DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '02 II => Topic started by: kuanyin on November 20, 2002, 03:13:47 AM
-
Oh, how I enjoyed Rachel distress today! I could practically hear her thoughts:
"What?!! Barnabus has a FIANCEE? I thought he was in love with meeeee?! What?!! Tim is going to marry Charity? I thought he was in love with meeee?! EVERY MAN in the world is supposed to be in love with meeeeeee! Hmmm, maybe if I get my eyes even bigger and blanker and act EVEN stupider, they will love meeeee again....
Then,
Magda: Are you brave?
Rachel: Not very, I'm a stupid bimbo, haven't you noticed?
Magda: Oh well, geeve me your JEWels and I will use my brains to help you. I am verrrrry smarrrrttt....
Rachel: No, I couldn't sleep in a mausoleum even if it DOES save me from a fate worse than death..come to think of it if Rev. Trask rapes me, I wouldn't be responsible and.....well, thinking of it, makes me kind of...is it hot in this mausoleum?
-
:o
oh my my ;D
Patti
-
"What?!! Barnabus has a FIANCEE? I thought he was in love with meeeee?! What?!! Tim is going to marry Charity? I thought he was in love with meeee?! EVERY MAN in the world is supposed to be in love with meeeeeee! Hmmm, maybe if I get my eyes even bigger and blanker and act EVEN stupider, they will love meeeee again...
ROFLMAO !! YES!
A+++++++
Ya know what else? I'm so sick of hearing her sob story that I don't even CARE if she ends up back at that school.
Just get her away from MEEEEEE! LOL
-CLC
-
Thank goodness.....
I was afraid I was the only one here who thought Rachel deserved a swift kick in the keister for being such a nit-wit.
raineypark
-
LOL!...I found her chat with Magda in the hallway a wee-bit funny myself!..especially when Magda asks if she is brave!..Rachel...? Brave?...C'mon..you could look at her the wrong way and she would start crying.
Adra
-
Kuanyin Wrote:
"What?!! Barnabus has a FIANCEE? I thought he was in love with meeeee?! What?!! Tim is going to marry Charity? I thought he was in love with meeee?! EVERY MAN in the world is supposed to be in love with meeeeeee! Hmmm, maybe if I get my eyes even bigger and blanker and act EVEN stupider, they will love meeeee again....
I think she's FINALLY beginning to realize that she's not the CENTER of everyone's attention! [wow]
And what's up with this not wanting to have anything to do with Barnabas anymore? HELLO, did she ever hear of the word FRIEND? The guy is engaged, not dead! (no pun intended) ;-)
-
I think she's FINALLY beginning to realize that she's not the CENTER of everyone's attention! [wow]
That is, as far as I can see, the problem with Rachel. The family wanted her to fade into the background and do the job they paid her to do--not that I'm saying that I can't sympathize with the awfulness of that--but Rachel was bound and determined to be at the center of the plot, so she put herself there.
And what's up with this not wanting to have anything to do with Barnabas anymore? HELLO, did she ever hear of the word FRIEND? The guy is engaged, not dead! (no pun intended) ;-)
Well, I dunno. He sure as hell wasn't acting like a friend to her. Gave her expensive gifts, one of which was jewelry, which she accepted after knowing the man, what? a couple of days? Did all that soulful staring into her eyes and gave her the Josette line . . . This is not a guy who wants to be bestest buddies and Rachel in her sneaky, whiny heart knows it.
Plus with the fiancee giving her the look of death, well, most women would be writing that relationship off in entirety.
Luciaphil
-
ROTFL too! Great thread kuanyin!
ick i worked witha woman like that today!"Doesn't the world evolve around MEEEE" also agree with Luciaphil
she hardly is doing the job she is being paid for so
no wonder they are sending the kids back to that school!
jennifer(have joined can't stand Rachel club soon to add can't stand Amanda Club!)
-
I have decided Rachael will go for just about anyone in pants. Actually, who is it she is suppose to be attracted too?
Barnabas--gives great gifts, has money, escape from the governess world
Tim--great looking, good friend
Quentin- well who wouldn't be attracted to him. As our Annie says humm.....
I think she would have taken just about any of those guys I don't think she was too heart broken about Barney engagement, just the lost opportunity.
Birdie
-
I have decided Rachael will go for just about anyone in pants. Actually, who is it she is suppose to be attracted too?
Barnabas--gives great gifts, has money, escape from the governess world
Tim--great looking, good friend
Quentin- well who wouldn't be attracted to him. As our Annie says humm.....
I think she would have taken just about any of those guys I don't think she was too heart broken about Barney engagement, just the lost opportunity.
Birdie
This is my impression of Rachel, too. Rev. Trask seems obsessed with her. Do you think she gave this impression to Rev. Trask and he is trying to change her attitude from "anyone but you"? She is not a flirt but very needy. Of course, Barnabas would fall for this. Quentin would not fall for this type of women but I could see him use her. Quentin would be unavailable in her hour of need without the slightest regret. However, Barnabas has been unavailable, too.
-
This is my impression of Rachel, too. Rev. Trask seems obsessed with her. Do you think she gave this impression to Rev. Trask and he is trying to change her attitude from "anyone but you"? She is not a flirt but very needy. Of course, Barnabas would fall for this. Quentin would not fall for this type of women but I could see him use her. Quentin would be unavailable in her hour of need without the slightest regret. However, Barnabas has been unavailable, too.
As much as I loathe Rachel, I suspect that the Trask stuff happened because he's a pervert. He just seeps with the child molesting vibes.
Quite willing to blame some of Rachel's self-destructive tendencies on Gruesome Gregory.
Still think she's a sneaky twit though.
Luciaphil
-
Wow. Guess I'm the only one who feels sorry for Rachel. While she doesn't always make the best choices, and does stick her nose in where it doesn't belong, that isn't very different from Victoria Winters, who seems a revered character on this board.
I find it puzzling and a little troubling that this character engenders such a hostile attitude considering her background. Rachel Drummond was a penniless orphan who nobody wanted around. She was shunted off to Worthington Hall where she was mentally, spiritually and possibly physically raped at the hands of the Trasks, who are among the most despicable of DS characters. Lately, she was betrayed by Tim Shaw, the only real friend she ever seems to have had. And we all know what her fate will be.
Yet within this thread this character has been referred to as a sneaky twit, and a stupid bimbo, who will go for anyone in pants. It's implied that she deserves whatever comeuppance she gets. Now, I am no fan of the typical 'helpless female' character either, but isn't this a little harsh?
Maybe I'm being oversensitive. Please know that I'm not trying to attack anyone's opinion...I'm just saying.
-
Wow. Guess I'm the only one who feels sorry for Rachel. While she doesn't always make the best choices, and does stick her nose in where it doesn't belong, that isn't very different from Victoria Winters, who seems a revered character on this board.
For me at least, I think the distinction comes from the writing. When Vicki went a snooping, usually there was some relatively logical reason for her to do so (e.g. hears sobbing in the middle of the night and is worried someone needs help). And at least for the first year or two, Vicki actually appeared to be doing the tasks she was employed to do.
I find it puzzling and a little troubling that this character engenders such a hostile attitude considering her background. Rachel Drummond was a penniless orphan who nobody wanted around. She was shunted off to Worthington Hall where she was mentally, spiritually and possibly physically raped at the hands of the Trasks, who are among the most despicable of DS characters. Lately, she was betrayed by Tim Shaw, the only real friend she ever seems to have had. And we all know what her fate will be.
Yet within this thread this character has been referred to as a sneaky twit, and a stupid bimbo, who will go for anyone in pants. It's implied that she deserves whatever comeuppance she gets. Now, I am no fan of the typical 'helpless female' character either, but isn't this a little harsh?
Maybe I'm being oversensitive. Please know that I'm not trying to attack anyone's opinion...I'm just saying.
Well, I'm going to repeat myself here, but here goes.
She shows up to a job that we now know she desperately needs. Although the signals are crystal clear, she does anything and everything she can to jeopardize the job. When she ignores the non-verbalized cues (employer becomes rigid, uptight and looks threatening at mention of his wife; mistress of the house gives her the stare of death), these are then verbalized: Mrs. Collins is a forbidden subject; Stay out of the tower room. Mind your own business, etc.
Rachel still goes right on ahead and disobeys those requests.
As for her going after anything in pants (not quite how I said it), her very first day on the job the obviously dissolute brother implies she's a whore. Does she act upset? Does she suck it up and ignore him? Does she stay the hell away from him? Hell, no. She's off standing in the moonlight in like five minutes.
She accepts valuable gifts from a virtual stranger.
She goes off to meet said virtual stranger in the middle of the night.
Given the Victorian time period, these are not the actions of a nice girl. Hell, given our time period, a lot of these are not the actions of someone of high moral character.
I have all the sympathy in the world for the character's experience under the probably-abusive care of the Trasks, but that still doesn't excuse all the sneaking around, the lies, the not doing her job.
Luciaphil
-
Wow. Guess I'm the only one who feels sorry for Rachel.
No, Cassandra B, you're not the only one.
dom
-
For me at least, I think the distinction comes from the writing.
As it always seems to!! I agree with Luciaphil, that it's the writers who can't seem to decide about Rachel.
As a survivor of abuse, Rachel should realistically lean towards one of two models...either "that which did not kill me made me strong" or "please don't hurt me". Either she's strong enough to stand up to the Trasks (and bright enough to keep her position by not sticking her nose in where it doesn't belong) or she's too cowed and terrified to risk her position by behaving like Nancy Drew on a mystery adventure!
Once again, the writers have written a character so badly that even tho she would seem to deserve all the sympathy in the world, it's hard for many of us to feel it.
And while I'm on the subject of bad writing....is it actually possible that ALL of this multitude of storyline threads will come together at some point with some coherency? I've already found it necessary to draw up a scorecard to keep the relationships straight!
raineypark
-
Isn't it kind of a double standard to say that Rachel's a loosey-goosey for going to meet Barnabas in the middle of the night, or for accepting his gift when he's in it as well? And it's not exactly like the music box he gave her was a negligee or a pearl necklace.
To be honest, none of the 1897 characters are what I would call nice people, or of high morals. IMHO, Rachel isn't as nasty or backstabbing as most of the Collins family. Of course, that's what keeps the show interesting! ;)
-
Once again, the writers have written a character so badly that even tho she would seem to deserve all the sympathy in the world, it's hard for many of us to feel it.
raineypark
That sums it up perfectly for me. The writers took a Jane Eyre character but did not develop her. They throw her right into the thick of things and she makes one blunder after another. She is not shown with the children much. Her interaction with the other servants makes them suspicious of her. If the writers had wanted her to appear sympathetic, they did a poor job. I don't think anyone deserves the childhood Rachel was given. However, the writers should not have made her into a nincompoop.
-
That sums it up perfectly for me. The writers took a Jane Eyre character but did not develop her. They throw her right into the thick of things and she makes one blunder after another. She is not shown with the children much. Her interaction with the other servants makes them suspicious of her. If the writers had wanted her to appear sympathetic, they did a poor job. I don't think anyone deserves the childhood Rachel was given. However, the writers should not have made her into a nincompoop.
Have to agree with that! One big difference between Vicky and Rachel is that Vicky REALLY CARED about her employers and wanted to do a good job teaching David. Rachel listens to her employers and does exactly what they say not to do. Vicky would occasionally cross Liz or Roger, but only when she felt she had to. And then she would bravely face them and explain herself.
Of course, that is early Vicky, when the character was someone we could all admire. Her intelligence deteriorated something dreadful, but having established the earlier character helped keep her from being as bad as Rachel.
And if I were Beth, I would have been seriously tempted to punch Rachel in the nose. She can't be ANY clearer with the twit, and yet, here comes Rachel time and again going over the same stuff and pretending like it is because she wants to be friends. She just can't stand to not get what she wants or to have someone not adore little old her.
-
Isn't it kind of a double standard to say that Rachel's a loosey-goosey for going to meet Barnabas in the middle of the night, or for accepting his gift when he's in it as well? And it's not exactly like the music box he gave her was a negligee or a pearl necklace.
Of course, it's a double standard! :( Men were free to do whatever the hell they wanted; it was women who had to abide by all those ridiculous social restrictions.
The gifts though--he gave her a necklace (the ankh cross) and the music box. When you consider the times, those were both pretty substantial gifts.
I'm not saying that she's a morally reprehensible person for accepting the gifts or running out into the woods in the middle of the night, but by the standards of the times, those would not have been considered advisable or admirable actions in a young woman.
Luciaphil
-
Luciaphil Wrote:
When Vicki went a snooping, usually there was some relatively logical reason for her to do so (e.g. hears sobbing in the middle of the night and is worried someone needs help). And at least for the first year or two, Vicki actually appeared to be doing the tasks she was employed to do.
Exactly! Vicky had plenty of good reasons for snooping, some of which you've mentioned, and also because she naturally wanted to find out more about her heritage and backround. (which sadly, never came about)
The difference between these two women was also in the WAY they went about finding something out. Vicky was very upfront & honest about her desires to find out about her backround. She was constantly telling Liz & those around her what her motives were and whom she had spoken to, (The Garners) and while Liz wasn't all too thrilled with her ideas, it nevertheless showed how pure her motives were and that she wasn't just out to "snoop" for the sake of just being nosy. And last, but certainly not least, Vicky at least had something to gain by her snooping.
Rachel, on the other hand had nothing to gain by being a snoop, except of course to only satisfy her own curious imagination.
What if Rachel did indeed come face to face with Jenny the night that she stole the key and went up to the Tower room? What could she possibly gain by this? NOTHING! Except again, to satisfy her own curious imagination.
Also, Vicky would never lower herself by stealing something that didn't belong to her just out of curiosity. Vicky may have been totally clueless at times, but at least her motives were pure.;-)
Have to agree with that! One big difference between Vicky and Rachel is that Vicky REALLY CARED about her employers and wanted to do a good job teaching David. Rachel listens to her employers and does exactly what they say not to do. Vicky would occasionally cross Liz or Roger, but only when she felt she had to. And then she would bravely face them and explain herself.
Ditto! Rachel has been told numerous times by her Employers and Beth to mind her own business and quit snooping around. Yet, she still defies them all! If she needed this job as badly as we all think she does, wouldn't she just listen and keep her nose out of things that don't concern her?
Vicky had a whole different approach to things. She knew when to keep her nose out of other people's business. The only time she got involved in someone else's business was when she stepped in to help save David from his crazy mother, and even that took her some time to do. As I recall in the beginning of the Laura/Phoenix storyline, Vicky was all for the idea of David & Laura getting to know one another better because she thought the child really needed his mother. Here, it showed how she was only looking out for David's well being. It wasn't until much later when she realized how dangerous Laura was that she finally stepped in and got involved.
And if I were Beth, I would have been seriously tempted to punch Rachel in the nose. She can't be ANY clearer with the twit, and yet, here comes Rachel time and again going over the same stuff and pretending like it is because she wants to be friends. She just can't stand to not get what she wants or to have someone not adore little old her.
Like I said before, she has to be the center of attention at all times.
-
I was the one who jokingly said Rachael would go for anything in pants. Truly, I think she wanted to be loved but more than that she wanted someone to take her out of the situation she was in. Her relationship with Barnabas never went far enough for her to have "fallen" in love with him. That is once again the writers fault. It was totally inappropriate of Barnabas to give her gifts or for her to accept them.
I don't hate Rachael, I just wish she had been written in a better manner.
Birdie
-
I don't hate Rachael, I just wish she had been written in a better manner.
I know what you mean, Birdie. I often feel the same way about my boss at the office.
--Mark
-
I know what you mean, Birdie. I often feel the same way about my boss at the office.
ROTFL!!! Mark, you come up with the funniest lines sometimes!
Cassandra[/font]
-
Can't think of any cogent reasoning as to why (too tired), but I guess I just disagree about Rachel. IMHO she's an interesting character who wasn't that well written, but wasn't the self involved hussy depicted in this thread.
-
Can't think of any cogent reasoning as to why (too tired), but I guess I just disagree about Rachel. IMHO she's an interesting character who wasn't that well written, but wasn't the self involved hussy depicted in this thread.
I'm still with you on this, Cassandra B. And no amount of cogent reasoning could change my mind. Speaking for myself, it's all a matter of how one wants to perceive the character. I'm willing to give Rachel the benefit of the doubt. I wouldn't expect her to act any differently under the circumstances than she has. Put yourself in her place, I say.
It makes me think of the reasoning behind Viki being called dumb because she "doesn't understand". Who on God's green earth would understand all the weird crap that happens at Collinwood? I think "I don't understand" is the single most logical (and honest) statement anyone could give under those circumstances.
Gimmie a break!
dom
-
I don't hate the character, but she isn't among my favorites in this storyline. The Trask situation has made her character better, in my opinion, but she could use a little better writing. Some of her actions serve no purpose other then to snoop around. For instance, when Vicki went to see what the sobbing noise was, she was trying to find out who was crying, why they were crying, and if she could help them. When Rachel went to investigate the light in the tower, she did it out of pure curiosity. I would've at least asked if I could go up there instead of just stealing a key. However, I feel sorry for what has happened to her in the past, and what has happened between her and Barnabas.
It makes me think of the reasoning behind Viki being called dumb because she "doesn't understand". Who on God's green earth would understand all the weird crap that happens at Collinwood? I think "I don't understand" is the single most logical (and honest) statement anyone could give under those circumstances.
LOL, That is true. I would probably be doing the same thing. Lord knows if I was her when she returned from 1795 I would've checked myself into Wyndcliffe. I can't blame her for her attitude, since most people would not believe that this was really happening to them.
-
It makes me think of the reasoning behind Viki being called dumb because she "doesn't understand". Who on God's green earth would understand all the weird crap that happens at Collinwood? I think "I don't understand" is the single most logical (and honest) statement anyone could give under those circumstances.
Gimmie a break!
dom
Vicki is perceived as dumb 'cuz she stayed and often set aside obvious problems. .i think. I mean Julia stayed too and that was dumb. . THEY are ALL DUMB! But aren't most people on most television shows. . .??
-
I'm still with you on this, Cassandra B. And no amount of cogent reasoning could change my mind. Speaking for myself, it's all a matter of how one wants to perceive the character. I'm willing to give Rachel the benefit of the doubt. I wouldn't expect her to act any differently under the circumstances than she has. Put yourself in her place, I say.
It makes me think of the reasoning behind Viki being called dumb because she "doesn't understand". Who on God's green earth would understand all the weird crap that happens at Collinwood? I think "I don't understand" is the single most logical (and honest) statement anyone could give under those circumstances.
Well, we all have our individual responses to characters and talking about it for me isn't intended to change anyone's mind! God forbid, and I know I couldn't change the guys here ANYWAY! [wink2]
I know a large part of my reaction to Rachel is pure jealousy, because I see her as a twit and guys just love her. I'm hoping that noone takes it personally, these ARE fictional characters. [sssh]
As for Vicky being dumb, no, no, no, it is NOT because of "I don't understand." It is about Jeff Clark! [puke]And to a lesser degree Burke Devlin #2.... [twch2]
-
I know *I* didn't take it personally about anyone in this thread disliking Rachel. I just felt kind of outnumbered. So thanks Dom, for the validation. ;)
-
you should'nt feel"gained up on" Cassandra B you're entitled to your views Just for the record I DETEST
Amanda Harris [puke]don't care if everyone else likes her
say what you want about any of the roles as far as i'm concerned Just don't back down That's what makes this forum so much fun!!!!
jennifer
-
I'm one of the minority who doesn't mind Rachel. Barnabas is attracted to her because she looks like Josette and we all know he can't stay away because of that fact. Quentin, well, extremely handsome man that he is, a womanizer from the get go, can't help himself either. What's the point of having someone locked up in the tower if nobody is going to try and sneak up there and see who it is?
-
Barnabas is hot for Rachel because she looks like Josette. Rachel looks like Josette because KLS is playing the part. I think we're on to somthing here that we haven't mentioned before. Some of these characters might only exist because the actors did.
John Karlen made the comment that by this point, being in this show was like being in a repertory company. Which means that parts needed to be found (created) for as much of the company as possible. Not only were they making it up as they went along, they were trying to keep everyone employed while they were making it up!!
Okay, so I still think the writers as a group were not earning their keep....but I'll grant that it could not have been easy having to consider who needed work (not to mention who's fans were getting restless) while trying to make the story comprehensible.
raineypark
-
Okay, so I still think the writers as a group were not earning their keep....but I'll grant that it could not have been easy having to consider who needed work (not to mention who's fans were getting restless) while trying to make the story comprehensible.
I know what I'm about to say isn't really appropriate for this thread,
But (lol),
IIMHO that Dan's "five actors per episode" rule really mucks things up for the writers also.
dom
-
My only problem with Rachel was she never had the guts to come clean about her past to the Collins family. She knew what Jamison and Nora had in store for them when they were sent to the school, yet Rachel kept quiet because she allowed Trask to intimidate her once too often. I really feel more sorry for the children than I do her....she could have gone to Judith or Edward (or even Quentin since he had no use for Trask) and told them everything about Worthington Hall, but she didn't.
Poor Jamison and Nora had to suffer because Rachel didn't have the courage to take a chance and save them from the horrors of the school she herself suffered through.
I don't hate Rachel, I just wish she had more backbone.
-
My only problem with Rachel was she never had the guts to come clean about her past to the Collins family. She knew what Jamison and Nora had in store for them when they were sent to the school, yet Rachel kept quiet because she allowed Trask to intimidate her once too often.
I don't hate Rachel, I just wish she had more backbone.
I wish she did, too, but it seems quite comprehensible. I think it's on the order of a battered wife who is afraid to leave or tell anyone about her husband. Here was Rachel safe at Collinwood - surely she could have refused to return. But she was an orphan, she grew up in that school - and who knows what Trask did to her over the years. When he comes at her again, she's afraid to stand up to him. (I think there was also something about protecting the children, that since they were there, at least she could try to help them.)