Discuss - Ep #0727

Robservations #727

Some significant (?) quotes from the ep--

Gregory, kneeling:  "The lamb must be cleansed."
And if prayer doesn't work, there's always the switch, threats, intimidation, and a lengthy stint in the cupboard without food.

Barnabas to Trask:  "You cannot take that boy to your school until his father comes home."
Once again, Louis Edmonds plays an absentee father.

Gregory to Barnabas:  "There is the evil in this house."
That would be... you, Trask.  I'm just sayin'.

Quentin to Barnabas:  "If Worthington Hall is as pleasant as its master, Jamison and Nora are in for a joyous Winter."
So now that you've acknowledged the season, we're going to be seeing some snow, right?  RIGHT?!!

Quentin to Barnabas, about his recent zombification:  "Today, the same old lovable Quentin as before."
Sorry, but I just threw that one in cuz I think he's hot.

Barnabas to Charity:  "I'll take you to your room..."
Okay.  If they're going to hang a mirror at the bottom of the staircase, they really shouldn't set up opportunities for a vampire to walk back and forth in front of it and show his reflection to the audience.

Gregory to Charity in her room:  "We must give thanks that she has been delivered back to us."
With hands clasped and fervent expressions, they simultaneously drop to their knees, thus creating one of THE most memorable scenes on DS!

When Quentin is alone with Rachel and mentions thinking about "your lovely eyes," it's something we've come to expect from him, and we're cool with it.
While Gregory and Rachel are alone and he tells her, "What beautiful hair you have" and that he often saw her in his thoughts, it's our first indication that he's a sexual predator, and it's just gross.  Have we created a double standard?

When Quentin is alone with Rachel and mentions thinking about "your lovely eyes," it's something we've come to expect from him, and we're cool with it.
While Gregory and Rachel are alone and he tells her, "What beautiful hair you have" and that he often saw her in his thoughts, it's our first indication that he's a sexual predator, and it's just gross.  Have we created a double standard?

No, because the standard differs according to the status of the speaker.  Trask was Rachel's employer, and before that he was her guardian.  He had power over her in the former status and in the latter, both power and certain moral obligations that befit his position as someone who was rearing and teaching Rachel.  Even though Rachel works for the Collins family, she doesn't report directly to Quentin, and he was never entrusted with her upbringing.  If one of my schoolteachers and a high-ranking supervisor in my workplace (but not necessarily in my department) each made such comments to me, I would feel more creeped out by the teacher than by the co-worker, even though both were behaving inappropriately.

ProfStokes

Thanks for the wonderful response, ProfStokes!

But while the abuse of his status (among other things) makes GT odious, do fans let Quentin off the hook a little too easily?  Though Beth and Rachel don't report directly to him, he has unhindered access to them.  He has shown up uninvited in the former's room, refusing to leave (and gave off a rape vibe in the process, at least for me, because he seemed to be treating Beth as property), and has made inappropriate comments to the latter.  But he doesn't stop at sexually harassing the servants:  Jamison recently begged for Quentin's help in avoiding Worthington Hall, and Quentin promised to help, but [spoiler]did so only until he found an opportunity to offer him up in trade for Jenny's location.[/spoiler] Not to mention that he took advantage of his innocence for use in dangerous occult rituals, so aren't these also cases of abuse of power?  I'll just throw in that we've seen him physically and verbally abuse a sickly old woman.  So while you've explained why the viewer's standards vary, and I totally agree with that, doesn't Quentin still share some of the same terrible qualities that we despise in Gregory?

Quentin's behavior is absolutely reprehensible.  He is violent (he's threatened to kill at least three women so far), exploitative, neglectful, opportunistic, and greedy.  To be honest, I've never understood just why this character became so popular.  My mother was an original fan of the series and she was a major fan of Quentin.  When I was watching these early 1897 episodes for the first time on the Sci-Fi Channel, I asked her what it was about Quentin that she could possibly like.

"He was cute," she defended.

I think people may be willing to overlook Quentin's transgressions more so than Gregory's because of Quentin's youth and good looks.  I think there may also be an expectation even among naive viewers that Quentin will redeem himself and become heroic as Barnabas did.

Or perhaps viewers are considering Quentin's actions in historical context, when children were devalued and regularly exploited (e.g. farmed out to factories and workhouses) and women, especially female employees, were implicitly in the power of male superiors.  I recently watched Gosford Park, which takes place in the early 1930s, and even in that setting, the maids were at the beck and call of master and guests alike.

ProfStokes

i'm with profstokes on this one...

i have always found quentin's stratospheric popularity among the fanbase to be somewhat disproportionate.i don't quite get it.

i guess the character is inextricable from the devastatingly handsome and charismatic david selby.

like alot of us i feel like i know what makes the characters on this thing tick.i understand their modus operandi.their skewed logic.as insane as many of barnabas and julia's shenanigans are i get it.they're doing this to prevent that from happening.

not so with quentin.i don't understand what makes him tick.first he's mean as a hornet,then he's dull as dishwater.he lacked the inherent vulnerability that enabled jonathan frid's barnabas to be recast as the series "hero" and get the audiences sympathy.why would anyone root for this this guy?

he's great as the malevolent ghost in 1969 and as the early villain of 1897 but after that then what?in the present he is very poorly incorporated into the existing framework of the series.his presence at collinwood is inexplicable.why is he there?

and grant douglas is just sort of a warmover of the peter bradfor/jeff clark storyline i think.

o.k. now i'll shut up.

Back to the original question of Trask versus Quentin: Rachel went to Worthington Hall when she was a small child.  I don't know when Trask started hitting on her, but my assumption is that it was when she was distinctly under the age of consent.  Quentin may have neglected on occasion to get a consent from the objects of his desire, but at least he wasn't a pedophile.  Still, I remember being unpleasantly surprised by Quentin when I first watched Dark Shadows again in the late 1980s.  He never came across as a hypocrite, though.

What about Quentin versus Jason Maguire?  Who's more charming?  Who's more despicable?

Gregory to Charity in her room:  "We must give thanks that she has been delivered back to us."
With hands clasped and fervent expressions, they simultaneously drop to their knees, thus creating one of THE most memorable scenes on DS!

Yes, a few years back I stood in my bedroom working out how they had manage to drop to their knees so smoothly.

Barnabas certainly abandoned any idea of maintaining 1897 in its pristine state when he went after Charity.  And yet the opening voiceover said (with the usual thanks to RobinV): "Collinwood in the year 1897. And the strange and terrifying events of that year gradually unveil to Barnabas Collins."  Does he believe, in his artless male chauvinist way, that Sweet Young Things are irrelevant and have no bearing on historical events so that he can mess around with them as he pleases?

Back to the original question of Trask versus Quentin: Rachel went to Worthington Hall when she was a small child.  I don't know when Trask started hitting on her, but my assumption is that it was when she was distinctly under the age of consent.  Quentin may have neglected on occasion to get a consent from the objects of his desire, but at least he wasn't a pedophile.

Totally agree.  Even in prisons, pedophiles are the lowest form of low.

Still, I remember being unpleasantly surprised by Quentin when I first watched Dark Shadows again in the late 1980s.  He never came across as a hypocrite, though.

One of his relatives will soon call him one.  And oh boy, did he deserve it!

One of his relatives will soon call him one.  And oh boy, did he deserve it!

Yeah, I was careful to hedge my bets on that one with the ever-useful phrase "came across as".

Barnabas certainly abandoned any idea of maintaining 1897 in its pristine state when he went after Charity.  And yet the opening voiceover said (with the usual thanks to RobinV): "Collinwood in the year 1897. And the strange and terrifying events of that year gradually unveil to Barnabas Collins."  Does he believe, in his artless male chauvinist way, that Sweet Young Things are irrelevant and have no bearing on historical events so that he can mess around with them as he pleases?

I think you hit it right on the head, Lydia. 

Jeannie

Or perhaps viewers are considering Quentin's actions in historical context, when children were devalued and regularly exploited (e.g. farmed out to factories and workhouses) and women, especially female employees, were implicitly in the power of male superiors.  I recently watched Gosford Park, which takes place in the early 1930s, and even in that setting, the maids were at the beck and call of master and guests alike.

I've been meaning to backtrack and reply to this but thought I'd end up with the post without end  .  Let me give it a try.  I look at a lot of Quentin's antics in historical context, as a spoilt entitled brat of the gilded age.  One example I use for comparison is the movie Titanic, since it's been seen by so many people.  Quentin in early 1897 is a LOT like the character Cal.  He's rich, powerful and believes anything he does is right because the law doesnt apply to HIM.  People are just things to be manipulated and owned for power.  He considers his  future wife to be his property and he doesn't care about HER; he cares that his property has been poached upon.  Not to mention that he slaps his future wife around and considers himself totally within his rights to do so.  He also tells her what she wants to eat and what she should think, which one could argue is worse in a lot of ways than what we see of Quentin.

Another example I think of, with the mention of Quentin barging into Beth's room, is a lovely British Series (contemporary with Upstairs, Downstairs ) called The Dutchess of Duke Street.  The story is based on a real  person, Rosa Cavendish, who rose from the cockney servant class to become a renowned cook and hotelier in Edwardian England.

One of the first episodes of the series is the young Louisa Trotter (the fictional version of Rosa Cavendish). She's a lower level servant at a stately home.  The young rake of the family, a pleasant fellow named Charlie, just comes into her bedroom and assumes that she's willing to be accomodating.  She's NOT and finally convinces him of this, and,being this is a basically decent guy, he backs off and leaves.  (They become friends, and later more, further on in their lives.)

But, the assumption was there that the help was willing to accomodate the men of the household, and the threat was there that if they said no, they'd lose their jobs. And, there's also the nasty reality (used to great effect in at least one Anne Perry Victorian mystery) that no only meant no if the male in question chose to respect it as such. Since there were seldom consequences for the man, that all depended on his personal ethics.  Again, comparing Quentin to that context, he's certainly a rake and a lecher (to quote Carl) yet his methods seem to stick to seduction and coersion, rather than physicaly forcing the unwilling.

Jeannie

Some milestones: This was the first appearance of Charity Trask. The first time Timothy Shaw's name was mentioned. The first time Barnabas "used" a victim (Charity) to further his cause in 1897.

I think that Gregory Trask was a slimeball and hypocrite.  He was always talking about piety and God, but he lusted after women. I think that prayer scene with Gregory and Charity was very suggestive of an incestuous relationship. (Ewww!)  He chastised Rachel for being "evil and bad" but was lusting after her. (Gross!) 

I agree that there were similarities between Quentin and Trask. But I think a young and handsome fun-loving man can get away with a lot more than a middle-aged hypocritical and lecherous man. Besides, Quentin did not engage in incestuous relationships.

I agree that Barnabas was changing history right and left. He had no way of knowing how 1897 was originally. He certainly wasn't playing the "innocent bystander". 

----- Sally -----

Oops! I made a mistake! This was the first time Barnabas used a female victim to further his cause in 1897. I figured I'd better post this before someone corrected me.

----- Sally -----

I agree that there were similarities between Quentin and Trask. But I think a young and handsome fun-loving man can get away with a lot more than a middle-aged hypocritical and lecherous man.

I think that's it in a nutshell, ER.  Quentin was what the Victorians called a "good time Charlie".  Seduction and sex was a fun game to him, and he liked willing playmates.  With Trask I think it was more control and his need to frighten and dominate.  His insistance that Rachel was "evil" and "bad" was pure early church, where it was always a woman's fault that men wanted them. 

I agree that Barnabas was changing history right and left. He had no way of knowing how 1897 was originally. He certainly wasn't playing the "innocent bystander". 

I shudder to think what would happen if that man ever got his hands on a TARDIS.

Jeannie

The scenes between Rachel and Trask are revolting yet fascinating to watch. Trask IS a hyprocritical sleaze. I felt bad for Rachel, feeling herself being pulled back to that hellhole by that monster!

I always thought he might have been abusing Charity as well when raising her, physically and sexually. Speaking of Charity
she almost seems like a chip off the old block doesnt he? Overbearing, critical, cruel, snobbish, a hyprocrite. That's a Trask for you. I think Barnabas biting Charity was a blessing in disguise for her, actually.

Quentin's behavior in early 1897 is, I agree, totally despicable. But he does undergo a change for the better as the story goes along.