Ben and Daniel

[Raholt]

Just how old is Ben suppose to be as opposed to Daniel.  Now in 1795, Ben was a man, in his  mid 40's (according to what Professor Stokes says about him in 1968 after Vicki returns to the present) and Daniel is a boy of about 11 or 12.  Now, since 45 years have passed since 1795, that would make Daniel only 57 at the most, yet he is presented as being an old man.  57 is not really an old man.  This would make Ben in his mid 80's, which also goes against what Profressor Stokes says about Ben's fate when he first meets Vicki in 1968.  He says Ben worked his land and died in his 75 year.  I saw this episode recently on DVD and if Ben was in his mid 40's in 1795, he would not have lived to 1840.

In the 1840 story, you are given the impression that Daniel is a much older man than he would have been and that he is going senile.  57 is pretty young, even in those days to be going senile.  Also Ben seems better able to get around than Daniel, when it probably should be the other way around.

I like the 1840 storyline but there parts of it that really were not written with any logical thought put into it, with regard to time and events both past and future.

Raholt

[Patti Feinberg]

I like the 1840 storyline but there parts of it that really were not written with any logical thought put into it, with regard to time and events both past and future.

Ah, the continuing sage which is Dark Shadows!!!

(Frequently Raholt, they contradict themselves...gotta love it!)

Patti

[Gerard]

The discrepencies are just another example of the Dark Shadows time-space-continuum warp.  Another example is saying how all the events of the winter of 1795/96 suddenly happened in 1797.  The Dark Shadows TSCW comes in very handy.  I even use it to understand the "connection" between Leticia and Pansy Faye.  You see, it's like the one drawer everyone has in their kitchen.  For most of your stuff, there's a drawer for everything, but then you have the junk that's useful, but has no category and no place to go, so it all just goes into that one drawer.  The drawer makes no sense, but it's sure handy to have around.

Gerard

[Eleanor_Rigby]

Well, one can always make up a story to make things fit.  Ben is 75, he looks much older because he's been through so much that aged him prematurely.  And Daniel, well, maybe he has advanced Alzheimer's or dementia already.  Didn't that happen to Rita Hayworth and she was really young, 50s or something?

But the truth is I agree with everyone else, that it's just a DS "thing" that happened several times already.

[Raineypark]

Early-onset Alzheimer's Disease can and does manifest before the age of 50.  It's a perfectly plausable explanation for Daniel.....except that hardly anyone outside the practice of neurology had ever heard of it in the early 1970's.....so we can be pretty sure none of the writers wrote it into the margins as "what was wrong with Daniel".

It's just the way they wrote things for DS...."Continuity?    WHAT continuity?"

[Cassandra Blair]

Yeah, but even if they didn't have a name for Alzheimer's back in the 1970's (or 1840's for that matter), many people must've been touched by that dread disease.  I think it's a plausible explanation for why Daniel was so far gone.  That, and the fact that he could have been seriously warped by all that weird sh*t he saw in the 1790's.  Would be enough to drive anyone crazy.

Of course, everyone's right - the most plausible explanation is that the writers just didn't remember (or care) about what came before on the show.  Nor did they think anyone would be watching this stuff thirty odd years later!

[onyx_treasure]

     I didn't have a problem with the age difference between Daniel and Ben.  My husband and I like to watch documentaries and dramas about the revolutionary and civil wars.  It seems like alot of men died of natural causes by the age of 45 to 55.  There were no treatments for hyper-tension or high cholesterol.  Life spans have increased dramatically due to antibiotics alone.  Women were more likely to die in childbirth, too.  Those were very hard times.  Daniel seems to have a heart condition and who knows what else.  Mental illness tends to run in families.  Millicent seemed a little off before Barnabas' attack and completely unhinged afterward so maybe that explains why Daniel is mentally disturbed or has early senile dementia.

[Gerard]

I very much appreciate Louis Edmonds' portrayal of the dementia-afflicted Daniel.  Having had a parent who suffered and died from Alzheimer's, I have to say that he captured very well the type of behavioral manifestations of a person with the disease (or whatever form of dementia).  And along with that, how Ben just humors him when he knows he can get away with it, causing Daniel to calm down.  I learned how to do the same with my mother from both the Alzheimer's Association support meetings and the staff who tended to her at the nursing home.  The whole plot with Daniel (and with Ben as his apparent caretaker) rings true to reality with me.

Gerard

[Birdie]

Gerard,
             I have never had a "real" experience with a family member with Alzheimer's but also thought that the Ben/Daniel relationship seemed rings true.  The age thing could be explained many different ways.  Yes, Ben is a great deal older than Daniel but ill health and mental illness can age a person conciderably.  I know many a older person who you would never guess they were 75-80 and yet others years younger that seem so much older.

Inconsistancy-  What do we expect this is Dark Shadows.


Birdie

[Philippe Cordier]

   I didn't have a problem with the age difference between Daniel and Ben.  My husband and I like to watch documentaries and dramas about the revolutionary and civil wars.  It seems like alot of men died of natural causes by the age of 45 to 55.  There were no treatments for hyper-tension or high cholesterol.  Life spans have increased dramatically due to antibiotics alone.  Women were more likely to die in childbirth, too.  Those were very hard times.  Daniel seems to have a heart condition and who knows what else.  Mental illness tends to run in families.  Millicent seemed a little off before Barnabas' attack and completely unhinged afterward so maybe that explains why Daniel is mentally disturbed or has early senile dementia.

Interesting comment.  Last night I was reading the 1897 newspaper account of my great-grandfather's death, and he was described as "one of the oldest and most esteemed members of our community" -- and he had barely reached 40!  (A bad cold turned to pneumonia.)  Granted, the article refers to my great-grandfather as one of the city's founding citizens 20 years earlier, but the account emphasizes his longevity, not his relative youth (by our standards).

(OT -- If anyone can help me with any information regarding Luchring, France, I would greatly appreciate it.  No information is available with google ... Reference librarians, could you suggest any resources?)


Birdie wrote:

The age thing could be explained many different ways.  Yes, Ben is a great deal older than Daniel but ill health and mental illness can age a person conciderably.  I know many a older person who you would never guess they were 75-80 and yet others years younger that seem so much older.

Inconsistancy-  What do we expect this is Dark Shadows.

Well put.   

Another thing to consider, though:  when you look at both actors' makeup, it appears that they tried to make Ben look the older of the two.  Just compare his gnarled face with Louis Edmonds' relatively smooth complextion.

[Julia99]

57 is not really an old man.

Well given that life expectancy in the U.S. in 1850 was 38.3 years. . .i'd say 57 was probably considered old .. and Ben ancient. . . now as to the other discrepancies. . .pure DS.  But folks often forget that it's only in the last 60-70 years (around 1940) that folks started living on average over 60--

J99

[Patti Feinberg]

... now as to the other discrepancies. . .pure DS. 

J99.....lololol YOU'VE coined a new phrase!!!!

Please everyone....each time I look at this topic...

REMEMBER...IT'S PRONOUNCED DANEL, RHYMES WITH PANEL.

(one of my favorite bug-a-boos...love it!)

Patti

[Raholt]

57 is not really an old man.

Well given that life expectancy in the U.S. in 1850 was 38.3 years. . .i'd say 57 was probably considered old .. and Ben ancient. . . now as to the other discrepancies. . .pure DS.  But folks often forget that it's only in the last 60-70 years (around 1940) that folks started living on average over 60--

Actually, from working on my family history, I have found that it is not really that true that people died off at earlier ages back then than they do now.  It is true there was a higher mortality rate, especially in infants and  children, but adults on average lived into their 60's and some, just like today, lived into their 80's or 90's.   It is true that there were more things that could kill you then than there is today, meaning that they did not have the medicines we have today so even a common cold was a serious matter, but on the whole most people did live what we would consider, even today, a decent lenigth of time.

Raholt

[Raholt]

I think what has always troubled me about the situation between Ben and Daniel is that it is written like they were contemptories of each other, lifelong friends, when the truth is that Daniel would have been 30+ years younger than Ben.  To Daniel, Ben would have been an elder all of his life and to Ben, Daniel would have been a young man, no matter how old he got, but this does not seem to be the case.

Daniel should not be an old man in this segment.  There has just not been enough time between 1795 and 1840 to justify the age he is portrayed to supposedly be.    Quentin is his son and according to the death notice Barnabas and Julia found in 1970, Quentin was born in 1808 so he would have been 32 in 1840.   Daniel would be in his late 50's and while I can buy him being in ill health and that it affected his mind, I still have trouble with how they try and even Ben refers to him as an "Old Man".

Raholt

[onyx_treasure]

  Last night I was reading the 1897 newspaper account of my great-grandfather's death, and he was described as "one of the oldest and most esteemed members of our community" -- and he had barely reached 40!  (A bad cold turned to pneumonia.)  Granted, the article refers to my great-grandfather as one of the city's founding citizens 20 years earlier, but the account emphasizes his longevity, not his relative youth (by our standards).

     My husband works on his genealogy.  One female relative was described as an elderly spinster.  The census listed her age as 46. :-