Blaming Angelique / was: Re: On the Lam -- Episodes 113 & 114

[Luciaphile]

[Topic was moved from Luciaphil's Idle Thoughts board]

it's reminiscent of Barnabas blaming Angelique for some of the more ancillary events in his life.

Could you state some examples of the above? Thanks!

I don't want to get too much into it here (we could move it to Current Talk if you want). Both of them do it at various points on the show and it's not uncommon reasoning on any soap. Like his blaming her "curse" for his mother's suicide. His mother is a drunk long before he even meets Angelique. She displays symptoms of depression that have nothing to do with Angelique and has probably been depressed for most of his life. It's tragic and it's horrible, but it's not something Angelique is responsible for.

[Josette]

I don't want to get too much into it here (we could move it to Current Talk if you want). Both of them do it at various points on the show and it's not uncommon reasoning on any soap. Like his blaming her "curse" for his mother's suicide. His mother is a drunk long before he even meets Angelique. She displays symptoms of depression that have nothing to do with Angelique and has probably been depressed for most of his life. It's tragic and it's horrible, but it's not something Angelique is responsible for.

I disagree.  Although the drinking and other problems were pre-existing, I see no evidence of a suicidal tendency in her.  But, at this point she's lost her young daughter and her son and then discovers that the son is a vampire.  That pushes her over the edge.  All of those are directly caused by Angelique.

[BuzzH]

I disagree.  Although the drinking and other problems were pre-existing, I see no evidence of a suicidal tendency in her.  But, at this point she's lost her young daughter and her son and then discovers that the son is a vampire.  That pushes her over the edge.  All of those are directly caused by Angelique.

And of course, as has been discussed here before, let's not forget the wording of the curse itself, "anyone who loves you shall die".  Think that says it all.  

[Luciaphile]

In the first place, let me clarify that I think both characters do this (blame other people and not just each other). In the second, it comes down to personal choice for me.

Naomi is a drunk to the point that she's hidiing the bottles. s despondent before Angelique hits town. She's one very unhappy lady. Yes, Sarah's death affect her, but it's still her choice to kill herself. Nobody forces her to do it. She's not under anyone's control. She makes that choice. People have suffered similiar tragedies in real life (well, not having a son become a vampire, but surviving their children). Not everyone commits suicide.

As for Angelique, it's an attitude like "if you had only loved me, you wouldn't have forced me to hurt your sister."  Well, a)she wasn't forced and b) it was her choice and ultimately her responsibility for her actions.

To me, the "curse" gets used as a subconscious convenient way for Barnabas to get out of having to acknowledge his own choices and his own responsibilties.

That's how I see it anyhow, but that's just my opinion.

[Nancy]

Naomi is a drunk to the point that she's hidiing the bottles. s despondent before Angelique hits town. She's one very unhappy lady. Yes, Sarah's death affect her, but it's still her choice to kill herself. Nobody forces her to do it. She's not under anyone's control. She makes that choice. People have suffered similiar tragedies in real life (well, not having a son become a vampire, but surviving their children). Not everyone commits suicide.

Luciaphil, I agree with you for the most part about personal responsibility but I do disagree on what I have quoted from you below.

As someone who has lived with a loved one battling alcoholism and bi-polar disease (and I suffer from the latter myself), I can tell you that suicide is not a "choice" for anyone suffering from these diseases.  Human preseveration is the strongest instinct that we have and anytime we go against such a strong instinct there is something wrong with how the brain is working.  Alcoholism is a disease and not only does it destroy the body, it can destroy the brain as well.  It certainly alters the brain chemistry to a frightening degree where the person you once knew changes.  Left untreated, the brain works on the premise that this is all life is and all it is going to be and if there is nothing else in life to keep you going, suicide seems like the logical step for self-preservation (to prevent further pain) in that brain's way of thinking.  Clinical depression is such an insidious disease because those who suffer from it can have everything in the world going for him/her including be surrounded by a loving family, and still be so chemically-altered by faulty brain wiring they are still haunted by dark thoughts including the deep belief he/she is worthless and unloveable.  It doesn't make sense because it is an illness and left untreated quite often does lead to suicide.   It's the thoughts of being worthless and having nothing to live for (and being a burden on everyone else) that drives the suicide thought and unfortunately to completion.  The person suffering from the illness is not able to see a more realistic perspective on life and their role in it because the brain chemistry isn't working right.  There is not any semblence of a "choice" in the sense that a person is thinking in a rational manner.  If Naomi was, as you said "a drunk" then it is easy to understand why seeing the one person left who loves her turned into an animal would push her over the edge.  It's too much pain to bear and her brain already is probably shot to sh*t.  In situations like this one, it is not possible to engage in linear thinking in terms of choice in my opinion.  People whose brains are this fried do not think in a logical manner or see things around them clearly.  I can tell you that from personal experience.

Alcoholism is not a choice either. No chooses this as a way to live.  The only choice involved is in getting help and even then that does not guarantee anything.  It is a disease and maybe you can control it and maybe you can't even if you go to 10 AA meetings a day and take your meds.

So based on this I have a problem with your use of the word "choice" in relation to Naomi's alcoholism and suicide. I apaologize ahead of time if I come across too harsh in disagreeing but I have witnessed and personally experienced the way someone who is an alcoholic has a skewed view of the world.  If one positive thing or support is removed from that "drunk's" world, the mind just shuts down.  There is nothing else to live for in the mind of the alcoholic since they don't even view themselves as worthy of being alive.  It's always been a very painful sight and I know many others have had to endure this as well.

But getting back to the fun part of picking apart this show, technically I think you are right, Luciaphil about Angelique and Barnabas and both blaming other people for their behavior.  When does it stop?

If I give someone more booze than he should have and then drive, if he kills the only child of someone on the way home with his car, am I responsible?  If the death of that only child causes so much pain in the marriage of those parents and they divorce, is that my fault?  If one of the parents who is already an addict of some kind becomes increasingly despondent and kills himself, is that my fault?

Legally (in some places), my responsibility would stop after the "only child" is killed because I should not have allowed that person to drive home.  He was not capable of making any choice in his best interest or anyone else's because of his intoxicated condition.  The drunk's choice in this case was not to get drunk in the first place as he knew he had to drive home.

If I make an animal a killer and the instinct is to kill and let that animal out into the world, I am responsible for what that animal does.  Angelique created an animal by making Barnabas into a vampire.  We expect more from him than a wild animal because he looks and talks like a human being.  But is he any better than a wild animal as a vampire?  His instinct is to kill.

Nancy (who feels gabby today)

[BuzzH]

If Naomi was, as you said "a drunk" then it is easy to understand why seeing the one person left who loves her turned into an animal would push her over the edge

Totally agree.  We know from Joshua's own words that his and Naomi's marriage was 'arranged' (remember the ep where he goes on about how men were better off when their marriages were arranged and love was a word best suited for ladies novels?) so there's no love there IMHO, which is why Naomi drank so much.  She lived for her children and once they were both gone she had nothing to live for.  So why not end her pain?  And, as I stated above, there's that pesky curse!  

[Nancy]

Yes, I had forgotten that, Buzz about the marriage being arranged.

I also wanted to add without getting too too morbid is that one of the terrible things about some illnessness of the brain and chemical imbalance is that you can actually dream about the act of committing suicide over and over again. The thought just doesn't come to you while you are awake but in your dreams.  It pops into the head no matter what you do.  Scary way to live but I know people who have lived that way and some who died because they felt programmed to do that.

nancy

Totally agree.  We know from Joshua's own words that his and Naomi's marriage was 'arranged' (remember the ep where he goes on about how men were better off when their marriages were arranged and love was a word best suited for ladies novels?) so there's no love there IMHO, which is why Naomi drank so much.  She lived for her children and once they were both gone she had nothing to live for.  So why not end her pain?  And, as I stated above, there's that pesky curse!  

[Luciaphile]

I didn't mean to offend anyone by the use of the word "drunk." It wasn't meant perjoratively. Alcoholism is an illness. I totally understand that. So is depression...

In the context of the show:

Cassandra casts a spell on Liz causing her to be obsessed with death. To my way of thinking that's something that can directly be laid (or is it layed?) at Cassandra's door. There's a direct chain of causality.

Angelique sticks pin in a poppet of Sarah. Sarah collapses in pain. That's Angelique's fault. Not the fault of Barnabas for not loving her or marrying her, Angeliques. Again, direct chain of causality.

But with Naomi? Who's to say? When we first see her, she's a character with a ton of problems: largely loveless marriage to a fairly cold man, nasty sister-in-law who has usurped her place in the running of the household.  All before Angelique walks in the door. Maybe she'd be fine if Angelique never had shown up, maybe not. I don't see a direct chain of causality.

I still don't see why Angelique is to blame for Sarah's death. The kid goes running out into the night after her brother who couldn't be bothered to wipe his mouth (he was compelled to attack people, yes, but nobody can tell me he was compelled not to clean up after himself; he's usually perfectly groomed).  You don't get it because you saw your brother's face covered in blood. You don't get pneumonia from the night air. You get it because you contract either a bacterial or viral infection. And if it's 1795, you don't have access to antibiotics (not that it would matter if it was viral) and you have doctors who really don't even have the strongest handle on germ theory, and really your chances become less than good. Witch or no witch. Vampire or no vampire.

And in terms of the "curse," I've said this before, there are plenty of characters who love Barnabas and manage to survive. Sometimes curses have power because we give them power.

[MsCriseyde]

But with Naomi? Who's to say? When we first see her, she's a character with a ton of problems: largely loveless marriage to a fairly cold man, nasty sister-in-law who has usurped her place in the running of the household.  All before Angelique walks in the door. Maybe she'd be fine if Angelique never had shown up, maybe not. I don't see a direct chain of causality.

Naomi's life was far from ideal prior to Angelique's arrival on the scene, and I'll grant you that her suicide was not a direct consequence of Angelique's machinations. However, I do think all the trauma Angelique caused contributed to pushing her over the edge.

I sort of have a problem with letting Angelique off the hook for the negative things that transpired that she didn't plan or intend. On the other hand, I have a problem with blaming her without acknowledging some of the other characters' own faults, problems, etc. that contributed to some of the disasters. I don't think this has to be an either/or argument. There are a variety of forces, players, flaws, etc. at work.

[Nancy]

I didn't mean to offend anyone by the use of the word "drunk." It wasn't meant perjoratively. Alcoholism is an illness. I totally understand that. So is depression...

I know you were not minimizing the effects of those illnesses, Luciaphil.  Unfortunately, seeing the word "choice" anywhere near the symptoms and consquences of those illnesses will set me off though I realize that was no one's intent.   I also didn't mean to write a book length response to your post.

The word drunk is one that recovering alcoholics use to describe themselves so if they aren't offended, I'm not either. I've witnessed the raw pain those suffering from the diseases and those who nearly succeeded in terminating their lives, in one case, because her lack of insurance robbed her of the meds she needed to combat the suicidal ideations that are part and parcel of the disease.  Those who are alcoholics tend to suffer from depression and other severe mental illness that drove them to self-medicate in the first place. 

I understand perfectly why Naomi would kill herself.  The son who loved and supported her was not only murdered but turned into a vile creatures whose instinct is to kill . . . not spread love and flowers throughout the universe which would please a mother, but kill.  In fact, he already had so there was no question about it.  Who murdered Barnabas and who let the dogs out?

Angelique.

She didn't just murder Barnabas, she chose to create a monster with the stipulation that anyone who loved him would die.  She knew people at Collinwood loved him so it was to be expected they would die.  Angelique was efficient and curse-specific.  I guess the argument reflects that of those who debate whether or not the the creator of the Frankenstein monster is responsible for the murders of his creation or not.

In the context of the show:

Cassandra casts a spell on Liz causing her to be obsessed with death. To my way of thinking that's something that can directly be laid (or is it layed?) at Cassandra's door. There's a direct chain of causality.

Angelique sticks pin in a poppet of Sarah. Sarah collapses in pain. That's Angelique's fault. Not the fault of Barnabas for not loving her or marrying her, Angeliques. Again, direct chain of causality.

I agree with you on both counts.

But with Naomi? Who's to say? When we first see her, she's a character with a ton of problems: largely loveless marriage to a fairly cold man, nasty sister-in-law who has usurped her place in the running of the household.  All before Angelique walks in the door. Maybe she'd be fine if Angelique never had shown up, maybe not. I don't see a direct chain of causality.

I agree with you.  However, I feel you are leaving out two important aspects of Naomi's life in recounting the unhappy elements: she loved her children.   Sarah died.  That was devastating.   She freaked when she saw her messy mouthed brother after his first bite and caught a bug as a result.   If Barnabas had been eating a sloppy joe and got the stuff all over his mouth, took a walk and Sarah saw him, I don't think she would have had the same reaction.  The story was for her that Barnabas went away and that was that.  A story invented because he was, in fact, dead.  Why was he dead?  Okay, why was he messy?  I guess the first bite was a bit of a trauma for him, along with the whole blood-letting thing.  He didn't clean up.  The whole thing can be see as a tragic chain of events.  Did Angelique kill Sarah? No, but she is hardly blameless as she set off the chain of events and willingly did so, not caring at all about the outcome of creating and freeing what she knew was a killing machine.

And in terms of the "curse," I've said this before, there are plenty of characters who love Barnabas and manage to survive. Sometimes curses have power because we give them power.

Very true.  And besides, couldn't kill off all the people who loved Barnabas.  There would not be much of a plot!

As always, Luciphil, I love debating with you.

Nancy

[BuzzH]

If Barnabas had been eating a sloppy joe

OK, this made me laugh!  LOL!    I now have an image of Barnabas eating a Sloppy Joe!   As if he'd eat something so 'white trash', LOL!    That said, I *love* Sloppy Joe's! 

[Patti Feinberg]

I don't want to get too much into it here (we could move it to Current Talk if you want).

I'm sorry....

Anywho...here's something that hasn't been mentioned, and should be blamed on Angelique:

Victoria.

Because of Angelique, Victoria spends weeks in jail (and with Peter Bradford!); since this detour is here, Reverend Trask works many machinations (his choice, but w/out Ang, couldn't have); our pal Nathan Forbes goes from a fairly nice guy (hmm) to a bold face liar (read PURGERER!!); there's much strife (yeah, thanks Abigail) between many people all thanks to Angelique.

So this has nothing to do with the vampire curse, but just Angelique's witchcraft, which she INTENDS for SOMEONE else to look bad (Victoria was an easy mark).

Just my humble own,

Patti

[Willie]

You have to keep in mind, Barnabas apparently had some sort of affair with Angelique, and made some promises to her, and then he just cast her aside for Josette.  Worse yet, Angelique had to watch him and Josette together all the time.  It's really just a matter of how much time they spend on the various parts of the story.  The whole Barnabas/Angelique romance is left out completely, but if they'd spent 20 epsides showing them together in Martinique (or wherever), we would have all had a very negative opinion of good ol' Barney when he just dumped her and expected her to sit by quietly and watch him frolic around with Josette.  But since they leave it out completely, we're left with the impression that Barney is a totally innocent victim of the whole thing. 

Not that Angelique wasn't perhaps just a tad overindulgent in her revenge, I'll grant you that  But like any good character-based drama, no person is completely free of blame when it comes to what happens to them.  I think the whole plot line requires a person to have experienced betrayal once or twice in their own life, as that's what makes Angelique's character sympathetic.  I wouldn't go around killing off a person's entire family because they told me a bunch of lies and then dumped me (well, I haven't yet anyway), but it is a lot of fun watching someone do it on TV.

[Nancy]

You have to keep in mind, Barnabas apparently had some sort of affair with Angelique, and made some promises to her, and then he just cast her aside for Josette.  Worse yet, Angelique had to watch him and Josette together all the time.  It's really just a matter of how much time they spend on the various parts of the story.  The whole Barnabas/Angelique romance is left out completely, but if they'd spent 20 epsides showing them together in Martinique (or wherever), we would have all had a very negative opinion of good ol' Barney when he just dumped her and expected her to sit by quietly and watch him frolic around with Josette.  But since they leave it out completely, we're left with the impression that Barney is a totally innocent victim of the whole thing. 

Barney isn't totally innocent of anything.  I can understand the jilted woman lashing out in some way. She said he made a promise.  He claims he didn't.  Even so, you can change your mind before the ring goes on the finger.  Most people do know what it's like to get dumped.  It isn't pretty and people have killed over it.  That's wrong in my opinion.  I've been dropped and having done the dropping in a relationship too but I didn't go out and kill my boyfriend.  Fortunately, the person I dumped didn't put a contract out on me either or kill me himself.

I've tried going the route of putting a curse on a guy but the one time I tried I wound up setting my hair on fire instead. Wrong curse, I guess.

nancy

Not that Angelique wasn't perhaps just a tad overindulgent in her revenge, I'll grant you that  But like any good character-based drama, no person is completely free of blame when it comes to what happens to them.  I think the whole plot line requires a person to have experienced betrayal once or twice in their own life, as that's what makes Angelique's character sympathetic.  I wouldn't go around killing off a person's entire family because they told me a bunch of lies and then dumped me (well, I haven't yet anyway), but it is a lot of fun watching someone do it on TV.

[Luciaphile]

I sort of have a problem with letting Angelique off the hook for the negative things that transpired that she didn't plan or intend. On the other hand, I have a problem with blaming her without acknowledging some of the other characters' own faults, problems, etc. that contributed to some of the disasters. I don't think this has to be an either/or argument. There are a variety of forces, players, flaws, etc. at work.

Oh, I don't think she's blameless any more than I think Barnabas is blameless. It's a soap opera after all and you really can't find any soap characters over the age of 5 who are blameless (and even then we still have little Bianca Montgomery setting her Barbie and Ken dolls on fire which burns down Erica's house). We have a tendency to try to make soap characters into black & white heroes and villains when really it's not a black & white medium.