Which Character was the "Glue" that Held the DS Together?

My question is -- which character was really the "glue" that held the various Dark Shadows storylines together??

I'm NOT really asking, which character was the most IMPORTANT in the series -- that was obviously  Barnabas.  But, which character provided something unique -- something "key" to understanding what was going-on?

My answer is: Professor Stokes.

When everyone else was "in the dark" (often including Barnabas and Julia) -- Professor Stokes always provided just enough insight to drive the story to the next level.  Stokes was an expert on the "para-normal", yet he was somewhat removed from the show's biggest secret -- Barnabas was a friggin' vampire.  The important role that Stokes played is not fully appreciated, in my opinion.

That lack of appreciation for the "Stokes" role is clearly illustrated in the 1991 DS re-make, when Professor Woodard (Stokes), is killed-off mid-way through the series.   WTF were they thinking?  The DS franchise will always need a somewhat removed expert on the occult.    It was the Stokes/Woodard character that allowed us viewers to suspend our disbelief.

Hmmm.  On the other-hand, has anyone ever thought that perhaps Stokes really was aware of Barnabas's secret -- yet he chose to remain silent, so he could study it????     Hmmmm.

But, back to the subject -- I don't believe ANY version of DS could survive without SOMEONE in the Professor Stokes role.  Stokes was the glue that held DS together, in my opinion.   Anyone agree?  Disagree?

I don't tend to agree that Stokes was the proverbial "glue" that you're speaking of, but that's not to say that he isn't an important character, because he definitely was.

Barnabas was probably the most "central" glue-type character after his introduction, because the show was largely "The Adventures of Barnabas and Julia in Different Time Periods." Stokes didn't travel to every time period, although a person by the name of "Stokes" whether it Ben, or T.E. Stokes, was involved in many different time lines, but they didn't all have the same personality or vast knowledge of Prof. Stokes.

I would wager to argue that there were a band of these "glue" characters. By this I mean that there were a lot of them. Depending on which storyline you were in, you had a different character holding it together. For example, the early days of DS showed Vicki, and Liz to an extent, as being the central hub of the story. Once Barnabas was introduced, he became the central hub of much of the series until Quentin was introduced, during which time they went back to 1897 and many of the storylines based from Quentin.

So, it's not quite that easy to say that one character held the entire show together. Certainly one or two characters held each plot together, but the only character that held most of the series together was Barnabas. Now, as to whether or not that made him "important"....well, that's a much longer post than I'd care to type right now.

For the first year or so of the series, it was unquestionably Vicki.  Her opening voiceovers meant she was a presence even on days when Alex wasn't actually a performer onscreen, and she was very clearly intended as the audience's point of view.

I don't think any single character comes that close to being the definitive focus after Barnabas arrives. Barnabas himself is probably the closest they get.  I think the web of plots and subplots gets so complicated after [spoiler]the death of Jason[/spoiler] that different characters are focal points for different storylines.  For instance, during the Adam storyline, Carolyn sort of becomes a way for the audience to get inside of Adam's head and advocate for attributing some shred of humanity to someone who increasingly becomes a whiney, one-note, unattractive character.  They try to use her this way again later on with Jeb and it's even less successful there.  Probably not the best example but if you think about other storylines you will see how they do this again and again.

G.

I agree that there were several different characters throughout the various storylines who would have been considered the "glue." And if by "glue" we mean the one character who had a major presence/focus in everything (or practically everything) that was going on, then certainly Vicki, Barnabas and Quentin come to mind. But at various other times it could easily be argued that it was Julia and even Morgan who qualified.

I agree when you talk about Vickie and then Barnabas. Julia also keeps the stories going and is a center point. But have we forgotten Angelique, now I'm not saying that I like her or what she does but she is the catalist for many things. She always seems to keep coming back and effecting things. With out Angeliques curse we wouldn't have Barnabas stories. We had Judith Zachary and what Miranda did. We had Cassandra and Roger. .....

I agree at the beginning of the show it was Vicki, since she was the orphaned girl who had no clues to her background then she gets a job offer as a governess to a wealthy family up to Maine and from there she begins the search (which ultimately was futile) for her parentage, her true identity.

I think for certain characters at different stages  they sort of became the glue. Of course first it was Barnabas, then Angelique, then Quentin. It just depended on the storylines that were taking place.

I disagree with the idea that the "star" characters were the "glue".  In terms of keeping the entire show functioning, it would have to be the secondary characters who were "the glue".

Picture Barnabas and Julia and Angelique all performing in front of a stage curtain.....with no sets, no costumes, no lighting.  THAT's what it would have been like if all the "secondary" roles were not there to fill in the details of the plots!  Main characters need to interact with secondary characters to create stories full of intrigue, suspense, and mystery.  Much as we loved them (or loathed them,  ) the star roles couldn't carry ALL the weight of a complex story line.  They needed all the others to move the story forward. And DS had so many brilliant performers in those "secondary" roles: Karlen, and Thayer David being two of the best......

I agree with you, Rainey.  The great writers of theater and even musicals knew very early in the game that secondary characters give a work the pulse it needs to come to and stay alive.  Now that I have made that profound statement , allow me to add that if there were any constants in DS, it would be the pairing of Barnabas and Julia who were involved as a team in most of the storylines, going back in time, coming back from being back in time, going back for the other who went back in time - you get the idea.  They were almost always there in the storylines together as the great secondary characters played out their song of the moment.

Nancy

I disagree with the idea that the "star" characters were the "glue".  In terms of keeping the entire show functioning, it would have to be the secondary characters who were "the glue".

Picture Barnabas and Julia and Angelique all performing in front of a stage curtain.....with no sets, no costumes, no lighting.  THAT's what it would have been like if all the "secondary" roles were not there to fill in the details of the plots!  Main characters need to interact with secondary characters to create stories full of intrigue, suspense, and mystery.  Much as we loved them (or loathed them,  ) the star roles couldn't carry ALL the weight of a complex story line.  They needed all the others to move the story forward. And DS had so many brilliant performers in those "secondary" roles: Karlen, and Thayer David being two of the best......

i guess i'll have to disagree with professor stokes being the "glue" that holds the show together.

stokes is an interesting supporting character but i just don't think he had the screen time to fill that role.

first it was victoria and eventually that role gravitated to barnabs and julia.with the exception of the final 1841pt storyline(which featured no "real time" characters)either barnabas or julia or both operated in each time period keeping something vaugely resembling continuity from one storyline/time period to the next(or as close to continuity as d.s. gets and that ain't much).

angelique and quentin were certainly both pivotal to their storylines(for instance quentin "glued" 1897 together)but they were too all over the place to tie the entire thing together from begining to end.

speaking of thayer david(as professor stokes)i wonder why when they brought him back to play ben stokes during the 1795 storyline he wasn't ben morgan since it was clearly established how closely ben resembled matthew morgan(remember vicki pressing the panic button when she first encounters ben).

it would have added another layer the the character if it was established that an ancestor would still be in the servitude of the collins family nearly 200 years later.

To me, I'd have to go with Professor Stokes, followed (surprise!) by Willie. Although Stokes didn't figure in every single storyline, he was always the go-to guy whenever there was a problem. Julia and Barnabas certainly turned to him for help more than once. As for Willie, let's just say that, despite some absences because of the actor's other obligations, he was also a constant and figured prominently as a "helpmate" in the various stories.

Harry Johnson. Harry Johnson was, in my opinion, the crux of the entire DS story arc.

Harry Johnson. Harry Johnson was, in my opinion, the crux of the entire DS story arc.

ROTF!!!!!


In soap operas, things are ever-changing so it's hard to tell just who's holding the puzzle
pieces in tact. For the sake of not spilling the beans here (i'm always paranoid about dropping
spoilers), I think it all goes according to storyline. Such as with Barnabas' introduction into the
series... Barnabas was released from his coffin, he made his presence known to his family,
kept hidden his little reign of angst and evil, and then we were taken to the past and shown
just WHY he was evil. So, Barnabas was the core of it all for a great while. But was he the
glue that held DS together? Idk. Ask yourselves this... Who's the first character that comes
to mind at the mention of Dark Shadows? Well, I think "Willie" or "Maggie", but that's beside
the point.  I think Barnabas made the show the most enjoyable for me, imo... ~DJ

For the sake of not spilling the beans here...

Oops. Guess I got ahead of myself there.

I would say that (for the most part) the Collins family is the 'glue'. That would be Liz, Roger, Carolyn, & David as a family unit. Much of what happened on the show centered on insuring their unsupernatural survival.

dom, thanks, I didn't even consider David.

Talk about 'glue'...so much of what the main characters do is 'for' David's sake (to protect, etc).

The Collins' needed Victoria for David.

Laura needed David.

The entire entre into 1897 was enabled by David (and Amy).

Barnabas goes back to 1897 for David.

So, actually, I guess it's David who really is the glue of DS.

Patti