Morality in Storybrooke / Social Issues: Threads Combined!

[YaddaYadda]

Poor, non-magical citizens...

 

Poor non-1% citizens...

 

This is why Once can be so frustrating. Every villain they've ever had, except for Regina, Rumple, Hook and by some miracle Ursula have died. I don't even know if keeping Maleficent the way she was, in dragon form, then as mummified beast isn't punishment enough for her. But 3 out of 4 are magical. The only one you can legitimately lock up is Hook, but you'll also have to take everything away from him to make sure he doesn't pick the lock and let himself out. Apparently he can undo handcuffs with no hand at all.

[Delphi]

King George was a crooked lawyer. I guess Emma was representing Mary Margaret in Season 1?

I think it was Gold representing Snow.

[Curio]

Poor non-1% citizens...

 

There's a really interesting plot forming here, actually. Imagine if all the non-1% Storybrooke citizens began a massive protest against the lack of justice in Storybrooke and started looting everything and causing chaos. Emma and David couldn't arrest everyone because there isn't enough room at the station to lock everyone up, and they all have very good cases for being angry because some of the biggest villains who should be locked up are walking around free citizens and are in fact BFFs with the sheriffs in town.

Damn, Storybrooke is corrupt.

 

The only one you can legitimately lock up is Hook, but you'll also have to take everything away from him to make sure he doesn't pick the lock and let himself out. Apparently he can undo handcuffs with no hand at all.

Who needs to use a hand when you can use your mouth?

(I'll see myself out.)

[kili]

Imagine a defense attorney desperately trying to come up with a convincing case for why Zelena should be able to keep her baby.

 

The defense attorney could try to use precedent. Nobody else (e.g. Rumple or Regina) lost their children after committing even worse crimes. Heck, it is considered an evil crime to egg-nap a baby from somebody who has done worse crimes.  And those evil egg-nappers? They get to keep their baby too. So the Enchanted Forrest/Storybrooke culture/community norm is to not remove children from villians.

 

Even in this world, Zelena's crimes wouldn't necessarily get her parental rights terminated. Murderers go to jail, they don't stop being parents.  It is very hard to terminate somebody's parental rights against their will and it is generally only done when somebody does bad things to the child or puts the child at risk.  And, if they decide to prosecute her for her crimes, they should probably start with Rumple, Regina and Mal who have much longer and diverse rap sheets.

 

I'd like to see a lawyer try to argue why a baby should be taken from his biological mother Zelena and given to Regina. Robin might have a case to be the primary parent, but the courts would probably want him to find a proper home to live in and advise him that home should not be Regina's house.

[Mathius]

This is why Once can be so frustrating. Every villain they've ever had, except for Regina, Rumple, Hook and by some miracle Ursula have died.

Rumple did die once, remember? If you're discounting him because he came back, then Zelena and Maleficent should be on your list too.

[YaddaYadda]

Rumple did die once, remember? If you're discounting him because he came back, then Zelena and Maleficent should be on your list too.

 

I forgot about him.

[Serena]

Even in this world, Zelena's crimes wouldn't necessarily get her parental rights terminated. Murderers go to jail, they don't stop being parents.  It is very hard to terminate somebody's parental rights against their will and it is generally only done when somebody does bad things to the child or puts the child at risk.  And, if they decide to prosecute her for her crimes, they should probably start with Rumple, Regina and Mal who have much longer and diverse rap sheets.

There's a high profile case going on in Italy right now where a pregnant woman and her boyfriend committed an horrible crime (not murder, but close) and the judge decided the baby should be put up for adoption. The grandparents offered to raise it, but the thought process was that the baby would be better off being raised by adoptive parents in an environment where people don't know he is the child of that particular couple who did that particular very fucked up thing. I actually agree with this, and in the real world, I would say ship that kid as far as possible (yes, even from Robin, who is after all, dating a mass murderer). In this particular context, though, the hypocrisy of taking that child away from Zelena, while all the others get to keep theirs, would piss me off.

[Spartan Girl]

Dear lord, between Regina enslaving Graham (and raping him), Zelena tricking Robin Hood into getting her pregnant by disguising as Marian, and Arthur brainwashing Guinevere, there is way too much mind rape/rape by magic on this show. Are they trying to compete with Game of Thrones?!

[tennisgurl]

I really want them to call some kind of moratorium on the number of creepy magic consent issues on this show. Its just disturbing, especially because they never seem to be interested in really dealing with the implications of what they have written. 

 

Honestly, its kind of even creepier than Game of Thrones. At least of GoT, they know that they are writing these horrific atrocities in this dark, gritty show. But here. I really don't think the writers have thought about what they are actually writing. And, its otherwise a family friendly (in general) adventure show, that for some reason keeps writing in these rape stories. 

[Shanna Marie]

Yeah, Game of Thrones rape is presented as rape. There was no coy pretense that it didn't count because Sansa didn't fight back, or anything like that. On this show, there's this kind of wink-wink, nudge-nudge coyness that the person seems to be into it because they aren't really fighting, and they're not saying no or acting like they don't want to do it -- never mind that the option is being taken away from them. And then the writers say we shouldn't be upset because it's not in the real world and it's different because magic.

 

I've said it before, but really, when it comes to morality, this show makes A Game of Thrones look like Sunday school.

[Serena]

Well, I'll go against the current and say that the A/G thing didn't really bother me. I mean, morally, of course it did, it's despicable. But it was shown as an horrible thing and Arthur as an antagonist. I'm hopeful he will be defeated and Gwen will get free by the end of the arc (if he murders her, gets redeemed, and he and Lancelot become BFFs again, I'll take this back). In general, it's not the (fictional) rape itself that bothers me, it's when people/writers/characters pretend it's something different than what it is. So, for example, Robin saying he didn't have a choice in the conception of Baby Green = good, people acting like Robin "betrayed" Regina with her sister and that Baby Green's existence is an affront to Regina = bad 

[Spartan Girl]

Yeah, Game of Thrones rape is presented as rape. There was no coy pretense that it didn't count because Sansa didn't fight back, or anything like that. On this show, there's this kind of wink-wink, nudge-nudge coyness that the person seems to be into it because they aren't really fighting, and they're not saying no or acting like they don't want to do it -- never mind that the option is being taken away from them. And then the writers say we shouldn't be upset because it's not in the real world and it's different because magic.

 

I've said it before, but really, when it comes to morality, this show makes A Game of Thrones look like Sunday school.

Exactly. At least Game of Thrones is up front about it. This shit just makes my skin crawl.

[YaddaYadda]

Arthur sucked all kinds for what he's done. And maybe this show has managed to completely addle my brain, but I was like, he's so obsessed with the dagger, that he's probably not even having sex with his wife, and maybe she's the one ruling the kingdom instead of him.

 

So many maybes! 

[Shanna Marie]

I might actually like the Arthur and Guinevere stuff (in a like to hate the evil way) if it didn't come in an icky context. If, say, this was the first time someone used magic to force or trick someone else into a relationship that very likely involves sex. What we see on the screen wouldn't even be so bad, since on the show itself I think it comes across as really icky and wrong, though in the case of Graham it was conveniently forgotten and brushed under the rug even when other circumstances arose that should have brought it to top of mind, and in his case there's also the fact that Regina is now supposed to be such a great hero in spite of having done that and never confessed to it, like if no one knows about it, it doesn't matter.

 

But the real problem is that the way the writers talk about these situations when they're confronted with them, they don't see the problem with what they're writing. They thought Regina's relationship with Graham was fun and sexy. Then they scolded viewers for not knowing the difference between reality and fantasy in the situation with Zelena and Robin. So it's rather ugly that they went to the same well yet again, being full aware of just how wrong some of their audience believes this to be. So far, they're not acting like Arthur's not in the wrong, but in the overall context of the way they seem to see this, they can't even claim ignorance anymore. They just persist in being creepy and not getting it.

 

At the moment, I still have to consider Graham's situation the worst because he was still conscious of his real desires, but helpless. He was being forced against his will to sleep with Regina, even though he hated her (at least, before the curse, since during the curse, his cursed identity was in a relationship with her). So far, it doesn't seem like Guinevere is aware of her issues with Arthur. It's still a violation, and if the spell ever breaks she'll be horrified, but she's not living in a constant state of torture and being forced to do something she finds abhorrent.

[Rumsy4]

A podcaster stated that the Zelena/Rape situation was trickery and not fraud, as she did not force him and that Robin had consented. I wonder how many people have this view of the Robin/Zelena situation. The writers not only fail to call out rape within the show, but even use it to make jokes (like Zelena telling Robin she didn't enjoy it). There's nothing moral about the story A&E are telling. 

[YaddaYadda]

He consented to Marian, not Zelena. This is all kinds of fucked up. I have a problem with this kind of logic. 

 

For all his faults, Robin would not have slept with Zelena had he known it was her.

[Rumsy4]

This kind of logic is similar to Adam claiming Graham was not raped in Storybrooke.

[KingOfHearts]

Of all the rapey situations on this show, Arthur/Guinevere is probably the least creepy. But that's not saying much about it. I'm pretty sure she still loved him, and they were married, but it's still rapey.

Edited October 26, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

Technically, if the sand is supposed to give an illusion that something is fixed, Guinevere would not want to sleep with Arthur.  Though that is not what we saw from her response after being Sanded.  Then again, the sand also shouldn't even work on Snow and Charming.  But that's another topic...

[stealinghome]

A podcaster stated that the Zelena/Rape situation was trickery and not fraud, as she did not force him and that Robin had consented. I wonder how many people have this view of the Robin/Zelena situation. The writers not only fail to call out rape within the show, but even use it to make jokes (like Zelena telling Robin she didn't enjoy it). There's nothing moral about the story A&E are telling. 

The writers--or that podcaster--have clearly never heard of rape by deception. Which is, you know...rape. Impersonating someone's spouse to have sex with them is defined by the law as rape in at least some states.

 

Wonder how A&E would react if confronted with this fact.

[Curio]

Wonder how A&E would react if confronted with this fact.

 

They'd probably just say, "But there was magic! Totally different situations! And it's fiction! Don't get so riled up!"

Edited October 26, 2015 by Curio

[Rumsy4]

Wonder how A&E would react if confronted with this fact.

 

They'd probably say there was magic involved. So it's not the same.

 

ETA: OMG, Curio! Great minds and all that...

Edited October 26, 2015 by Rumsy4

[InsertWordHere]

The writers--or that podcaster--have clearly never heard of rape by deception. Which is, you know...rape. Impersonating someone's spouse to have sex with them is defined by the law as rape in at least some states.

Which is actually what King Arthur does to his half-sister! (though he doesn't know she's his sister) in some versions of the legend.

 

Not that I think these writers did it on purpose. And in the legend it's supposed to be gross (although probably for different reasons than it would be today) and it eventually causes Arthur's downfall. 

[Mari]

Which is actually what King Arthur does to his half-sister! (though he doesn't know she's his sister) in some versions of the legend.

There are also versions out there where she does that to him, and I've seen and read versions where that's how Uther and Igraine ended up with Arthur.

 

Parts of it are pretty yucksome.

[Mari]

Moved from the episode thread:

This tweet had me in hysterics:

 

So Emma worst act (so far) as DO (its really bad) is something Regina did to Belle does while being a so-called hero.

This sort of  sums up the show's moral issues concerning Regina in one tweet, doesn't it?

[KingOfHearts]

Technically, if the sand is supposed to give an illusion that something is fixed, Guinevere would not want to sleep with Arthur. Though that is not what we saw from her response after being Sanded. Then again, the sand also shouldn't even work on Snow and Charming. But that's another topic...

That's very true. All I'm saying is that it wasn't sex slavery or an intentional knock-up. That doesn't lessen the fact it was rape. I just think it's funny how people choose the sexual situations with the least amount of justifications to attempt to justify.

Edited October 26, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Mathius]

The double standards on the show kill me. Yes, Emma did a bad thing and should be scrutinized for it, and it wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for the fact that someone who has done the same and far worse is next to NEVER scrutinized for it, and is now the very person scrutinizing Emma!

Similarly, while Arthur should be locked up for what he's done, why are Regina and Rumple still allowed to be free? It will be especially ridiculous with Rumple, who now has no magic and therefore has no excuse to not be thrown in jail!

[Camera One]

Yes, and we got this in spades in this episode with how Emma taking Violet's heart was treated like the descent into the five hundredth level of hell.

[Serena]

It's especially ridiculous because we know A&E thought so little of Regina doing it to Belle, they can't even get straight if Belle knows about it or not!

[Mari]

I thought in one of the summer/fall interviews, we were told that Belle didn't know, but that if Belle did know, she'd be mad?

[KAOS Agent]

Regina pulled out the heart of a Lost Boy just to deliver a message to Henry. There's some pretty wonky thinking going on there when Regina gets all pissy about Emma doing something similar now. It wasn't nice or good or heroic, but it worked. And let's not forget that Emma was fully onboard with that at the time (as was I) because she felt like they were running out of time. This is not a new tactic. But now that Emma's doing it, it's Cora killing Daniel levels of horrible.

[Serena]

Regina pulled out the heart of a Lost Boy just to deliver a message to Henry. There's some pretty wonky thinking going on there when Regina gets all pissy about Emma doing something similar now. It wasn't nice or good or heroic, but it worked. And let's not forget that Emma was fully onboard with that at the time (as was I) because she felt like they were running out of time. This is not a new tactic. But now that Emma's doing it, it's Cora killing Daniel levels of horrible.

Yup. Are we supposed to pretend Emma hasn't done this before, pre-Dark One? That counted as Emma doing it as well as Regina, because she was on board and held Snow back while Regina did it. It was the same thing - actually, that was "to give Henry hope", while this was to hopefully get rid of the Dark One, so this was MORE important. So what's the difference? Why is this horrible, while that one was a sacrifice for the greater good? Because Henry got his feelings hurt? 

[HoodlumSheep]

I don't understand the morality either. Ripping out a heart does not put you at Cora-level evilness. Ripping out a heart doesn't make Emma super evil while Regina does the same thing and is a "hero." Double standards everywhere. It's like, get back to me when Emma gaslights her son for 10 years and erases his memories, and actually kills a person in cold blood rather than self-defense. Then I'll consider her evil. *sighs*

Edited October 26, 2015 by HoodlumSheep

[mjgchick]

I'm still waiting for Emma's truly evil deed. They swore up and down that Dark Swan would be worse than anything else we've ever seen. I don't see the rapes, murdering, and abuse A&E.

[Curio]

The sad thing is that the heart ripping didn't even make a difference on Henry's friendship with Violet in the long run. I could see Henry being pissed at Emma if Violet still didn't like Henry in Storybrooke during the present timeline, but it's clear she does because she gave him a kiss after he returned with the horse. So Emma ripped out Violet's heart in the past and Henry temporarily felt sad in Camelot. But in the present, he's happy with Violet and things seem to be going smooth for them.

 

If we're going to call people out on bad things they've done in the past, why only pile up on Emma? What if Henry walked in on Regina and Robin and the dreamcatcher just happened to be showing a moment of Regina wiping Henry's memory in Season 2 after she told him about her plan to destroy all of his loved ones? Or a memory of Regina crushing Graham's heart? Would Henry get pissed at her or would he just say, "But that was in the past! You're a hero now!" But with Emma, it's like, "But that was in the more recent past! And you're the Dark One now! Even though you just helped me get back on Violet's good side by impressing her with the horse."

[Camera One]

Breaking Henry's heart is much worse than all that.  Let me guess... Henry is going to hold a grudge against Emma for a very long time for this.

[Curio]

But how could Henry's heart be broken? He literally just met Violet a few days ago. Even if Violet's heart wasn't taken out, her telling Henry she just wants to be friends is a completely normal thing for a 13-year-old girl to say to a boy she barely knows. I actually cheered when Violet said that before I knew she was being forced to do it. You go girl! Just because you like hanging out with a boy your age doesn't mean you automatically have to fall in love with him!

 

Basically, the writers have made Henry the new Regina and are focusing way too much on his pain when it's really Violet we should be sad for. We know from the many heart rippings on this show that it's a painful act, so Emma physically hurt a young girl to help her plans, and that's what makes her Dark One act so evil. Sure, manipulating Henry's emotions is bad, but what Violet told him wasn't even that horrible. Violet still wanted to be friends with Henry. Yes, Henry is a 13-year-old and his emotions aren't fully developed so I understand why he's upset, but it's not the end of the world. I'd like to see a scene of Emma apologizing to Violet for what she did, but we'll probably get a long and melodramatic scene about Henry and his tears instead.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Curio

[Rumsy4]

Breaking your own son's heart by controlling an innocent girl is pretty cold. It's not the same as the Neverland situation.

However, it is double standards that Henry still knows nothing about Graham or Regina's mind-wipe of himself.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Rumsy4

[Camera One]

Maybe they should have turned this into Dragon Mom thinks 13 Is Too Young To Date.

[YaddaYadda]

Breaking Henry's heart is much worse than all that.  Let me guess... Henry is going to hold a grudge against Emma for a very long time for this.

 

Honestly, let him hold his grudge against Emma. He always held Emma and Regina to different standards anyway. When Emma said there was no Savior in Storybrooke, he was eager to pass the title down to Regina. When Pan's curse was coming, he voiced regret about going and bringing Emma to town. 

 

In conclusion, Henry is very fine without Emma as long as he has Regina. I'm also beyond okay with Emma and Henry having little interaction. What do they usually talk about when they interact? Regina?

[KingOfHearts]

So when Emma wipes Henry's memory, it's a terrible thing. But when Regina does it, there's no follow-up whatsoever. When Emma rips a heart for the good of all, it's evil. When Regina does it, it's just a necessary means to an end. 5A keeps reminding us the real villains are the White family.

(Charming doesn't count because he can kill with no questions asked, despite being a hero.)

Edited October 26, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[YaddaYadda]

When Regina does it, it's just a necessary means to an end. 5A keeps reminding us the real villains are Charmings.

 

Sucks for them that it's not taking then.

[Shanna Marie]

This article about a recent local event had some interesting stuff that reminded me of the morality in this show. The writer talks about how when he was trying to write true crime books, the editors wanted to focus on the criminals because they were supposedly more interesting. But as a veteran crime reporter, he disagreed:

 

Crooks have less going on upstairs, not more, than honest people. Crooks are basically smash-and-grabbers. See what they want, grab it. Money, sex, power, vengeance. Not into long-range planning. They divorce themselves from empathy. They have less, not more, to think about.

 

The effect their crimes have on survivors, on the other hand, is immensely complex and almost infinitely profound. As regular, decent people battle their way through the challenges of a normal life, their ability to deal with catastrophe, after all, is not infinite.

It seems like this is the issue with the mentality and morality in this show. The writers have bought into that idea that villains are fascinating and more interesting than good people, even when those good people are battling villains.

[Faemonic]

The writers have bought into that idea that villains are fascinating and more interesting than good people, even when those good people are battling villains.

 

Maybe villains do what a lot of people sometimes wish they would be able to do themselves if they didn't "have to be nice", which is why evil people come off as interesting and complex by way of voicing what...really, is just a vicarious power trip on the part of the admirer.

 

Or maybe people also identify with being ostracized unfairly, or having to deal with the consequences of a choice so bad that it can't have been an informed choice at all. Unfortunately in This Show, it just doesn't mix. If you don't have to be nice, then you don't get to complain about unfair ostracization or not having a choice.

 

There are a lot of real life views about evil. The writer you mentioned is one, and I agree that the admiration or even the focus on the perpetrators is icky when the real victims of real value to society are, like, right there. But I also remember another study done on people in a maximum security prison, and the conclusion that researcher reached was that none of those inmates would have been in there if they'd been loved. That's fair. It's even fair that they ain't gonna get any remedial loving now, because that might not even work, and hardly anybody has the emotional resources for that besides.

 

But in fiction...there's got to be a decision about those things, or at least every decision will influence what comes off as the moral philosophy of the show. And I've given up on waiting for these all to hang together. I hear that Once's Arthur has been a jerk lately. If someone would tell me honestly that he evidences more substantial motivation than the gods in the writer's room going, "Everybody thinks King Arthur is a good guy, so let's just go the opposite...interesting..." then I might start watching again.

[KAOS Agent]

The writers seem to have a problem with taking characters who aren't the greatest people but whose motives aren't all bad and turning them into these totally evil caricatures, which destroys any moral standing they may have. They just can't seem to create a nuanced character that makes the tough decisions and who can be seen as somewhat sympathetic. King George was initially shown to be a ruthless leader who threatened David's mother if he didn't replace his twin brother and marry Abigail, but he wasn't doing that just for kicks. His kingdom was being squeezed because Regina had stopped trade with them. He was working to arrange funds/trade for his kingdom by forming an alliance with King Midas. Does this make him a horrible person? Is he a villain? If kids are starving in his kingdom, then David marrying a woman he doesn't love seems to be a small price to pay to help the peasantry. Is it fair to David? Not particularly, but the motivation isn't evil and can be seen as reasonable, even necessary, for the ruler of a kingdom. Unfortunately, they destroyed this character by having him turn completely evil and cutting a man in half for reasons I don't even remember. 

 

King Arthur was given the same semi-understandable morality at first. He was shady and did some bad stuff, but it came off as more that he was concerned for his people and his kingdom than that he was evil. And then they made him a crazy power obsessed freak who brainwashed his wife, plans to murder Merlin and built his entire kingdom on sand. There goes any moral authority or sympathy he may have gotten in the beginning. Any nuance we might have had with regards to his decisions/actions are completely wiped out.

 

Why they cannot examine the morality of the greater good vs the one on this show I do not understand. I think Snowing are horrible leaders because they absolutely cannot seem to make the hard choices required of a leader and yet, the show portrays them as correct when they basically screw over the many because they can't get their hands dirty. Why couldn't Arthur be a guy who was screwed over by Merlin's prophecies and just trying to do his best to help the kingdom he was told he would rule? Why not come up with a plausible reason for Arthur to believe that freeing Merlin was bad for his kingdom and have him do everything he could to stop Emma from releasing him? The audience can still root for the Storybrookers, but there'd be some level of nuance in the idea that their needs shouldn't necessarily trump those of the other people in Camelot. Moustache twirling villains aren't necessary to provide conflict in a story. There's conflict inherent in choosing whose needs get precedence and acknowledging that someone will lose and how to make the right decisions of what's best for all.

[Faemonic]

Ah...I haven't missed much, then. Thanks!

Why they cannot examine the morality of the greater good vs the one on this show I do not understand. I think Snowing are horrible leaders because they absolutely cannot seem to make the hard choices required of a leader and yet, the show portrays them as correct when they basically screw over the many because they can't get their hands dirty.

And then it's strange that they must show that heroes can be villainous by deciding that Cora the Peasant Slaughterer must be permanently stopped, and that dragons aren't real people who can have families, instead of showing that heroes can be villainous by striving for unjust standards of mercy.

 

Mustache-twirling villains can be entertaining, but on this show it bothers me that 1. attempts at complexity too swiftly turn into prioritizing the perpetrator's perspective over the victims', as if there were not a lot of middle ground, and 2. it doesn't even really make sense why we should get on board with that, but I kept feeling like I was supposed to really get on board with that.

 

I got into a discussion about the trope "complete monster" and how to make purely evil characters complex and interesting. At first, I argued that any complexity would not be a monstrosity, and therefore displace some monstrosity, and therefore the character wouldn't be a complete monster. Someone else pointed out that complexity of character isn't necessarily moral complexity, which was right. We can explain motivations without excusing them, so cheers for Cora and Hook and Ingrid and Lily. Or we can even not explain at all, so on that last bit I would give cheers to Peter Pan and Cruella (and Young Cora if I completely forget about "Bleeding Through".)

 

Every time I think I can accept Regina's position in the show as author's pet (like her victory at the Thinking Tree...like, okay, never mind the massacre of peasants that she's not sorry for...it's just how she be,) new developments get me annoyed at her as a character again, in an annoyingly familiarly annoyed way that brings up past things and fictional people aren't supposed to be able to do that! Hook's become boring, although I like that he makes Emma happy. Rumple's Cleave subplot had a lot of wasted opportunity. It all added up to that he'll do evil because he is evil, but we should think it's complex because he's trying (um? Trying what? Trying to be more most evilest? Or maybe he's sad when there are consequences and that's why it's complex.)

 

Even with a fantasy show that's evidently somebody's major fantasy fulfillment, it's unfulfilling.

[Shanna Marie]

Mustache-twirling villains can be entertaining, but on this show it bothers me that 1. attempts at complexity too swiftly turn into prioritizing the perpetrator's perspective over the victims', as if there were not a lot of middle ground, and 2. it doesn't even really make sense why we should get on board with that, but I kept feeling like I was supposed to really get on board with that.

I think part of the problem with this show is that it's very self-contradictory. It wants to have the mustache-twirling villains who are also sympathetic and complex. They're also bad about saying they want to show something and thinking they've shown something, while actually doing the exact opposite.

 

So, supposedly they wanted to show us that the fairy tales we've always heard don't tell the whole story, that it's a lot more complex than in the storybooks, it's not just black and white, and maybe it's possible for the Evil Queen to get her happy ending. What they show us is an Evil Queen who's a hundred times worse than her storybook counterpart, who has done far worse damage. And the "complex" story behind her actions makes no sense whatsoever. Yes, she had something bad happen to her, but her response to that was way out of proportion and aimed at the wrong person (I really wish Emma had been allowed to remark on that when she got to see what really happened). Given that they've been systematically tearing down Snow White all along the way, I don't know why they didn't set up Regina's story in a way where Snow really had some blame -- not killing Daniel herself, but maybe deliberately telling Cora out of spite rather than thinking that she was helping Regina. They were teasing all along that we didn't know the whole story, and we got the sense that Snow must have done something, and then it turned out to be entirely innocent on her part. Snow's actions were maybe worth letting the kingdom's heralds read entries from Snow's diaries in every village, but murdering her father, trying to murder her, banishing her from her home and cursing an entire kingdom were overkill.

 

And then, right at the point where they were going all-in on the "poor, sad Regina who's such a complex character because she's a villain, and yet people feel sorry for her" angle, that's when they threw in the additional details of mass murder and the fact that Snow had spared her life and shown her mercy. So Regina looks even worse and less complex. But they treat her past evil deeds like funny little foibles. The village slaughter is spoken of as though her old friends are telling her cool new friends that she used to have braces and acne.

[Mathius]

So, supposedly they wanted to show us that the fairy tales we've always heard don't tell the whole story, that it's a lot more complex than in the storybooks, it's not just black and white, and maybe it's possible for the Evil Queen to get her happy ending. What they show us is an Evil Queen who's a hundred times worse than her storybook counterpart, who has done far worse damage.

 

I don't think Evil Queen Regina was THAT much worse than her storybook counterpart in Season 1 (with the exception of the rape issue).  Her vendetta was kept pretty strictly against Snow White like it was in the fairy tale, and her tyranny seemed more limited to making her subjects miserable and afraid of her rather than anything fatal.  It was in Season 2 and onward that she was suddenly transformed into a genocidal dictator who slaughtered multiple villages full of people and ripped out multiple hearts to store in her vault.  That is the irony: Season 2 was the start of a genuine effort to make Regina sympathetic, and yet they undermine that effort by making her much more heinous than she was in Season 1.

 

They were teasing all along that we didn't know the whole story, and we got the sense that Snow must have done something, and then it turned out to be entirely innocent on her part.

 

Honestly, there almost seems to be an attempt to retcon this.  We get lines like "I was such a brat" and "You saw firsthand how shallow and selfish I could be", as if Snow was the conceited bratty child she was before meeting Regina while she knew Regina.  One of the pre-season premiere specials even showed young Snow walking in on Daniel and Regina kissing and then cut immediately to Cora killing him, narration saying that Snow "told Cora" and giving the impression that she immediately ran and told her, rather than get manipulated into telling by Cora herself.  It's very disingenuous. 

Edited October 29, 2015 by Mathius

[Faemonic]

The village slaughter is spoken of as though her old friends are telling her cool new friends that she used to have braces and acne.

Yes, and it makes no sense unless the villagers were really just supposed to be props. It's Protagonist-Centered Morality at its most what-the-whaaat.

 

I think part of the problem with this show is that it's very self-contradictory. It wants to have the mustache-twirling villains who are also sympathetic and complex. They're also bad about saying they want to show something and thinking they've shown something, while actually doing the exact opposite.

So, supposedly they wanted to show us that the fairy tales we've always heard don't tell the whole story, that it's a lot more complex than in the storybooks, it's not just black and white, and maybe it's possible for the Evil Queen to get her happy ending. What they show us is an Evil Queen who's a hundred times worse than her storybook counterpart, who has done far worse damage. And the "complex" story behind her actions makes no sense whatsoever. Yes, she had something bad happen to her, but her response to that was way out of proportion and aimed at the wrong person (I really wish Emma had been allowed to remark on that when she got to see what really happened). Given that they've been systematically tearing down Snow White all along the way, I don't know why they didn't set up Regina's story in a way where Snow really had some blame

 

This should probably go to the Other Fairy Tales Compare/Contrast thread, but I wish that they'd gone deeper with the fairy tales to explore the real morality play, or even the real emotional journey absent of morals. The Grimm brothers censored a lot when they released their collection of folk tales of the peasantry to the middle class, being that a lot of bad mothers became bad stepmothers instead.

 

It would have been so much more interesting to have reverted the Snow White story to the original version. A pregnant lady pricks her finger while sewing by the window on a moonlit snowy night, and she wishes that her baby will have hair as dark as night, lips as red as blood, and skin as white as snow. She wants a good-looking daughter, but once the magic ensures that she gets a good-looking daughter? The mother gets insecure herself about how good-looking she is. That's complex. It's messed up to take it out on a kid what is essentially one's own unresolved issues, and it's not the most poetic of justices when the process involves an innocent victim, but it invites a lot of questions. Cora was actually interesting in a similar way, because she wanted what was best for Regina without ever asking Regina what Regina felt was best for Regina. Haven't any of us pushed somebody we cared for too far, in a direction they may or may not have thanked us for? Or tried to pleasantly surprise someone in a way that backfired? Cora can become a projection screen for that.

 

But, okay, let's stick with wicked stepmother. Still a lot of room for emotionally riveting complexity. We've gone along with the censored version of fairy tales probably because (in the case of the wicked stepmothers) it's common to have a lot of tension with mixed families, and kids need stability because it's difficult to make big adjustments. Still, parents are still people who need fellow adult people in their lives a lot of the time. It's thematically sound for this show. Heck, they could have put in political tensions that had to do with succession laws: Regina's the dowager queen, Snow's the crown princess. Who does the better job? Or...Neil Gaiman made Snow White into a vampire, and the Queen into a tree-hugging vampire-slaying witch stepmom who regrets showing baby vampire Snow White any mercy.

That's interesting, because it's a simple Public Relations swap. Snow White the heroine is actually a vampire paired up with a cruel necrophiliac Prince Charming. The Witch Queen was just trying to save people from a vampire. Maybe Vampire Snow White was just doing what she needed to, to survive...but

it's not a matter of the text begging for sympathy or trying to make it so that anybody had good motivations but evil ways of going about it. Or evil motivations but good ways of going about it.

 

It's just an interesting story because that's what happened in the story. A lot of fans (still fans?) complain about this show being all PLOT PLOT PLOT in matters of pacing, but I'd actually criticize the priority of concept over plot. It would have been great if somebody plotted out the concept in a way that was both logical and legible.

 

Which brings me to the motive they keep putting front and center with the complex Regina who feels everything so deeply. I would even have been fine with that miss in a first season full of hits if they left it alone, and I was even fine with how it was dealt with in the Zombie Daniel episode. But everything that has called back to that event since then is just putting a neon marquee around the worst-argued motivation.

 

It's like how Marceline the Vampire Queen from Adventure Time (I don't know, it's a vampire sort of day) estranged herself from her father because he ate her french fries, and the show retconned it so that he ate the french fries during the fall of civilization when there might never be any french fries ever again, except the writers of Adventure Time were totally joking. Daniel is like those french fries! But I'm supposed to take him seriously as a motivator. (Cora wasn't even recognized as a real villain when Regina and even Snow White mourned her death and Cora got that awful sob story in Bleeding Through, so it seems to have never addressed or else totally washed over Cora's position as the main motivator and source of evil!)

 

I would have more easily bought into the vain bio!mom of Snow White.

[Shanna Marie]

I don't think Evil Queen Regina was THAT much worse than her storybook counterpart in Season 1 (with the exception of the rape issue).  Her vendetta was kept pretty strictly against Snow White like it was in the fairy tale, and her tyranny seemed more limited to making her subjects miserable and afraid of her rather than anything fatal.

Well, in season one we saw her arrange the murder of Leopold (and set up the genie as a patsy), murder her father, attempt to murder a newborn infant, murder Graham, send who knows how many children to their deaths, deliberately separate children from their families, gleefully separate parents from their children, and plan the murder of Kathryn. So that's still worse than the Snow White evil queen, who was only shown to be going after Snow White and who didn't have a death count at all (unless there's a lot they left out). But it is more "fairy tale" evil, on a very different scale from the piles of bodies we saw later.

 

That is the irony: Season 2 was the start of a genuine effort to make Regina sympathetic, and yet they undermine that effort by making her much more heinous than she was in Season 1.

That's the part I don't understand. If they changed their tune in season 2 and decided to go full-on Woegina, who's really just a sad, hurt victim, and the heroes aren't really all that great, then why did they ramp up the evil at the same time? Why not use her flashbacks to show how unloved she was by Cora, how her father let her be abused, how Leopold constantly ignored her for Snow, how Snow was a brat, how Rumple carefully manipulated each of her turns deeper into evil? Instead, they gave us piles of bodies in the past and a plan to kill everyone in town in the present. But, weirdly, I'm not sure they saw the piles of bodies as that bad because the way that flashback was framed, they made it look like Regina's later evil was all Snow's fault, since Snow told the disguised Regina that Regina couldn't be redeemed after she saw the piles of bodies. If only Snow had been more forgiving and less judgy about mass murder, Regina could have been saved!

 

I think this is a big reason why I'm so mad about the botching of the Greg/Owen plot because that had all kinds of potential to be a true complex and sympathetic villain/antagonist. He had a valid reason for his anger, and his goal of getting rid of magic wasn't entirely unreasonable, given his experiences. He was only a "villain" because he was up against the regular characters, and his anti-magic stance threatened all of them, even the ones with no power. That story was ripe for him to maybe learn a #notallmagic lesson, where maybe his life was saved through the use of good magic, and he saw that the key thing is how magic is used. That could even have ended up being a redemptive story for Regina, where she was forced to face her past victim and show some kind of atonement. But instead, he had to be all evil and be destroyed because God forbid Regina have to have any self-awareness, and we couldn't even have all of Regina's other past victims sympathize with someone else whose life was destroyed by her.

 

The way they oh-so-cleverly (not) played role reversal in that alt universe where villains and heroes were switched shows that they really don't get this, considering that all they did was have the actors play different roles. The Evil Queen was still evil, the outcast bandit "Snow White" character was still good, and there was no examination of what it really meant to be a villain or hero.