with David and Chris. It comes across as pure and simple and even selfish blood lust, no matter how much one might try to explain it away as addiction. ;)
-
Midnite: "Precognition" yes, but that doesn't necessarily extend to future centuries. Some living individuals in DS get a sense of imminent danger, and are right, but they still don't have a road map to what's going to happen in a hundred years.
I didn't mean to imply that Sarah could predict what will occur in another 70+ years; I was only responding to your comment that DS ghosts can't see future events. I think what "roused" Sarah in 1967 was her brother's purely evil state after emerging from the coffin. The Barnabas walking about in 1897 had already become the show's protagonist, even if his actions in that time period are more difficult for the audience to rationalize than they seemed to be for Barnabas.
But I'm intrigued by Lydia's suggestion that Sarah was summoned by her brother's inner Good Barnabas.
Anyway, David keeps going on about how "nobody knows" what it is, or when, or how.... "nobody" might very well include Sarah. She didn't give specifics after all... maybe she was telling all she knew.
There's a finality to David's farewell to Burke. Even Vicki commented that he was speaking as if Burke was never coming back. It's apparent that he knew far more than he admitted in the dialogue quoted above.
I don't remember Sarah assisting in David's premonition of disaster, but Midnite's quote makes it clear that she did. (I just read a book whose moral was: "Check your sources!" but I trust Midnite to get this right.) But it's not clear from the quote (and I'm too tired to go check the episode myself) that Sarah was the one with precognition. Maybe David had it but didn't realize it, and Sarah sensed it and pulled it to the surface of David's mind - and the reason that the premonition was so vague was that it wasn't ready to be pulled out and examined. Premature birth of foreknowledge is notoriously dangerous.
If I'm not mistaken, Robin saw it as David's premonition too. The DS Program Guide supports my interpretation (not that the DSPG or I are, by any means, definitive sources)-- #344 Sarah warns David that a disaster will soon happen. David is disturbed when Burke leaves for Brazil.
-
There's a finality to David's farewell to Burke. Even Vicki commented that he was speaking as if Burke was never coming back. I believe he knew far more than he admitted in the dialogue quoted above.
That's most definitely implied. Once can see it in David's body language/demeanor in the scene.
-
I'm feeling like Lurch right now.
The problem with chiming in is that my ideas on the subject are a little too off the wall. I'm figuring the response (if any) will be, "No, that's not right."
The reason Sarah did not appear in 1897 was that Barnabas did not the simple fact that Barnabas was killing and maiming scads of innocent victims was not enough to rouse her.
1. Get me my belladonna cocktail right away. And take $2000 out of the petty cash drawer for yourself.
2. Pshaw!
3. I'm disappointed that "good" early 1897 vampire Barnabas acts exactly like "evil" 1967 Barnabas. Didn't he even make anyone drain cattle this time around?
-
In 1897, Barnabas was being Good Barnabas. Any bad acts that he committed were for the sake of saving David and Chris.
Hmmm - in many instances, yes - but somehow attacking Sophie Baker (and presumably killing her since none of his dockside doxies ever survive) doesn't strike one as having had anything to do with David and Chris. It comes across as pure and simple and even selfish blood lust, no matter how much one might try to explain it away as addiction. ;)
Clarification: I'm not saying that Barnabas was being good in 1897. I'm making no judgement on the status of his virtue at that point. What I am saying is that he thought of himself as basically good. It was his conscience that extracted Sarah from her peaceful rest in 1967, but his conscience was pretty clean in 1897 - whether or not it should have been.
-
I think it was the invention of Boo-Berry breakfast cereal that awakened Sarah.
-
[lghy]
-
The reason Sarah did not appear in 1897 was that Barnabas did not summon her, the way he unconsciously did in 1967. In 1967 he was being Evil Barnabas, and his good self, which had not been totally extinguished, struggled to express itself and finally did so by calling forth Sarah's ghost.
I'm very impressed by this new insight, Lydia! Thanks for sharing! 8) I'd never thought of it that way before.
While we're on the subject of Sarah, I was disappointed that she never returned to Barnabas, after promising him she would only appear to him once he learned how to be good. Maybe she didn't think he had changed much over the years? :-
It would have been a fitting end to the show if she would have come back, saying how proud of him she was for partially conquering the evil nature brought on by the vampire curse, and that she forgave him.
-
It would have been a fitting end to the show if she would have come back, saying how proud of him she was for partially conquering the evil nature brought on by the vampire curse, and that she forgave him.
But how many things in the show that they didn't rap up. We never really know about what really happened. We had the TV guide artical but nothing else. There wasn't really any detail about what happened. I guess we get to fill in the blanks with Fan Fiction. There has been some great stuff.
-
It IS a great subject. Perhaps Sarah's dormance had something to do with the I-Ching wands and Barn's time travel. The initial premise is that Barnabas was chained in his coffin for a century or so. Unleashed in 1967 his terror began.
Sarah's soul was perhaps disturbed by this and that is when she first appeared. But who is to say that she didn't appear earlier? Alas, no one will know.
-
As Sarah had warned Barnabas that she would not appear to him ever again unless he was good, I think she was keeping her word. However heroic we may have come to see Barnabas, however much we may consider him a tragic victim of circumstance, he continued to do bad, thoughtless, even cruel and evil things after the 1795 Flashback. Personally, I think she knows exactly who Barn is in 1840 1897 1995 etc. She doesn't appear because she is keeping her word (and she knows she is not part of these events).
Sarah is a curious creature. One is never quite sure exactly what she is all about. Is she simply an oblivious spirit who doesn't know she's dead? Is she fully aware of who and what she is and uses it? Is she there to stop Barnabas from being destroyed (obviously, the original idea was to destroy him). Her motives/agenda seem to change with her every appearance.
I would consider that Sarah, as a supernatural being, knows already much of what happened with Barnabas in the course of the series. Her appearances in 1967 were in part to try to save him. And I think save him she did. I think she knows/knew exactly what she was doing in appearing to help Maggie and Sam and Dr Woodard and David. In a way she was the catalyst for everything that happened after her mission was accomplished by spiriting Vicki into the past. With that one act, Sarah made the show we came to know come and love into being.
without Sarah's help, Barnabas may not have ever regain any kind of moral center - he would have been eventually killed, Willie probably killed, Hoffman certainly dead. Vicki probably would never have vanished into the past. The Adam storyline (sans his connection to Barnabas) would also have been bereft of Ang and Nicholas and Adam himself would probably have been Jeff Clark, though that would mean nothing to Vicki. Then of course, the whole Quentin Jennings affair would have ended in tears with both Jennings' boys dead (both probably werewolves that were destroyed, but then Quentin would have possessed David and Amy and they might have died, and the vengeful ghost would have succeeded in driving everyone out of Collinwood.
Not sure any of this makes any sense - I'm sick and cannot sleep and it's 2 am!
-
It might not matter anymore, but when I brought up Sarah and 1897, I was wondering about Sarah being awakened in 1897 to try to stop Barnabas, NOT wondering about whether she would appear visibly TO Barnabas. My point was, why didn't Sarah behave in 1897 toward BC doing wrong, in the same way she did in 1967 toward BC doing wrong?
-
It might not matter anymore, but when I brought up Sarah and 1897, I was wondering about Sarah being awakened in 1897 to try to stop Barnabas, NOT wondering about whether she would appear visibly TO Barnabas. My point was, why didn't Sarah behave in 1897 toward BC doing wrong, in the same way she did in 1967 toward BC doing wrong?
Barn's motives are the key here - by the 1897 storyline Barnabas was the hero/protector or the family. He may have done wrong things, but IMO, the important think his his intent. As with most magic and spell castings - intent is vitally important. 1897 Barn was not the rampaging monster that he was in 1967. His modern spirit inhabited the 1897 shell and he intentions were honorable, even if they methods he used occasionally were not.
-
Who could have they gotten to play her. Sharon was growing up fast. Could we have excepted anyone else. Look what happened when they tried to replace Vickie.
-
I could be wrong, but I think the audience would have accepted a different actress playing Sarah far easier than they would have accepted a different Vicki. While Sarah sometimes played an important part in the introduction of Barn (much less so in 1795/96), she wasn't all that central a character, whereas for so much of the show Vicki was THE central character. In fact, by 1969 and beyond there would have been a large percentage of the audience who had never even seen Sarah...
-
Yeah, intent....I'll have to see early 1897 to know of course, but if he did leave bodies in his wake then, as well as that relative later on, then perhaps the big difference in Barnabas between 1967 and 1897 is that he's cut back on mayhem a little, and with the rest, has gotten better at rationalizing.
I know he's in a difficult spot, being a vampire, and I used to hate it when characters such as Julia would "just say no" to him. But he knew he'd be a vampire in 1897... I'm guessing he did. If he hadn't made that difficult choice the series wouldn't be the interesting thing that it is, but he had to know he'd end up killing people.
If Lydia is right about conscience awakening Sarah, then perhaps his relatively clear conscience in 1897, because he's on an 'heroic mission', despite what he does, IS the reason there's no Sarah ghost. Rationalization as exorcism.
-
But he knew he'd be a vampire in 1897... I'm guessing he did. If he hadn't made that difficult choice the series wouldn't be the interesting thing that it is, but he had to know he'd end up killing people.
It might be nice to think Barnabas would be willing to make that choice, but the fact is that when he threw the I Ching wands in 1969, Barnabas had no clue whatsoever that he would travel back in time to 1897. He simply hoped to be able to communicate with Quentin's ghost. And he was horrified when he saw his changed coffin beyond the door and ended up inside it. He most certainly never suspected much less was willing to let that happen. But once he was in the I Ching trance, apparently there was no going back.
On the other hand, yes, he did know he would be a vampire in 1840. But he was already a vampire in 1970, so the whole vampire issue was completely moot.
-
Big spoiler of course, about going back to 1897, but in the absence of that DS period, I'd rather hear a bit about it than not, I guess.
My childhood memory is of there having been so many intentional trips through time by our heroes via I Ching, with the 49th hexagram always appearing by chance, that it was funny.
-
Personally, I think to say that Sarah has some form of precognition really solves the entire thing rather well. I mean, I really can't accept that she didn't know what was going to happen as a result of her intervention in 1967, because otherwise, she wouldn't have done it. Of course she hoped that her intervening would save some lives, but I think ultimately she knew it would lead to more than that. She knew that it would lead Barnabas down the correct path he needed to go down, and ultimately lead him to be a better person. Depending on how you define precognition, it could swing one way or the other. If you define it loosely, by which I mean she knew she would've been saving some lives, then YES, she DID have precognition. If you define it as knowing that an event is definitely going to happen, no matter what you do, then NO, she probably DIDN'T have precognition.
I'm still unsure, myself, of whether or not Sarah knew that Barnabas would be doing all that time-traveling and reaking all the havoc he did in certain time periods.
And as far as her appearing in 1897, sure she could've watched unseen, making sure that Barnabas didn't do anything too horrible. I think it would've been a nice touch for the writers to add in the sound of her flute playing just after Barnabas had killed Carl, or committed some other such wrong doing in 1897. That would've been something simple enough to call back the memory of Sarah for most viewers and say "Hey, I'm still here, and I"m still watching, so be good or it's coal in your stocking."
Not to mention that with the writers preoccupation of reincarnation through the series, they could've had Sharon Smith come back and play a teenage girl who came to live at Collinwood, or maybe someone who befriends Jamison, or maybe even as Kitty Soams' daughter or niece or cousin, and then instead of having Kitty be the reincarnation of Josette, they could've had Sharon's new character be the reincarnation of Sarah. I think that would've been even more gripping if the Leviathans had've taken Sarah's reincarnated self hostage instead of Josette, because Josette was constantly in danger, whereas Sarah was only in danger once in 1795.
-
Sarah stayed frozen as a child as she was when she died in 1795, and wonders where everyone from then got to. I doubt she'd live other lives, then die again and appear as Sarah as a child, after. The flute in 1897 would have been a nice touch, maybe just that once.
-
Not to mention that with the writers preoccupation of reincarnation through the series, they could've had Sharon Smith come back and play a teenage girl who came to live at Collinwood, or maybe someone who befriends Jamison, or maybe even as Kitty Soams' daughter or niece or cousin, and then instead of having Kitty be the reincarnation of Josette, they could've had Sharon's new character be the reincarnation of Sarah. I think that would've been even more gripping if the Leviathans had've taken Sarah's reincarnated self hostage instead of Josette, because Josette was constantly in danger, whereas Sarah was only in danger once in 1795.
I like the idea that Sarah came back as someone else, but she could have known that she was Sarah, and she could have had an effect on Barnabas. That way Sharon could have come back, that is if she was acting then. The flute playing would have been great. Brandon I really like the place you are coming from.
Lori
-
Thanks Lori!
And you know what? That's quite an idea about Sarah knowing who she really was, but coming back in another body. There are some beliefs out there that a spirit can choose to reincarnate into another life anytime it pleases. The only reason that we don't remember our past lives, if we truly did have them, is because the transition from the higher plane to this plane is somewhat difficult, so we generally forget. But I'm sure that if Sarah were a strong enough entity, and I think she was, that she could make herself remember, or maybe do a past life regression through hypnosis to remember what she reincarnated for in the first place.
She could choose, for example, to be reincarnated and born on earth in, say, 1882, then show up in 1897 as a 15 year old, full well knowing that she's there to stop Barnabas from doing anything wrong.
-
But then she wouldn't appear in 1967 as a ghost of a child from 1795. If anything, her ghost would be of her last reincarnation, wouldn't it? And if she had ever been an adult, she wouldn't have the mindset of a child later on as a ghost.
-
But then she wouldn't appear in 1967 as a ghost of a child from 1795. If anything, her ghost would be of her last reincarnation, wouldn't it?
Not necessarily. Josette was reincarnated as Kitty Hampshire in the late 1800s, yet when her ghost appears it is in the form of Josette circa 1796, her earlier incarnation.
ProfStokes
-
Barnabas needs Sarah to stop him from doing bad things. If he was a monster, then Sarah couldn't really stop him. Sarah didn't stop him with Jason or Trask or Nathan. But then maybe she wanted them to die because they were bad. Trask was responsible for Vickie's trouble and Nathan told Naomi the truth or told her about Barnabas.
-
Possibly David had something (possibly subconsciously) to do with the appearance of Sarah. I recall
asking someone what exactly spurred on the appearane of the ghost room/Tad and Carrie storyline in 1970, since there was no explicit reason (like there was when David and Amy broke the wall in front of Quentin's room in 1969). Someone argued to me at that point that perhaps simply the combination of Hallie and David just made it happen, since they were the same age and reincarnations of Tad and Carrie.
Well, maybe Sarah appeared because of Barnabas, but this alone wasn't enough. The fact that David was the exact same age as Daniel was when she died had something to do with it. I know this explanation is not very well thought out, but in 1897 there was no catalyst similar to David in 1967.
-
Oh, I think Barnabas appearing in the world of the living again, and being as warped as he was, was more than enough of a trigger for Sarah ro "feel needed".