The Child is the Father of the Man

Zine
Title:	The Child is the Father of the Man ("The Child is the Father")
Publisher:	A New Enterprise Publication for The Helpers Network UK
Editor(s):	Joy Faulkner
Date(s):	May 1993
Medium:	print
Fandom:	Beauty and the Beast (TV)
Language:	English
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

The Child is the Father of the Man is Beauty and the Beast (TV) meta by Joy Faulkner, published in the UK in May 1993.

It is a psychological profile of Father.

It was reprinted in Chatterbox (April 1994) and reprinted again with permission at Of Love and Hope: The Beauty & The Beast Electronic Mail Digest (Volume 3 Issue 19 -- 12 April 1996).

Other Zines in This Series

• Vincent Revisited by Dr. Joy Faulkner (an essay on Vincent Wells' psychology)
• The Child is the Father of the Man by Dr. Joy Faulkner (an essay on Father’s psychology)
• The Man Who Never Was by Dr. Amber James (an essay on Elliot Burch and Devin Wells' psychology)

Some Topics Discussed

• the characters Jacob Wells (Father) and Vincent Wells
• control, manipulation, and power
• Vincent's "dark side"
• why Father dislikes Catherine Chandler

From the Essay

Am I, I ask myself, the only fan who sees a darker side to Father?

I read so many comments about how caring, how compassionate, he is, and I shake my head. Father is the most deep and complex character in the entire series, constantly struggling to overcome his harsh alter ego, Jacob Wells. Father, I say, has a hell of a lot to hide.

We all know, of course, that he has a strong, vested interest in keeping Vincent Below, and to some extent, dependent on him. But how far will he go to achieve that end? A long, long way, I submit. Long enough, I suggest, to invent the myth of Vincent's `dark side'.

Yes, that IS what I said, invent the myth of Vincent's dark side! After all, it is only Father who describes his son as less than a man, and who is mainly responsible for inculcating in him the belief that he is too `different' to expect the kind of normal love and life that other human beings enjoy quite naturally. Furthermore, Father actively encourages both Vincent himself and the Tunnel dwellers in the belief that this `dark side' is not only beyond his son's conscious control, but also that, when it surfaces, he is extremely dangerous even to those he loves.

If you think about this, isn't it in Father's best interests to encourage people to be in fear of Vincent's `dark side'? It is his way of keeping control. How else can he keep everyone else safely at bay, believing that only Father himself can fully understand and cope? How else, too, can he keep Vincent at his side, too afraid to question his actions?

Who but Father interpreted Vincent's adolescent behaviour as savage and animal-like? It doesn't appear to have made the same impression on anyone else, as few of the tunnel folk show any real fear of Vincent. They aren't frightened to be alone with him, Winslow and Pascal don't think twice about going off on a dangerous mission with him to the lower world, and they are all quite prepared to challenge him when it suits them. Cullen certainly showed that, and Michael wasn't above trying it on with Catherine, in spite of Vincent's roars! In the end he runs from Vincent in shame, not fear.

Perhaps, therefore, no-one actually saw this terrible youthful behaviour. Maybe they only heard it through the walls. And it would never occur to them to doubt Father's word. They would believe without question his version of what was happening, and pity him deeply for the pain he was suffering for the sake of his adopted son. Father, indeed, would become almost saint-like in their eyes, caring so selflessly for such a troubled and dangerous being. Who else but Father, they would ask as they heard the roars of frustration, would do such a thing? How lucky Vincent is to have a man like that to take care of him. Ah, dear reader, can't you see how carefully the picture is built?

But how true is that picture? As we know, even purely human adolescents are quite capable of throwing major tantrums, frequently acting as if locking them up is the only possible answer, and they certainly openly challenge their parents in every way that they can. And, of course, if they are restrained, either physically or emotionally, they fight back even harder. Wouldn't you?

Father, clever Father, knew his psychology. Adolescents, in that infamous time of change and identity crisis, are extremely vulnerable to suggestions about themselves. Under Father's careful guidance, Vincent soon came to believe that his adolescent challenges to authority stemmed from a dangerous `dark side' too terrible to contemplate, and which had to be denied at all cost. The only possible safe place for him was Below, under the care of his understanding parent.

Thus, Father inculcated in his son the deepest and most psychologically damaging fear of his animal inheritance. And one, may I say, which was totally over-dramatised. Few wild animals fight for the sake of it, certainly not male lions who generally let their females do all the work. Violence for its own sake, hatred, the need to inflict pain, possessiveness and jealousy, selfishness and deception are all human frailties. Indeed, Father himself had run away from such reactions in the world, and it wasn't the animals he was running away from. It was the people.

So, Father sowed the seeds of the `dark side' using Vincent's perfectly normal, if supercharged, adolescent behaviour. Then he merely carried it on. His reaction to the Lisa episode, for instance, was so over-the-top it would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.

[...]

But in time, with Father's help, he manages to deny his perfectly normal human reactions and keep them severely in check. Good old Father!

And what of the Tunnel people, Vincent's friends? It was important that they were convinced as well, and the truth is, they were. But when you consider it, in practice they never show a great deal of fear of this so-called `dark side'. They run to Father's rescue in THE ALCHEMIST, and even in THE REST IS SILENCE, they remain at Vincent's side for support in his darkest hour; they actually beg him to stay in the Tunnels with them. Are these really the actions of people dreading what he might do to them next?

If the truth is known, the most animal-like factor in Vincent's make-up is an excessive strength which adds an extra dimension to his very human reactions. A few man-to-man chats on controlling his temper, and on curbing his natural fancy for young ladies, would have been enough, just like they are for any other growing youth. There was no need to lay down such a horror of perfectly

normal instincts. Unless, of course, there were ulterior motives in play.

That Father wanted Vincent Below is a matter of common knowledge. His whole life is dedicated to it. But why is it so important to him?

Even in such early episodes as CHINA MOON, and certainly in later ones like THE OUTSIDERS, Vincent appears to have been expected to stand between the Tunnel World and any danger threatening its safety. In other words, he was its protector strong enough to vanquish even the most fearful enemy. Very useful indeed. Father couldn't risk losing that. But Father couldn't accept challenge to his authority either. So the protector had to be kept dependent, and not only dependent but biddable and obedient. So, what better than a convincing belief in a lurking `dark side' to guarantee Vincent's continued compliance?

It is highly probable that, until Catherine appeared, Vincent had no need to kill. In which case, the belief in a 'dark side' was doubly necessary to keep everyone accepting that there was no other place which could cope with him on a permanent basis. Indeed, it is the belief in the `dark side' which prevents anyone, including the man himself, from questioning Father's attitudes towards his son. It is the `dark side' which keeps everyone believing there is no other life open to Vincent, and no other options available to him.

It is more than possible, therefore, in order to keep Vincent permanently Below, that by careful manipulation of fairly human characteristics, Father invented the myth of the 'dark side'. After all, there is no mention of it in childhood. It only raises its head as Vincent grows and starts to become a man in his own right. So, I repeat, is it possible that the infamous 'dark side' is no more than an exaggeration put out by Father to keep Vincent dependent Below without too many questions being asked?

[...]

The more you think about it, the more you realize that, apart from Father's word, little evidence exists to support the theory. When do we actually see Vincent's `dark side' for ourselves? When he's drugged by Paracelsus, of course, and when he's defending his loved ones, when he's ill in THE TRILOGY. All perfectly understandable occurrences. But does he ever simply leap into the air for no reason, and attack? Never. Does he ever use his strength to torment and frighten people, or to force them into giving him his own way? Don't be daft! I've searched and searched for some sign of mental instability in Vincent, and there is none. In fact, he's surprisingly caring and stable. Only in THE TRILOGY, when he finally cracks under the strain of loving and wanting Catherine, a feeling which is in direct conflict with all he's been so carefully taught over the years, does he exhibit symptoms of a perfectly human `nervous breakdown'. And whose fault is that, may I ask? When he turns to Father in desperation, what does his caring parent say? `Part of you is a man' is the sum total of his comfort to the sick soul he has created. Even then, with Vincent facing total collapse, he can't bring himself to end the

charade.

However, I can't deny that Father does love Vincent, too much in some ways, so an exaggerated fear for his son's safety will also play a part in his motivation. He wants to keep Vincent safe, keep Vincent Below, keep Vincent with him. So much so, he deliberately frightens him half to death to achieve it. Any desire for change is mercilessly crushed with terrible warnings of the consequences, both in Vincent and the Tunnel dwellers. You only have to watch REMEMBER LOVE to be aware of that. Father loved, but his love was smothering, and his fear kept Vincent a prisoner.

We must also remember that Father had been an eminent research physician. Not a doctor, as such, as many believe, but a man involved in medical research. So, the researcher in him would have been intrigued by this little `part-man' and how much he could be taught. Just how far could the experiment go? To playing chess? Reading poetry? Exhibiting all the most honest human emotions? How quaint to make the little thing more human than a human. Like a laboratory animal, Vincent would be taught human tricks, but like a laboratory animal, he also had to be kept in his place. The researcher in Father would be appalled, disgusted, by the thought of his little experiment growing up to live with a woman, a real human woman. That was taking things just a touch too far.

So Father's love, Father's interest, has many strands. Parenthood, after all, did not come naturally to him. Why else did he deny his own son in favour of the curious little foundling? Because, of course, the curious little foundling was a lot more interesting!

But what about Catherine, the love of Vincent's life? Obviously, she of all people is meant to be aware of his darkest secret of all. It is a warning to her to keep her distance. For Father also shows jealousy, possessiveness. The other side of love in fact. But sadly for him, Catherine loves Vincent and Catherine is used to getting what she wants. So, for the first time, Father's warnings go unheeded. No wonder he resents her so much.

[...]

She never shows fear for herself when Vincent `beasts out' in her presence. In fact, some fans point out that she may actually use his `dark side' to protect herself, and rely on it to take on the more dangerous aspects of her work. Any belated fear she manifests of Vincent's `dark side' is based on the effect it has on him, not on herself.

[...]

Catherine's reactions, of course, stem from the state of `being in love' rather than merely `loving'. She may be weak, spoiled, she may even use him at times, but she certainly accepts Vincent for himself. From the first, she never subscribes to Father's myth of the `dark side' as something to be afraid of, something to prevent Vincent living a normal life. Sometimes, even, she seems to relish it as an integral part of the man she loves! And I ask you, what red-blooded woman wouldn't?

The fact that Father is so hostile towards her for so long, yet welcomes Diana into the community with open arms from almost the moment she appears, is my final, telling point. It means that he regarded one woman as a serious threat for his son's affections, but not the other. There's no prize for guessing which was which!

Fortunately, of course, Father is also a very intelligent man, so don't worry. He knows when the time has come to give way. To keep his son, he will finally bow to the inevitable. He will accept Catherine and his grandson, fully and completely. He won't stand in the way of a happy ending, he's got far too much sense for that.

Fan Comments

1996

[Rhonda Collins]:

Very interesting. However, a little over-hard on Father, I think. I believe in many ways that Father did, indeed, contribute to Vincent's insecurities and that the creation of Vincent's "dark side" is in part his responsibility. But I do not feel this was in any way deliberate. All parents make mistakes with their children--I know I've made plenty of my own.

We have to remember that as Vincent grew up, Father had to deal with a little boy with fangs and claws that could, indeed, cause unmeant damage to other children or adults in normal childhood squabbles or tantrums. I can hardly doubt that Vincent was a relatively normal child in very many ways. Was Father to merely allow him to do whatever he wished? I know a lot of children who do NOT have fangs and claws, who without the proper guidance are fairly beastly! Think what THEY'D be like armed as Vincent is? No. I believe that Father WAS strict with Vincent for very logical, reasonable causes.

But this sort of constant vigilance would have had its effect on Vincent, as well, for he would have grown up very aware of the differences in himself and others and that his anger could harm people more easily than the anger of others. Thus, I think he learned to walk more gently, speak more gently, rarely smile...for he knew how he affected others. And where did the normal anger and resentment that would accompany having to live that way go? It was steadily pushed away, shoved into a tiny portion of Vincent's psyche, where it was carefully caged.

Then we have adolescence with its surge of hormones and the ever increasing and normal feelings of constraint, desire and frustration. Does Father treat Vincent like any other normal boy? Of course not, because Father has never quite put out of his head that only "part of him is a man." He truly believes that there can be no normal love life for his son--he believes that no woman will ever love him. Thus, out of overzealous protection, he sends Lisa away, which only compounds Vincent's belief that he is too different to love or be loved. Ahead of him looms the rest of his life in an agony of isolation. And for the first time, the rage, frustration and desire break loose and the psychological battle he fights within himself almost kills him. But once more, those desires and the anger are safely caged. But this episode has frightened Father AND Vincent and doubly convinced both of them that the differences Vincent bears will set him apart forever.

Father had no real need to perpetuate the "myth" of the dark beast to keep Vincent tied to him, for Vincent had nowhere else he could be. The tunnel world was his home, for good or ill: he knew that. To assume a dark plot to keep Vincent tied to Father's apron strings demeans the character, I think. That is not to say there wasn't an element of jealousy there between Father and Catherine, but I think there is far more concern from Father that Catherine will hurt his son--indeed, as Margaret had hurt him.

No. The one who believed most fully in Vincent's dark side -- his "Other" -- was Vincent, himself. This belief was not planted by design by

Father, though Father contributed. But somewhere, deep down, Vincent knew what he was doing all along, and when he could no longer contain that part of himself, he personified it. It was easier, by far, for him to deal with the killings and with these unacceptable behaviors if he told himself it was this Other part of himself doing them.

[Don MacDonald]:

I too find the character of Father intriguing. There is indeed a "darker side" to Father...

The very name "Father" I always felt was contrived. Although I don't think Jacob Wells actually invented it himself, he obviously didn't mind it too much either...

Joy submits the theory that Father invented Vincent's dark side, and I'll buy that, to a large extent anyway. There is no doubt in my mind that Father is projecting his own doubts and fears onto poor Vincent; and I also agree that Vincent's importance to the continued safety of the world Below, as well as being the focal point of its philosophy of love and sharing, are reasons why Father, at least unconsciously, would foster the fears and insecurities of his unusual son.

I would argue, however, that this instability in the psyche of Vincent, which we call the "dark side", does indeed exist, and that Father is partly responsible for it! Joy calls the dark side a myth, and raises doubt that Vincent poses any threat to those he loves. Personally I believe that Vincent sometimes did lose control, and truly could have harmed his family in those instances. This of course only helped convince him that he was a "condemned" man.

I hasten to add, that in my view Father was not aware of the harm he was doing, nor did he intend any "brain-washing". Father is not a psychologist, but a physiologist; I see him as a pretty down-to-earth fellow, in spite of his interest in literature and ideology. I also believe him to be a caring, considerate and loving human being. This by no means makes him infallible, of course... But the mistakes he makes are common ones! It is the uniqueness of Vincent which gives them such devastating consequences.

Dr Joy submits the belief that Vincent's rages were only "temper-tantrums", evidence of adolescent authority challenge. No, that doesn't make sense. Vincent does indeed have a "beast" quality to him; he is, in fact, part beast. The physical evidence of this is apparent, but there are psychological indications as well. He growls when stirred or upset, and seems to have more of basic urges and emotions. I'm sure this worried Father, as it would any parent.

Joy says further that she finds no evidence of "mental instability" in Vincent, but I'm not so sure about that. At least, he is very disturbed and troubled by his emotions and instincts, his lack of control at times, and his dreams and desires which he feels can never be.

Implying that Father in raising Vincent thought of him as a laboratory experiment animal I find in very bad taste. Certainly he must have been intrigued by Vincent's physiognomy and interested in all aspects of his foster son's development, and I don't deny he is likely to have been over-protective. Who wouldn't have been? But the love between them is clearly displayed.

Joy Faulkner does her best to discredit Father, and is so emotional about it, I can't help but wonder how she gets along with her own father... In my view there is no doubt Father has his "dark sides", but I think Vincent would have eventually seen through any indoctrination attempts had they been consciously made. Certainly later in life, he would have trusted less in Father if he had been the calculating, selfish figure Joy sees.

Naturally, all this is written from the standpoint that the Beauty and the Beast fantasy is fact. What the Writers themselves intended we can only guess at, and many of the issues we discuss they probably didn't consider at all...

[Rhonda Collins]:

Don MacDonald addressed Joy Faulkner's article, and though I agree with most of what he says, but one of his comments disturbs me because it leaves off from debating the article itself and the show into being more personal toward Joy. This is the kind of thing that we need to avoid, and I only bring it up because I've had it done to me so very many times, and I **hope** I manage to avoid it **most** of the time, though lately I haven't always been successful. :(

[Betty Christophy]:

I agree that Father is a complex character - some of my favorite shows are those that explore his character and his life Above and Below. However, I cannot agree that Father deliberately sets out to ruin Vincent's life to keep him dependent on Father. That would make Father more cruel than I believe him to be. Father genuinely cares about people - this is evidenced in many ways. He is the leader of a community for people with nowhere else to go, people who have been rejected by the world Above. He doesn't have to help these people, to give them a better life than the one they would have on the streets. Even before that, when Father still lived Above, he risked everything - and lost everything - to protect strangers. He didn't have to fight the Committee on UnAmerican Activities to save the lives of soldiers he would never meet. But he did, knowing the risks, and being too honorable a man to ignore the dangers of radiation.

Certainly I will admit that Father is not perfect. Admittedly he made mistakes raising both Devin and Vincent, but what parent does not? I'm sure that he always acted as he thought best. Look at the situation from Father's point of view. He loves Vincent, and he's always lost the people he loves - Margaret, Grace, Devon.... He doesn't want to lose Vincent too. Of course Father is suspicious of Catherine, and afraid of the romance between Catherine and Vincent. Catherine is too much like Margaret, a woman who hurt him almost more than he could stand. How could he easily trust another rich man's daughter?

As for the "myth" of Vincent's dark side, I refuse to believe it's a myth. I think Vincent clearly does have a dark side, and it's shown every time he attacks and kills. The violence that Vincent is capable of is certainly not part of his education or training. It is repulsive to him personally. Then why does he do it? Because he can't help it. Father is right when he says "Part of him is a man." Part of Vincent *is* a man, and part is a beast. The war between the two sides of himself is something Vincent always has to fight. When strong emotions, such as anger, take over, he loses his battle, and the beast side of him, the dark side, comes out. No wonder he is frightened of his strong emotions, like desire. He didn't need Father to plant those fears in his head, he could do it all by himself.

As for Father "experimenting" with Vincent to see how civilized he could make him, I again state that that would make Father more cruel than I see him being. Of course he taught Vincent to read and play chess. Those are things Father enjoys himself. He passes his hobbies on to his child, as any Father would.

[Joy Faulkner]:

I felt I had to make a brief reply to some of the points raised in response to my comments regarding Father and his relationship to Vincent.

My first (rather surprised) reply must definitely go to the fan who felt that my own family relationships must be questionable because of my attitude towards Father. I hate to disappoint him, but my interest in the development of Jacob Wells as a character stems more from my profession as a psychologist than from any dysfunction within my own family circle. Surely, I ask, it is possible to recognise problems in others without having to experience similar difficulties yourself? After all, a medical doctor frequently treats illnesses s/he may not have personally suffered. Otherwise, how would any male doctor manage to practice obstetrics, since he is hardly likely to ever give birth himself?

To those who cling to the notion that Father was a warm and loving parent from the beginning, my only response is to point to Devin. Does anyone truly believe that Father's attitude towards his own true son was either natural or appropriate? Far from it. It was, by anyone's terms, cold, harsh and unfeeling. Children rarely live up to the hopes and dreams we have for them, but do we love them any less for it? Of course not. Father, therefore, had no excuse for his treatment of Devin. Parents don't usually look for a substitute just because their child isn't exactly what they hoped for, so why did Jacob prefer Vincent to Devin? The answer, as I've said before, is obvious. Father was no natural parent, he was a scientist, and initially at least, Vincent represented a far more interesting proposition.

I have to admit, the comment that: 'Father had no need to use a fear of Vincent's 'animal' or 'dark' side to keep him Below, since he couldn't live anywhere else anyway', really did surprise me. Unless America is very different from Britain in this respect, which I don't believe, disfigured or handicapped children are not normally killed or imprisoned because they are 'different'. If Anna had lived Above and taken Vincent to some hideout there, does anyone really believe he would have been forcibly snatched from her arms and killed? By whom? Doctors? The Police? On whose authority? The only people who actually did imprison and torture Vincent were all fairly anti-social beings themselves, the Silks and obviously mad scientists.

[...]

As to the response that Father was a 'doctor' a man who willingly sacrificed himself to prevent soldiers being exposed to radiation, I say: watch SONG OF ORPHIUS again and listen more carefully. Jacob Wells was not a practising doctor whose daily work included caring for the sick and curing illness. When asked his profession, he himself replied "research physician". This was a man who knowingly worked in an institution carrying out medical research into the effects of nuclear fall-out. He would have been deeply involved in the nuclear project from the first. Indeed, his comments to the investigating committee quite clearly indicate that he was very much part of that 'intensive research'. Consequently, his major objections were not made on humanitarian grounds, but on the grounds of scientific inaccuracy.

[...]

I must, therefore, stand by my interpretation of Jacob Wells as essentially an ambitious, cold and calculating scientist who would rather lose his job than falsely admit to the inaccuracy of his research. As such, his initial interest in Vincent rather than his rather inconvenient son, Devin, is obvious. The evidence is overwhelming and I have written about it enough elsewhere. There is no point in repeating it again here. Suffice to say, Father himself admits that Above, he was "another person" living "another life".

Finally, I have to say that the metamorphosis from Jacob Wells into the genuinely warm and caring person we know as Father is what makes

the character so interesting. It is fascinating to watch, and so true it could be real. It says a great deal for the talents of Roy Dotrice that he can give the character such depth, give him so many layers, with scarcely a word in the script to support him. It is all suggestion, all acting ability, and it is flawless. But now, I have to finally admit my secret. I am, without doubt, and always will be, a passionate and devoted fan of the master, Roy Dotrice.

[Amber James]:

Joy was asked to put together a 'profile' of Father for publication. At the same time I presented a similar piece on Devin and Elliot (entitled The Man Who Never Was). Because of our friendships and professional interests we discussed both pieces in some depth before publication. Each sending the other 'draft copies' for comment.

We both knew that the two pieces, especially the Father piece, would cause a reaction. And they did!

I have to say that I wholly support Joy's interpretation of the character of Father. Had Vincent and Devin lived Above here in England (I don't know the Child Care Legislation in America), Jacob Wells would have been regarded as an abusive parent, the children placed on the 'at risk' register. It is highly probable that the two boys would have been placed in care as Jacob proved himself an unfit and damaging parent.

All human beings need a history, we need to know where and how we fit into the scheme of things. We need to know where we came from, our cultural heritage. Children have a right to be treated with respect and dignity. Father denied Devin all this important information. He denied his son his birthright, He even denied him the right to make mistakes......... Vincent tells Father that he was always harder on Devin than anyone else......... Father had little regard for Devin's mother, his own words make that clear...... he is almost dismissive of her....... What a wonderful parent!!!!

The writers of the show didn't see Father as a shining example of human kindness. Roy Dotrice is quite clear on that issue. He says that when the pilot was being made, he asked about his role in order to help him do the best job he could. He was told that the Father character was responsible for Vincent being as he was...... that it was an experiment of Jacob's that produced Vincent's differences, and that Jacob was riddled with guilt about it.............. Yet when Vincent asked if he was a man, Father replied part of him was, but indicated that he didn't know about the other part....... What a caring and honest man.

During the series we saw Jacob Wells change. As Joy said, it was a wonderful performance by a great actor. He became more human.

The strongest piece of evidence of Father's attitude to Vincent is within Vincent's own personality. Joy and I are both agreed on the fact that if we were presented with the personality 'Vincent' as an adult undergoing therapy, we would be looking for a history of poor and inadequate parenting and emotional abuse.

Joy and I have long toyed with the idea of presenting another paper 'On The Other side of Jacob Wells' for, in our professional opinion - for what it's worth, the other side of Jacob Wells...... is Jon Pater. It's not only Vincent who has 'A Dark Side'.

[Rhonda Collins]:

I suppose I may as well post some of my reflections on Father, which are very different from Joy's. It's true I'm not a psychologist, but I've worked with child psychiatrists quite a bit in past years, and although I agree with some of what Dr. Faulkner says, I find it difficult to fault Jacob Wells too strongly for his treatment of Devin. I've seen and heard of a great many mistakes that parents have made with children, and very few of those mistakes were done with the intention of doing that child harm...yet they DID do harm. But children are resilient creatures and when love is present, they generally survive. Had Devin not run away from the tunnels, I think he and his father might eventually have found their way to a closer relationship.

I don't feel that Father's treatment of Devin is at all indicative of coldness or indiffrentness, but rather a subconscious attempt to protect himself from becoming too "attached." Father had placed himself in the position of being "Father" for a great many children (and even some adults), thus he probably felt he needed to be as impartial as possible.

Jacob Wells had lost everything that meant anything to him, then, in his despair he'd found enough hope and emotion left in his heart to care for Grace (who he admits probably kept him alive during that desperate time with her love). Then, in bearing his child, Grace died: a failure as a physician that Jacob would have found difficult to bear after everything that had happened. I feel that rather than blaming Devin, it was himself he blamed, and thus he didn't want to form the "connection" with Devin. All of this would have been done subconsciously, of course. Father was obviously not even aware he was distancing himself from his son that drastically, as the scene between Father and Vincent in "Promises of Someday" shows.

I agree that his treatment of Devin was far from what it should have been, and it would have definitely seemed he showed Vincent preferential treatment. But I feel that Father merely did as so many parents do and overcompensated in both directions. As an example, I have two sons -- both of whom I love dearly. Both are very different.

[...]

All I'm saying is that all parents make mistakes, and I'm certain I've made my share. Unless a parent is deliberately cruel, 99% of the time they are unaware of the mistakes they make and the mistakes are made in the name of love. I believe Father loved both Devin and Vincent very much, but he often took up for Vincent because he felt Vincent would never have the opportunities that Devin would, so he overcompensated. Devin, as Father pointed out, was "the oldest" (And, perhaps Father DID expect more of him on some level because Devin was his son: isn't that a form of masculine pride that most men fall prey to?) and it would have been normal to expect the oldest to behave with more responsibility...and obviously, Devin often did NOT.

I think Jacob's "metamorphosis" as Joy refers to it, was less a metamorphosis than merely an "awakening" to his past mistakes and a sincere desire to do what he could to correct them.

[Sandra Burrows]:

I have really enjoyed the discussions on the nature of Father based on Joy's article -- I had commented two newsletters earlier but I tend to agree with Rhonda that Father's character softened rather than changed. I often think that his was the role that we saw develop more than Vincent or Catherine's. Vincent underwent a lot of changes beyond his control and I felt that it was like a one step forward, two steps back in his ability to come to terms with his nature. Catherine's change to the strong character we saw fighting for the underdog largely took place in the pilot when we were allowed glimpses of the times between her first and second meetings with Vincent. Father reminded me of those old-fashioned landowners who disinherit their sons then through hardships and reconciliation, come to learn that love is more important than pride. I do have to think, however, as to how it was so easy for Vincent to believe that Jon Pater was Father until his philosophy of evil finally convinced Vincent that Father could not possibly be encouraging his dark side. (Now, a lack of viewing of The Trilogy means that my memory is very hazy on a certain point and I am in need of correction on this--does anyone else believe that Vincent really didn't know that Father was Jon Pater until he revealed his true face? This is my impression but I could be quite wrong!)

Other quick impressions I want to mention are that, when I saw the pilot, which was when all of we "old timers" were first introduced to BATB Sept. 25, 1987, I thought that Vincent was about 18 years old by the way Father treated him! Also, I thought the "what would they have made of you" comment to be one of the cruelest things a person could say. So...Father was far from my favourite character in the pilot and I believe, that with many pilots, the actors who take on the roles have a great influence over the way the character develops and a great responsibility to keep the audience intrigued with the complexities.

[Marina Broers]: Joy's letter was very interesting. I must admit that I have never looked at Father that way. I wonder though why you say that Catherine many be weak, spoiled. Maybe she was like this before she had met Vincent, but I believe that her relationship with Vincent has changed this.

[Sandra DeVille]: I thought Joy's attack on Father was a very thought provoking piece. No one is all white or black. We are all made up in shades of grey.

1999

I was watching some S.F. videos at a friend's house not so long ago, and these included an episode of Babylon 5 called" The Fall of Night" This episode is significant in that it featured Roy Dotrice in the role of Fredrick Lantz, an Earth Alliance Diplomat.

Roy gives a very good performance in this episode in several ways. Even though I think of him very much as B&B's own Father, Roy still gave a very good performance creating a different and rather unsympathetic character. I would think that it must be quite difficult to create a character that inspires affection and trust in an audience, and then for the same actor to create an irritating and unsympathetic character in front of the same audience. In addition to being a great fan of B&B, I'm also a great fan of Babylon 5.

Roy Dotrice is completely believable in both roles. Also, he brings some nice touches to his B5 role, so that it is never at all two-dimensional. The character of Lantz initially seems to have warmth and concern for people, but eventually it becomes clear that he is a narrow-minded and rather self-righteous man who isn't going to let the facts get in the way of his opinions!!

In fact, I'm reminded of Joy Faulkner's truly excellent profile of Father's character 'The Child Is Father Of The Man' Perhaps Lantz may be not too far away from the type of person Jacob Wells might have become if he hadn't become the Father we know. Anyway, there's a disquieting thought.