Sarah's powers / was Re: Discuss - Ep #0314

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. 

 

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!  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.