DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '02 II => Topic started by: Josette on November 16, 2002, 11:24:14 AM
-
The reaction of the "bitee" seems to be different in each case, apparently depending on how they want the story to go.
I think that Maggie didn't really know what had happened to her. She was weak, but didn't seem to know anything. Then, after Barnabas abducted her, she went "in and out" of knowing who she was and what Barnabas was.
The one that really puzzled me was Josette in 1795. Barnabas did finally bite her and she was ready to go away with him. Yet, she seemed to be completely unaware of what he was and what going with him would mean. I could never figure out how she could have been bitten and yet still not know what he was.
Today's episode would seem to confirm how crazy that was. Charity was immediately aware of what had happened (as have other victims been, i.e., Joe with Angelique, Carolyn with Barnabas, etc.).
-
Hi, Joesette your'e right it does seem like some of
Barnabas's victims don't realize they have been bit
or even act scard for some reason.
Love Anne [wavey] [wavey]
-
This is a topic that a lot of writers of vampire fiction, including I, have addressed in different ways, inconsistency within DS itself notwithstanding. DS offered the somewhat landmark idea that vampirism was a preternatural "disease" rather than an explicitly supernatural condition. Thus, since different people have different reactions to bacterial and virile infections, based on their individual constitutions, it's conceivable they would have different reactions to the bite of a vampire. Not only that, different vampires themselves might carry different strains.
In DREAMS OF THE DARK, for example, the bite of Thomas Rathburn, whose characteristics are somewhat different than Barnabas's, causes very severe personality conflicts in Victoria Winters (to the point that some less-enlightened soul decided it was "character corruption").
I don't think any such thing was in the minds of the DS writers back in the day, but in hindsight, one can use all kinds of such devices to rationalize. ;)
--Mark
[/color]
-
In DREAMS OF THE DARK, for example, the bite of Thomas....
Hard to believe it took a whole paragraph before ya got to the book plug!!
We used to relate the different reactions of the bite-ee to different reactions to Dr. Leary's sugar cube treats! Some 'didn't know what was happening to them', some went 'in and out', and some were ready to 'go away with him'. But I've said before that the hippie-types all thought the whole show was about US [the soft white underbelly of society] and I've read from the gay posters that they thought it was all about them, and that the 'lonely, shy' types thought it was all about them. I think that's another aspect of the show that has allowed its continued popularity [like the Beatles songs - they were singing to us, about us, for us]. Everyone can relate to it their own way - it's 'our' show!
Just a 'glazed-eye' thought.... [liteye]
Ringo [jester]
and Mark, I was just yanking ya about the book promo - I love DOTD, read it several times, and recommend it to everyone that is a DS fan [and many who don't visit the board, I know I have 'pushed it' on several.] That's another thing - Do you all know of DS watchers who DON'T do this board??? I know several, but they never post here! ? ! Some lurk, but no post???
[and yes, it took me two paragraphs before I mentioned the Fabs!]
[but no TLATKLS in this post.........] [jawdrp]
-
I'm just putting it down to the victim reacting in whatever way the vampire (in this case, Barnabas) desires. He has a certain power over them, and I imagine he can make them remember or respond according to his dictates. Still, way deep down, the victim retains a very small amount of free will. That's why Willie tried to resist, but couldn't, and the same for Maggie. And Barnabas has to keep reminding Sandor not to outfox him, or else. If it wasn't at least theoretically possible for him to do so, even momentarily, Barnabas would have no reason to warn him.
Gerard
-
This is a topic that a lot of writers of vampire fiction, including I, have addressed in different ways, inconsistency within DS itself notwithstanding. DS offered the somewhat landmark idea that vampirism was a preternatural "disease" rather than an explicitly supernatural condition. Thus, since different people have different reactions to bacterial and virile infections, based on their individual constitutions, it's conceivable they would have different reactions to the bite of a vampire. Not only that, different vampires themselves might carry different strains.
I recently rewatched House of Dracula (actually, re re re re re rewatched would be more like it) that also dealt with this issue, explaining vampirism as a "peculiar parasite" that could be isolated and treated. Actually, it bugs me that this last installment in the Universal monster rally had a simple explanation for all the creatures' problems, but I digress. Anyway, after Dracula (yay for John Carradine!) takes one look at the doctor's gorgeous nurse and changes his mind about being cured, he reverses the procedure (and a valve or two) by transfusing the doctor with his own infected blood. Then I guess we're supposed to believe that what the doctor becomes is a vampire since his image isn't reflected in a mirror, yet he's able to freely walk in the sunlight, and even more confusingly changes in Jekyll/Hyde fashion at what seem to be the points in which the writers needed to up the intensity and violence of their story. I guess the point I'm making is that here's a movie, and a short one at that, that doesn't even make sense within its own time frame-- the lack of explanation as to how the Wolfman and Frankenstein survived the last movie notwithstanding-- so perhaps it helped inspire DC & Co. to change the rules of vampirism on DS at their own whim as well.
In DREAMS OF THE DARK, for example, the bite of Thomas Rathburn, whose characteristics are somewhat different than Barnabas's, causes very severe personality conflicts in Victoria Winters (to the point that some less-enlightened soul decided it was "character corruption").
I like that explanation best of all. We saw so little of Charity Trask pre-attack that we don't really know what she was like under all the repressed emotions. And the changes she undergoes even further into the storyline, though for a different reason, are even more surprising and entertaining.
-
it's funny but books and movies about vampires all
seem to change something about them.but i tend to think that always felt as Gerard that Barnabas controlled them they way he wanted. i always thought it was weird
that tom Jennings and dirk became the "monster vampires" while Barnabas and roxanne appeared
normal and could interact like before!
jennifer
-
This is hilarious!! A discussion on the vagaries of vampirism?!! :D
What are we comparing to? A control group of actual Vampires in a lab in Romania somewhere?
Is there a data bank of Vampire DNA that authors and film-makers should be referring to before they begin a new version?
Vampire legends are probably as old as civilization. Every culture has it's own take on them. Every writer from Stoker on down re-creates them in his/her own image. Every film-maker steals from, borrows and contradicts every one before them.
And thank goodness they do. Imagine how boring the whole genre would be if you couldn't change the way they rise up, the way they feed, the way they make slaves or companions of their victims, and the way they feel about themselves as creatures of Evil (or not!).
There's no one right way to be a Vampire. And no one right way for a vampire victim to behave. No one has 'holy writ' on the subject. And that's what makes us keep coming back for more!
Raineypark
-
This is hilarious!! A discussion on the vagaries of vampirism?!! :D
I'm, uh, glad you're enjoying it, hee hee!! I love the subject of vampires-- it's the hook that brought me to DS, though of course it's not what kept me coming back. :D
I also love the different interpretations of vampirism among different works, but I think the bigger discussion here is about how the rules changed (what some call inconsistencies) for vampires and their victims within the DS story itself.
It's just my POV, but I don't think you can compare Barn's and Angelique's vampires to the others simply because they were victims of a curse and a spell respectively. And
SPOILERS AHEAD...
I think the difference between the vampire Roxanne of 1970 and, say, Megan's vamp stems from the fact that the former had 130 years on the latter.
-
..... I think the bigger discussion here is about how the rules changed for vampires and their victims within the DS story itself.
And again!....thank goodness they DID change. Can you imagine if Willie's reaction had been more like Maggie's ("....where am I?....who am I......what am I doing here?....). Never could have gotten the Old House fixed up like it was if Willie had been wandering around like a lost soul all day. [crazd]
Even worse....can you imagine if Willie had been as sexually enthralled as little Miss Charity seems to be by Barnabas' love bite? EEKKK! :o
SPOILERS AHEAD...
I think the difference between the vampire Roxanne of 1970 and, say, Megan's vamp stems from the fact that the former had 130 years on the latter.
Well, you have me at a disadvantage there....I've never seen any of those episodes. I just think it's a strange exercise to critique each victim's behavior as though there were an agreed upon norm to compare them to! If one wants to critique at all, I say do it on each one's own performance.
raineypark
-
I recently rewatched House of Dracula (actually, re re re re re rewatched would be more like it) that also dealt with this issue, explaining vampirism as a "peculiar parasite" that could be isolated and treated. Actually, it bugs me that this last installment in the Universal monster rally had a simple explanation for all the creatures' problems, but I digress.
I liked John Carradine as Dracula too, although the character by this point was rather weak and dumbed down. I'd still prefer Lugosi, though. As far as Larry Talbot goes, I thought he was finally cured at the end of House Of Dracula, but I guess the thrill of getting to work with Abbott and Costello caused a relapse!!
Bernie
-
i always thought it was weird
that tom Jennings and dirk became the "monster vampires" while Barnabas and roxanne appeared
normal and could interact like before!
jennifer
Actually, Jennifer, Tom Jennings and Dirk acted exactly the way they did before they were vampirized as well. Their dishevelled hair, dark circles under their eyes and sometimes rather ratty clothing, making it look like they spent too much night-lifing just showed them to be what they always were: bachelors.
Gerard
-
Actually, Jennifer, Tom Jennings and Dirk acted exactly the way they did before they were vampirized as well. Their dishevelled hair, dark circles under their eyes and sometimes rather ratty clothing, making it look like they spent too much night-lifing just showed them to be what they always were: bachelors.
ROFL! Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best...
--Mark
-
Actually, Jennifer, Tom Jennings and Dirk acted exactly the way they did before they were vampirized as well. Their dishevelled hair, dark circles under their eyes and sometimes rather ratty clothing, making it look like they spent too much night-lifing just showed them to be what they always were: bachelors.
Gerard
ROTFL,TOO
oh that is too funny Gerard!!Why didn't i think of that!
But does that mean all bachelors are really monsters at heart??LOL
(know the show is ICK)
jennifer
-
ROFL! Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best...
--Mark
and Mark i liked your vampires!!
jennifer
-
Well, it is interesting and OK, I'll even buy that there are different "strains" of vampires, so some can see a cross and others can't, etc.
What I CAN'T understand is why Barney the vampire ever has an enemy. Any of the Trasks should have been NO problemo. Dr. Woodard? No need to force Juleeeaahhh to kill her old buddy, just bring him in line with a convenient neck nip. Hey, same with Quentin, for that matter! Sure it would get boring, but hey, it would be logical.
-
AND, by the way, what ever happened to those victims that Barnabas attacked "at the docks"? Did they die? (some did) If not, why didn't they "need" Barnabas as Carolyn and others? Were they staked? Was Collinsport over-run with vampires? Hmmmm
Inquiring minds want to know. Misty
-
I've always equated the victim's behavior to the amount of blood drawn, keeping in mind the nature of the victim. I do think it makes sense that Barnabas could have his victims behave as he wanted but I don't sense that in the context of the show. I'm inclined to agree with Josette in that the writers just have the victims act in a way that is needed to suit the situation.
dom
-
I can understand how each and every victim reacted differently to the bite because everyone is different so their reactions to it would be different too. BUT, what I don't get is the reaction that Lt.Forbes had after Barnabas had given him the bite. Of all the vampire movies that I have seen, or even the ones on DS, I've never seen a victim actually going along with someone to stake the vampire who had bitten them!
What's even more strange is that Lt.Forbes seem to regain his sense of self back as soon as he was away from Barnabas, something most victims just can't do. I've yet to see a victim spill the beans on who bit them and what needs to be done about it, yet Forbes just about tells all to Millicent and then later goes with Natalie to stake Barnabas! Maybe Im wrong but I've never seen this done before between vampires and their victims. Usually, the victim will fight to the end to save the vampire if they're in any kind of danger, but Lt.Forbes defied all of that.
-
AND, by the way, what ever happened to those victims that Barnabas attacked "at the docks"? Did they die? (some did) If not, why didn't they "need" Barnabas as Carolyn and others? Were they staked? Was Collinsport over-run with vampires? Hmmmm
Inquiring minds want to know. Misty
According to expert vampirologists (and some amateur ones), Misty, the person that got bit must die as a direct result of gettin' bit, ie, must die from the loss of blood. If the person is knocked off afore that happens, s/he will not vampriize. Barney usually strangled the dock-side floozies before draining them. Eh, it's a living.
Gerard
-
With all this talk about vampires, i cant help but think of Ann Rice and her vampire chronicles.. I knew that to become a vampire, one must become a victim of a vampire(and in most cases, drink from the vampire). But, i had always wondered how vampirism had came to be...In Bram Stokers dracula(by Coppola i believe) we see Vlad cursing God, sticking a sword into the cross, blood gushing, him drinking and saying he would rise from his own death to avenge his wifes death(hmmmmmm)...if everyone that ever cursed god became vampires, the woods would be full of them...And in Stokers novel, i dont think they ever explain how he came to be.. The Novel "Queen of the Damned" gives an interesting detail as to how the first Vampire came into being(i dont know about the movie, heard it was a pile of doooooooo)...It seems now i am comparing all other vampire related works with how She wrote hers, cause at least she took the time to give a detailed account into how they came to be...I have also heard that her "interview" was loosely based on ds, as William H Loomis had Barnabas locked in that coffin..
-
According to expert vampirologists (and some amateur ones), Misty, the person that got bit must die as a direct result of gettin' bit, ie, must die from the loss of blood. If the person is knocked off afore that happens, s/he will not vampriize. Barney usually strangled the dock-side floozies before draining them. Eh, it's a living.
There's also the belief that to become a vampire, you have to drink the blood of the vampire who bit you, or as Buffy so eloquently put it, "To make you a vampire they have to suck your blood. And then you have to suck their blood. It's like a whole big sucking thing. Mostly they're just gonna kill you." I believe it's more elegantly phrased in the Stoker novel ;)
Never cared much for Anne Rice . . .
-
There's also the belief that to become a vampire, you have to drink the blood of the vampire who bit you, or as Buffy so eloquently put it, "To make you a vampire they have to suck your blood. And then you have to suck their blood. It's like a whole big sucking thing. Mostly they're just gonna kill you." I believe it's more elegantly phrased in the Stoker novel ;)
Never cared much for Anne Rice . . .
I loved how Mina Murray reacted after being forced to drink Dracula's blood in Stoker's novel. She would scream in anguish and futile surrender: "Pollution! Pollution!", and kept feverishly rubbing her lips, in an obsessive/compulsive attempt to remove the "pollution".
Gerard
-
If one wants to critique at all, I say do it on each one's own performance.
raineypark
My comment is that each victim had something going on in their life when they were bitten by the vampire. There is no normal response. It totally depends on the victim's state of mind. As far as Josette goes, she had just betrayed the man she truly loved by marrying a man she didn't love. We know that she acknowledged that Barnabas was different but she still wanted to go away with him. It took Angelique to get her out on Widow's Hill and wake her up to what was really going on with him.
-
Thanks, Gerard. You don't know how many times I wondered about this. Of course! The victims were already dead!! How logical! Of all the vampire movies I saw as a child (they were my favorites) I just never realized this. Bela Lugosi was my VERY favorite.
Misty
-
But, i had always wondered how vampirism had came to be.....
The most way cool version I've seen yet was in Dracula 2000, which I avoided seeing because of reviews but loved it when I saw it anyway. Dracula was the first vampire and he had been Judas Iscariot. Think of the aversion to the cross, silver and some other things that my tired brain isn't thinking of.
As for perpetuating vampires, personally, I like the Buffy "sucking thing" and the "sire" business, but many shows, DS included, just have someone dieing of a vampire attack as the "he/she will rise again" determinator. I knew that Barney broke their necks, but didn't realize that he would drain them afterward. It always seemed like he must be one hungry vampire, and since we aren't seeing many victims, I still think that!
Now that we brought up Buffy, did anyone else wish her preppy psych student vampire buddy could have had a longer role? I was really enjoying him!
-
kuanyin....that does seem to be a logical theory, god getting revenge for betraying his son, for SILVER pieces, and the cross and such...i wont go into the ann rice theory much, but its a malevolent spirit than can, when angered, prick a person when really steamed...well, as it happens, the king and queen of kemet are attacked with knives, and amel(the evil spirit) finds a direct path into them through their wounds.....this spirit was always envious of people with bodies, he had always wanted to live in a body as well, so he got the opportunity....the queen is suddenly revived, administers the blood to the dying king and alas, the first 2 vampires...lol.....i am sure most folks in here have read the story, but i thought it quite imaginitave, as well as the judas story.