DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Polls Archive => Topic started by: TNickey2003 on June 27, 2006, 11:36:02 PM
-
Which of these characters gets the prize for being 1897's Worst Person in the World?
-
I've always thought the humans of DS (e.g. Nathan Forbes, Gabriel Collins) were more villainous than any of the supernatural beings, and the most evil of them all was Gregory Trask. I expect witches and warlocks to do evil things, but Trask was a "reverend," a man who was supposed to uphold goodness, and instead Gregory engaged in every possible perversion: child abuse (child molestation?), murder, conspiracy, gas-lighting, blackmail. Count Petofi's villiany was almost cartoonish in comparison. The lengths to which humans will go because of greed or revenge pale next to performing a Black Mass or possessing a child. The former dangers are real.
ProfStokes
-
I've always thought the humans of DS (e.g. Nathan Forbes, Gabriel Collins) were more villainous than any of the supernatural beings, and the most evil of them all was Gregory Trask. I expect witches and warlocks to do evil things, but Trask was a "reverend," a man who was supposed to uphold goodness, and instead Gregory engaged in every possible perversion: child abuse (child molestation?), murder, conspiracy, gas-lighting, blackmail. Count Petofi's villiany was almost cartoonish in comparison. The lengths to which humans will go because of greed or revenge pale next to performing a Black Mass or possessing a child. The former dangers are real.
I agree w/the Professor, I expect Anglique, Petofi, Nicholas Blair etc...to do evil things, they made pacts w/the Devil. But Trask was a friggin' hypocrit, and I hate those more than anything!! Trask was suppossedly a 'man of the cloth' who is supposed to be a good, true person. He's no better than molesting Catholic priests IMHO. He betrays a public trust and that's reprehensible in my book. >:( The above named villains don't pretend to be anything they're not, not really anyway. They may pour on the charm to get what they want, but their agenda is always clear to us, the viewer.
Edited by Midnite
-
I pretty much agree completely with both the Professor and BuzzH. Trask was the extreme; pure evil hiding under a mask of sanctimony. That I think is what makes everyone react the way they do to him. Petofi on the other hand is a typical omnipotent villian, like Goldfinger, FuManchu or the Emperor in Star Wars. Wants complete power and domination and loves playing head games -- but always to a purpose.
Trask on the other hand, even more than Nicky Blair, is evil for the sake of enjoyment of evil. Closest equivalent I can think of offhand would be the kind of "Christian" to whom it doesn't matter about behaviour or ethics or the following of the teachings -- they feel they can behave however they want because their belief is all they need.
Personally the thing that gave me the worst case of the crawls about Gregory Trask was the implication of molestation/rape with both Rachel AND with Charity. It's hard to think that that was there by accident -- the cast and or writers HAD to have put that in deliberately. True, some implications are sort of built into the Victorian novels they swiped from, but I think they took it further.
And speaking of that implication in Victorian literature, here's a point to ponder. To give you some background, for the last couple years I have worked for a child welfare organization where, although I don't deal directly with the neglected abused and molested kids, I had to undergo some very thorough training on child abuse and the signs and signals that a kid is being molested. A good amount of the behavior we see in something like Trask with Charity or Rachel, or the complete package of the stock character of the Victorian Rake (read Quentin) are also behaviour patterns that are warning signs that the child, youth or adult was a victim of molestation or sexual abuse.
I'll tell you I was quite shocked when I realized that.
-
Personally the thing that gave me the worst case of the crawls about Gregory Trask was the implication of molestation/rape with both Rachel AND with Charity. It's hard to think that that was there by accident -- the cast and or writers HAD to have put that in deliberately. True, some implications are sort of built into the Victorian novels they swiped from, but I think they took it further.
Honestly some of Trask's scenes with Rachael make my skin crawl.
-
Honestly some of Trask's scenes with Rachael make my skin crawl.
Only some? Every time the Gregory character is onscreen, I want to douse myself with high-powered disinfectant. I feel physically ill listening to some of his interactions with Rachel (and Amanda). Jerry Lacy certainly did a brilliant job of creating a despicable villain.
ProfStokes
-
I agree with Prof Stokes :)
I've always thought the humans of DS (e.g. Nathan Forbes, Gabriel Collins) were more villainous than any of the supernatural beings, and the most evil of them all was Gregory Trask. I expect witches and warlocks to do evil things, but Trask was a "reverend," a man who was supposed to uphold goodness, and instead Gregory engaged in every possible perversion: child abuse (child molestation?), murder, conspiracy, gas-lighting, blackmail. Count Petofi's villiany was almost cartoonish in comparison. The lengths to which humans will go because of greed or revenge pale next to performing a Black Mass or possessing a child. The former dangers are real.
-
In regards to the Gregory Trask storyline and the implied child molestation/rape involved in this plot.
I'm surprised this story got past the censors.
FireRose
-
Every time the Gregory character is onscreen, I want to douse myself with high-powered disinfectant.
I LOL at this! Truly! And I agree, I feel the need to get out the Purell whenever Trask slithers onto the scene.
-
We're all here because of our interest in discussing and reading about a favorite series, yet our reasons for it are as varied as our regions, cultures, politics and religions. This is why it's not a good idea to state strong opinions that may conflict with someone else's political or religious views, and the reason that certain comments were removed from this topic. Thanks!
-
Even as creepy as Trask was, he did provide some great entertainment.
[spoiler]Like the first time he sees Charity after she has been turned into Pansity Faye![/spoiler]The look on his face is priceless! LOL
-
the villan in this piece was definately Gregory Trask. he tried to seduce one of his employees,
[spoiler]mudered his wife
Conned Judith into marriage then tried to drive her insane[/spoiler]
the dude was a weasel and got what he deserved
-
the villan in this piece was definately Gregory Trask. he tried to seduce one of his employees ... the dude was a weasel and got what he deserved.
YEAH he did! I loved that [spoiler]he was sealed up in Quentin's room to die like the piece of garbage he was and then cried like a bitch when Judith taunted him via phone and wouldn't let him out. A TRUE coward he was! Great scenes for Joan Bennett to play btw...[/spoiler] ;)
-
And better-yet Buzz, [spoiler]when his decayed body was finally found in 1968, no one had even heard of him. Everyone assumed the body belonged to someone else -- Quentin.
I think that is the ultimate insult to the sleazy Gregory Trask -- he was forgotten in history and his body was misidentified. How mortifying for the ego-maniac.[/spoiler]
: )
-
Even the other villians in 1897 had reason to fear/loathe good 'ol Gregory Trask - He used/insulted/threatened everyone from Evan Hanley to Aristede! The depiction of this "man of the cloth," much like his ancestor Trask from 1795, was among the main objections that some religious groups had to the "moral tone" of the show. I have always loved the way that DS has pointed up hypocrisy and the fact that, in real life, nothing is as black-and-white as some would have it be(ie; a man of the cloth is always a symbol of good and a vampire is always a symbol of bad). At least we could always depend on a Trask to live up to his stripes! ::)
On another note, I remember being surprised as a kid when King Johnny, who started out as a threat, ultimately became allied with our heroes! To this day, he remains one of the most memorable short term characters of the show for me and, I'm sure, many others.
Petofi
-
I have always loved the way that DS has pointed up hypocrisy and the fact that, in real life, nothing is as black-and-white as some would have it be(ie; a man of the cloth is always a symbol of good and a vampire is always a symbol of bad). At least we could always depend on a Trask to live up to his stripes! ::)
Interesting observation! It's true, they had characters who DIDN'T fit w/what you'd think they should represent (minister being good, vampire being bad) Star Trek did a lot of this too, had 'hidden' messages and moral themes in a lot of their eps. Gene Roddenberry and the DS writers were good at teaching w/out preaching. ;)
On another note, I remember being surprised as a kid when King Johnny, who started out as a threat, ultimately became allied with our heroes! To this day, he remains one of the most memorable short term characters of the show for me and, I'm sure, many others.
I love King Johnny, he was hilarious! "So, you're trrrying to put da bazure on old Johnny eh Madga!?" ;)
-
I have always loved the way that DS has pointed up hypocrisy and the fact that, in real life, nothing is as black-and-white as some would have it be(ie; a man of the cloth is always a symbol of good and a vampire is always a symbol of bad). At least we could always depend on a Trask to live up to his stripes!
Yes, that's one of the best things about DS is that most of the main characters were written as three dimentional and had reasons and motivation for their actions. Of course there were exceptions (I think everyone has their own personal list of cardboard cutout characters that they love to hate), but by and large each of the main characters actions were plausibly motivated. You may not agree AT ALL with their motivations -- but there was no denying they had them.
Not to mention their great habit of playing with your preconceptions about a character or type of character -- then turning what you thought you knew inside out and upside down.
And good point BuzzH about Roddenberry doing the same thing. Both he and Curtis used their particular genre to comment on life, morality and the universe in general. Thats why I think both shows have survived with strong followings.
Of course, given Sciffi has been running its marathon all weekend, I really HAVE to comment on Rod Serling doing much the same thing in Twilight Zone, another show I love and can see certain episodes of over and over.
-
I've always thought the humans of DS (e.g. Nathan Forbes, Gabriel Collins) were more villainous than any of the supernatural beings, and the most evil of them all was Gregory Trask. I expect witches and warlocks to do evil things, but Trask was a "reverend," a man who was supposed to uphold goodness, and instead Gregory engaged in every possible perversion: child abuse (child molestation?), murder, conspiracy, gas-lighting, blackmail. Count Petofi's villiany was almost cartoonish in comparison. The lengths to which humans will go because of greed or revenge pale next to performing a Black Mass or possessing a child. The former dangers are real.
I agree with ProfStokes. Gregory Trask gives preachers a bad name.
-
Did 15 out of 16 people seriously say Trask was more evil than Petofi?????
I'm shocked because Petofi was pure unadulterated evil --- he said at one point that "Only Petofi is important" and showed blatant disregard to others time and time again while only helping someone to manipulate them later.
Trask was a manipulative, greedy, hypocritical man with homicidal tendencies when it was necessary, but he wasn't anywhere near Petofi's level!!
-
The following is a vast oversimplification, but never mind:
Petofi, on the whole, wanted things that we ourselves wouldn't mind having. Immortality, beautiful music - what else? The problem was that he didn't care whom he hurt in the course of getting what he wanted.
Trask didn't care whom he hurt, either, but he wanted some things that I wouldn't touch with a ten-thousand-foot pole.
-
Trask ... wanted some things that I wouldn't touch with a ten-thousand-foot pole.
What did he scheme to get other than the Collins' money? I would touch that with a 10000 foot pole...
-
Pointing you back towards a previous post in this thread:
Personally the thing that gave me the worst case of the crawls about Gregory Trask was the implication of molestation/rape with both Rachel AND with Charity.
-
As many people have already pointed out, Petofi was at least honest (other than passing himself under a phony name) about his motives and what he wanted for the most part. Yes he was evil, but considering the amount of power he had and/or wanted you kind of expect it from him.
Trask, on the other hand, was supposed to be a servant of God when he proved time and time again he wasn't. Maybe he THOUGHT he was, deluded, twisted wretch that he was. But he was guilty of child abuse, murder, attempted murder, gaslighting....the guy was a sadistic, greedy monster. A human one at that too.
So, yes, out of the two I would agree that Trask was more evil. Not saying it makes Petofi any less evil, just maybe a inch or two when compared to the likes of Gregory.
-
L-- if we are to assume that he actually did molest these kids, then he obviously had some personality issues. The fact that he's messed in the head does not make him more evil than Petofi.
-
I'm not sure about that. For one thing, we're getting into definitions of mental illness here. I'm don't think I'm willing to say, "Because person X molests children, it automatically follows that person X is mentally ill."
For another thing, we're getting into definitions of evil. The original question was Who was the Worst Person in the World? or something like that. Does the worst person have to be evil? And is evil not evil if it arises from personality issues? And if one says, "Because person X molests children, it automatically follows that person X is mentally ill," is that the first step towards proving that evil cannot logically exist?
I like what you said, though, Garth Blackwood. I didn't expect it at all.
-
L-- I suppose I was inherently making a distinction between wicked acts which clearly have externel motivations (such as wanting to steal someone's body for immortality, or stealing money --- both reasonably logical acts in some sense), with wicked acts which have no tangible externel motivations, such as rape or child molestation. The second case are ones I was tacitly attributing to mental illness (at least partially), because the only thing one is satisfying by committing these acts are their own strange urges, whereas lots of people can understand the urge to steal money or steal an immortal body from someone. So I wasn't making an argument that evil doesn't exist, only that certain wicked acts may be attributable to something other than evil.
Taking an entirely different angle----- the evidence that Trask was a child molester is circumstantial at the very best, and at the very worst, there is none. When answering the question "who is more evil", it seems like one might want to directly compare the wicked acts that we actually know about, instead of assuming. The point of my original post was that I was shocked about 15/16 people thinking Trask was worse, considering Petofi sort had the whole "master of evil" (sort of like Nicholas Blair) image going.
-
So, GB, you take my argument that Trask is more evil and turn it into an argument that he is in fact not evil. Cool!
As for evidence...if we were talking about a court of law, I would agree with you. But we're not, so I figure different rules of evidence apply.
-
L ^^^
I didn't say he wasn't evil, Trask has clearly committed acts which fell under the first category I mention, so yeah ....
I figure no matter where we are one probably wouldn't consider there to be evidence when we have not a single person who even begins to hint at it on the show. In reality, the idea that he ever molested anybody is purely reading into the fact that he's smarmy and bossy in a weird way toward people younger and more vulnerable than him-- but that is nowhere near a necessary and sufficient condition for sexual molestation. If it were, then we'd have to conclude Barnabas molested Willie and Julia, among others.
-
GB - Take another look at the scene (if you have it available) when Rachel first meets Trask again at Collinwood. According to Robservations it's episode 727. What Trask says is...odd.
-
I personally think Rachel possessed the most evil power of all: annoying the hell out of me! [ghost_wacko]
Kudos to Professor Stokes for informing me of what gaslighting is! I hadn't' t heard that term before! Google helped me find out (quickly) what it is all about! [ghost_wink]
-
I personally think Rachel possessed the most evil power of all: annoying the hell out of me! [ghost_wacko]
Heh heh, I'm with you there. But while I've complained about her endlessly in the Watching Project, just wait til Amanda shows up. <sigh>