Morality in Storybrooke / Social Issues: Threads Combined!

[Shanna Marie]

That makes it all the more of a missed opportunity that there isn't that headstrongness under all the Disney!Belle iconography.

That's where they have a problem with the collision between taking Belle and the Beauty and the Beast relationship from the Disney movie and mapping it onto Rumple as the Beast, so we end up with some of this show's trademark wonky morality and problematic relationship depiction.

 

Movie!Belle was able to love the good man inside the Beast because he was actually capable of being a good man inside. The entire moral of the story was that you can't judge by appearances. In spite of his fearsome appearance, the Beast could be kind and gentle and was mostly poorly socialized. On the other hand, ridiculously handsome Gaston was ugly inside. He and the villagers were willing to attack a Beast who did them no harm and kept to himself just because he looked scary.

 

But they're trying to map that onto a man who really is a villain. He's actually not that unattractive, aside from the sparkly skin in his Enchanted Forest mode. He's hated because he kills on a whim, strikes deals that are overwhelmingly to his advantage, uses other people for his own ends, engineers situations in which people will have to ask for his help and then he can strike one of his infamous deals, and thoroughly enjoys torture and other kinds of cruelty. He's so evil and vile that his deeds actually turned his heart to charcoal. Even after all the darkness was removed from him and he had a totally pure heart, he pulled off a trick to siphon off the Darkness and get it back rather than letting it be removed from the world of the living for good. He has been known to occasionally do a good and even selfless thing (usually when being nagged), but left to his own devices, he always makes the bad choice. If you're trying to do a Beauty and the Beast thing about seeing what's inside and judging people on something other than appearance, then Rumple is a case study for someone who should be considered ugly. If you're loving him for what's inside, then you love something cruel and corrupt. Movie!Belle would react to him the way she reacted to Gaston. Show!Belle just looks either ridiculously dumb and naive or corrupt, herself. At this point, he's demonstrated time and again the kind of man he is, so continuing to love him and staying with him out of a belief that he's got a good heart is flat-out unhealthy. No matter how many times they put him in that blue coat and let him waltz around with Belle in her gold ballgown, he is in no way, shape, or form the Beast who fits with the concept of Belle. Trying to make her Belle while calling him the Beast creates a weird dissonance in the way they portray the characters. I think if you remove him from the picture, she actually makes a good depiction of movie Belle -- like the way she called Hook out on his temper being a lot like Belle chastising the Beast for roaring at her. But you can't put movie Belle with a villain and say it's the same thing as the movie relationship or keep her as the same character.

[KingOfHearts]

Beast was hostile out of fear of getting hurt or rejected. Everyone saw him as a monster, so there was no point in not playing the part. Rumple's villainy has also been attributed to fear, but it goes beyond that in my opinion. He has long run out of excuses. First, his cruelty was in retaliation to bullies like Hook or the Duke's men. Then it was called a means to an end to find Bae. But after he decides to redeem himself and gets almost everything he wants, he does a 180 and lusts for power. It's not because he's drunk with DO magic, either. He was conniving when he lost it all... twice. So after all that, he comes off as a lover of wickedness. It's not about needing walls to protect his insecurities. It's about being evil, plain and simple. To me that takes away a lot of his humanity and characterization. His motives have been over-simplified and don't correlate to anything but a straight-up psychotic villain.

 

A&E don't give a crap about Belle besides being a love interest for Rumple angst. They don't care about Beauty and the Beast except when it comes to iconography. Rumple himself has become nothing more than a plot device to link the darkness from arc to arc.

Edited January 7, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Rumsy4]

 

To me that takes away a lot of his humanity and characterization. His motives have been over-simplified and don't correlate to anything but a straight-up psychotic villain.

 

I agree. In many ways, Season 4 marked Rumple's descent into two-dimensional category. There isn't an ounce of sympathy left for him. Why we should care about the redemption of a man so drunk on evil and power, is beyond me. His attachment to Belle is almost inexplicable at this point. Their "romance" is nothing but a plot deceive to keep Rumple toeing the line when the plot needs him to do so. 

Edited January 7, 2016 by Rumsy4

[KAOS Agent]

 

If you're trying to do a Beauty and the Beast thing about seeing what's inside and judging people on something other than appearance, then Rumple is a case study for someone who should be considered ugly. If you're loving him for what's inside, then you love something cruel and corrupt. Movie!Belle would react to him the way she reacted to Gaston. Show!Belle just looks either ridiculously dumb and naive or corrupt, herself. At this point, he's demonstrated time and again the kind of man he is, so continuing to love him and staying with him out of a belief that he's got a good heart is flat-out unhealthy.

 

What bothered me about how they've written Belle was how her supposedly clear morality and ability to see the good in people was thrown right out the window in favor of Rumpel. There's Belle, who has always claimed that Dark One Rumpel was really good underneath and deserves all kinds of chances, throwing Emma under the bus before she'd really done anything evil simply because Emma was the Dark One. So even knowing who Emma was before the Darkness, she gets zero tolerance, but Rumpel was still good even after Belle had witnessed him doing increasingly despicable acts. Where is this supposed great ability to see beneath the surface to the good in people? Were they trying to say that no matter how abusive a person is, you should support them simply because you love them even as you're all in on taking out other evils that aren't nearly as bad as your abuser?

 

One thing I did appreciate about Captain Swan in Storybrooke in 5A was that Hook refused to enable Emma. He talked about what was best for him in terms of his own personal growth as a person and rejected what Dark Swan was offering. Granted, Dark Emma wasn't generally abusive towards Hook, but there was a clear difference between Rumbelle and Captain Swan in how they treated each other while the other was dark (Hook didn't know he was a Dark One, so I'm ignoring that). It was only once Hook realized that isolating Emma wasn't getting them anywhere in trying to figure out what was going on that he changed tactics and even then, he didn't try to ignore her evil deeds, but tried to assure her that they could be forgiven. I didn't see Hook acting as a leash on Dark Emma like the way they write Belle with Rumpel. It's where the mixed messaging on this show really comes through because I think we're supposed to see Rumbelle as a romantic relationship that messed up by the Darkness, but then they write another relationship facing the exact same problem and show just how dysfunctional and wrong it is.

[YaddaYadda]

It's where the mixed messaging on this show really comes through because I think we're supposed to see Rumbelle as a romantic relationship that messed up by the Darkness, but then they write another relationship facing the exact same problem and show just how dysfunctional and wrong it is.

 

I wonder if that's what they really want us to see with RB. The more episodes we get, the more I feel they want us to see the relationship for what it really is. One-sided and completely dysfunctional. That's the only way for me to explain the huge difference in the writing. I think that's especially true after Rumple was called out twice in the same episode about the kind of man he really is. Granted, he didn't know Belle would return, but Rumple has been shown as being opportunistic at every turn, and someone who will never choose love over power. 

 

He is the anti-thesis of love is strength. Rumple talks a good game, about love being the thing that can transcend everything, but in the end, he clearly sees it as a great weakness. Both Emma and Hook evolved from that, and changed because of that.

 

I think it sucks that they twist Belle into a pretzel though. I don't think they really want Rumple to be in a relationship, period, and Belle should have remained a one time deal, and that would have been the end of that.

[Shanna Marie]

I wonder if that's what they really want us to see with RB. The more episodes we get, the more I feel they want us to see the relationship for what it really is. One-sided and completely dysfunctional.

Except when the writers and actors have been asked about that, they've visibly recoiled, like they can't believe anyone would see it that way. They seem so hung up on the Beauty and the Beast concept that they're entirely unaware that it doesn't fit what they're writing. They're all "I can see the good inside him" and "you never give up on the people you love" but don't seem to realize that they're writing something really unhealthy and warped.

[Amerilla]

It feels to me that the focus on Belle is really somewhat misplaced. It's Rumpel's story that's changed, not hers. That's the fundamental problem. Her character made sense as long as Rumpel was on the Road to Redemption. But in 3b, the writers decided that was booore-ring and shunted him off to the Mwah-Ha-Ha Motorway, effectively blocking any forward movement by either character.

 

Killing off Neal was fatal to all three characters. No matter how one might feel about the character - and let's forstall the Airing of Greivences by stipulating that 99% of the board didn't like him at all - from a storytelling perspective, you can't spend two and a half seasons building Rumpel around Bae/Neal's character, yawn, and then end the storyline. They made it clear that Bae was Rumpel's salvation - while "you're my happy ending" is perhaps the oddest line uttered by a father character to a son, it drove home the point as clear as day. That is the wound that can now never be healed; it's the hole that can never be filled. It's the Dead End. It's a character that now only exists because Robert Carlyle has a contract. He's now like all the other "big bads," neither big nor bad, nor particularly interesting.

 

And that doesn't give Belle any room to navigate. She's a card the story plays when they need to assert that Rumpel still has a speck of humanity, to keep that in play until his final chapter. To see any wider purpose or speculate on how they want us to see it as a dysfuntional relationship is folly. We give it far more thought that they do.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Amerilla

[KingOfHearts]

I'm disappointed Belle is always sidelined. In 2B, she couldn't go to New York with Rumple because there "only enough potion for one object". Then she couldn't go to Neverland. For the most part, she's either doing research or quarantined with another character. None of them mains besides Rumple get to interact with her, and 5B doesn't look any different. She reminds me of female characters in the 20th century that were there just to prop up the male leads. After S2, Belle became a very anti-feminist symbol. A&E can affirm until they're blue in the face that she's smart, independent and caring, but that's simply not the case. She's co-dependent on Rumple and can't seem to go five minutes without a man.

Edited January 9, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Delphi]

Ugh they briefly dangled that Belle/Ruby friendship which I think could have really been neat because those two had good chemistry. The writers just got too distracted with every new toy they stumble across. It's frustrating as hell.

[KingOfHearts]

That joke where David punches Whale for sleeping with Mary Margaret was sexist to me. David slept with Kathryn and committed "adultery" too yet he comes off clean. Does Snow get a crack at jabbing Kathryn? Of course not - because that wouldn't fit a stereotype.

Edited January 15, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[KAOS Agent]

Snow slapping Geppetto was considered the evilest of evil acts for her and she had clear justification for that. Slapping Kathryn, who incidentally did slap Mary Margaret for the adultery, would be like the darkest of all dark acts for Snow White. You can't examine the morality of actions on this show. There's clearly an infinite number of standards depending on the character in question.

[Serena]

That joke where David punches Whale for sleeping with Mary Margaret was sexist to me. David slept with Kathryn and committed "adultery" too yet he comes off clean. Does Snow get a crack at jabbing Kathryn? Of course not - because that wouldn't fit a stereotype.

It was disgusting. Not only sexist, but Whale didn't have a CHOICE - he was cursed. His real personality most likely wouldn't have done that. Regina should have been slapped in that (and so many, many more) scenario. Whale was a victim, but because he had a (again, cursed) "horndog" personality and he's a man, it's assumed he always wants it and blamed for his own rape-by-proxy. 

 

Snow, on the other hand, was completely justified. I get her apologizing after - Geppetto's act wasn't malicious, it was desperate and driven by love for his son. Still, he put A LOT of people at risk and caused Snow to lose her daughter's childhood (and himself to lose his son's childhood - it turns out, if he had just let Snow go with Emma, she would have broken the curse at 28 and Pinocchio would have still been the same age and they would have resumed their lives where they left off).

Edited January 15, 2016 by Serena

[Rumsy4]

And apparently Charming is still hung up over the Whale thing. He wondered if DoOver was Whale's child when he was under the Shattered Sight spell. Charming does and says some incredibly sexist things at times. But I think it's meant to be a flaw.

[Serena]

I still don't get what was up with his insistence on "We're totally having a boy" - he did it with Emma and with DoOver too. It's like, is that supposed to be cute? Why is that a thing? Doesn't Adam have two daughers?

[YaddaYadda]

I still don't get what was up with his insistence on "We're totally having a boy" - he did it with Emma and with DoOver too. It's like, is that supposed to be cute? Why is that a thing? Doesn't Adam have two daughers?

 

Back in I think 3x02, Ruth was telling barren Snow how David always wanted to have a son. So it's nothing new with his character. 

 

I always thought David was a bit old fashion, and then Hook pointed that out to him when David asked him what his intentions with Emma were.

[Rumsy4]

I always thought David was a bit old fashion, and then Hook pointed that out to him when David asked him what his intentions with Emma were.

 

David is definitely meant to be old-fashioned. As another example, he didn't want to be relegated to baby duty in Camelot, and would rather be doing something active (which led to the whole mushroom debacle). The problem is, Charming is not always consistent. His complete lack of issues with Neal is in stark contrast to his behavior as an over-protective old-fashioned dad when it comes to Hook. Unless the writers were going for the angle where Charming believed Neal had a claim on Emma because of Henry. 

 

The thing is, no one in the narrative seems to have had a problem with Neal's sudden entrance into Henry's life, and his demands to be a part of it. One can see it from his angle, but the narrative shamed Emma for hiding the truth about Henry's parentage, and let Neal make self-righteous accusations at her. The same way, Henry was quick to condemn Emma for lying, but totally accepted his father's excuse that "he didn't know he had a son" (yeah--and why didn't he know?). Even Regina expressed no problems with the fact that Henry's bio dad was suddenly a factor in his life, when we had two whole seasons of her conflict with Emma over Henry. Wouldn't that have been an interesting angle to explore? Do the writers want us to believe that Neal's parental rights were somehow superior, or were they just not interested in any conflict when it came to Neal other than the evil lover and love triangle nonsense? With the way Neal never got punched in the face by Charming and the naming of Baby DoOver, I have to think the writers hold very sexist views on the subject.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Rumsy4

[YaddaYadda]

Henry is kind of quick to jump down Emma throat for things. He seems to hold her to a much higher standard than he holds the other people. 

 

I'm still not over his speech about how Regina and Rumple proved they had changed. I can buy the Regina side of things, but Rumple just woke up from a darkness cleansing induced coma, with a completely clean slate at starting anew.

 

I'm looking forward to how that little hypocrite will behave with his pop-pop. 

[Amerilla]

The thing is, no one in the narrative seems to have had a problem with Neal's sudden entrance into Henry's life, and his demands to be a part of it. One can see it from his angle, but the narrative shamed Emma for hiding the truth about Henry's parentage, and let Neal make self-righteous accusations at her. The same way, Henry was quick to condemn Emma for lying, but totally accepted his father's excuse that "he didn't know he had a son" (yeah--and why didn't he know?). Even Regina expressed no problems with the fact that Henry's bio dad was suddenly a factor in his life, when we had two whole seasons of her conflict with Emma over Henry. Wouldn't that have been an interesting angle to explore? Do the writers want us to believe that Neal's parental rights were somehow superior, or were they just not interested in any conflict when it came to Neal other than the evil lover and love triangle nonsense? With the way Neal never got punched in the face by Charming and the naming of Baby DoOver, I have to think the writers hold very sexist views on the subject.

 

One of the big problems with Neal's story is that he comes into the narrative at the point where the whole tone of the show begins to shift. After "The Miller's Daughter," characters for the most part stop interacting and overlapping, most of the tertiary supporting character recede into the background, and the timeline gets incredibly compressed.

 

Regina's reaction to finding out Neal is Henry's father is a good example. She doesn't find out until "Lacey" (four episodes after the rest of us found out.) In the very next episode, she's planning on killing everyone in town (including Emma and Neal) to keep Henry for herself and ends up kidnapped by the Hook and the Home Office. By the time she's freed in the next episode, Neal is "dead." He reemerges late in the Neverland narrative, and they're all home in Storybrooke for little more than a day before they're carried back to the EF. When they return, he dies for keeps without getting to see Henry again. The pace of the story renders any feelings she might about him irrelevant. In terms of the internal timeline, he's not around Henry long enough to matter. That's very different than her ongoing conflict with Emma, which stretches over the months-long timeline of S1 and gets into the core of main storyline.

 

Neal was a victim of quick-and-dirty storytelling. Wanting to be in Henry's life gives a plausible reason for Neal to stay in Storybrooke once Cora is disposed of. It gives him an anchor in Emma's life in case they wanted a love story and/or triangle down the road. In S2, there's no hurry in having him interact with Snowing or Regina or Rumpel because he's going to be part of the story for a while. In S3, he's being killed off, and there's no reason to waste time having him interact with them.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Amerilla

[InsertWordHere]

He reemerges late in the Neverland narrative, and they're all home in Storybrooke for little more than a day before they're carried back to the EF.

That's another big missed opportunity during the missing year. It would have been interesting to see Neal and Regina both missing Henry while Snow and Charming were missing Emma. Instead of having them be almost immediately threatened by the Wicked Witch, even though she barely did anything to them for the rest of the year, we could have seen some (completely platonic, I am definitely not advocating for a Queenfire ship here) interaction between characters that rarely interacted.

[KingOfHearts]

That's another big missed opportunity during the missing year. It would have been interesting to see Neal and Regina both missing Henry while Snow and Charming were missing Emma. Instead of having them be almost immediately threatened by the Wicked Witch

Replying in All Seasons.

[Shanna Marie]

The "Nancy" meme (the "it would bother me if neighbor Nancy did it, but this is fiction" responses) got me thinking: when do you apply real-world standards to fictional characters? It seems like the writers are too prone to go for the "it's fantasy, so everything's okay" argument, as they did on twitter in response to complaints about Zelena raping Robin by pretending to be Marian and sleeping with him. But at the same time, the characters themselves have to make judgments about each other, and we as viewers have to decide whether or not we agree with them. It seems to me that if we can't use real-world standards at all, then we have no points in common with the characters. They've become utterly alien beings completely detached from humanity. You don't want to take your real-world judgment so far that you start attacking the actors over their characters' actions, but at some point you have to be able to apply the way the world really works to the characters' world, even in the most elaborate fantasy setting.

 

My personal standard is that if something would be wrong if it happened in the real world, it's wrong in the story world, for the most part. If you can find an approximate real-world equivalent without magic coming into play that doesn't add other questionable issues, then you can assume that it's wrong in their world when magic is involved. But there are also cases where magic changes the circumstances so much that they can't translate to the real world. I would say that context is also key because what's wrong in one case can help you judge whether it's wrong in other cases, but it's this show, so that makes it hard.

 

For example, I can't see any way in which Regina's treatment of Graham would be at all okay, whether or not magic was involved. I don't care if you use a gun to the head, a knife to the throat, restraints, drugs, or magic, making someone who doesn't want to have sex with you have sex with you is rape. In the Enchanted Forest, when he knew what was happening and how, it was like holding a gun to his head -- or worse, because at least with a gun to his head he has the option of resisting, even if that choice means he dies for resisting. In Storybrooke, where he was unaware of what was going on, it was more like a drug, where he didn't realize what was happening and woke up in the morning full of self-loathing for having done something he hated the idea of doing. There have been other instances on the show where they've made it clear that using someone's heart to make them do something they don't want to do is wrong, so even in the context of the show this should be seen as bad stuff (heck, they portrayed Emma as being evil for using Violet's heart to tell Henry she just wanted to be friends with him).

 

Zelena's treatment of Robin is a little harder to move into a real-world scenario because it probably wouldn't have worked without magic, but I suppose it's similar to that urban legend story about the man who has sex with a woman at a costume party, thinking it's his wife, but then learns it's another woman in the same costume. So to move that into the real world, it's like a woman killed a woman at a costume party, put on her costume, then went to her husband and pretended to be his wife so he'd have sex with her. I don't know what precise criminal charges might be filed, but the action is utterly wrong, whether she did it that way or used magic to impersonate his wife. Plus, there's the homicide. That's the one where I really don't understand the writers saying to relax because it's just fantasy. We have to be able to judge the characters, and what Zelena did was horribly wrong. At least within the show they do seem to be treating it as wrong (though there we have the issue that while it's wrong, it pales in comparison to other wrongs committed by other characters, who haven't been held accountable. See above, re Graham.).

 

On the other hand, I tend to cut David a lot of slack in the whole Kathryn vs. Mary Margaret debacle because there's no equivalent in the real world with all the fake identities and curse stuff. The closest I can get is a man waking from a coma with amnesia and being more drawn to the volunteer who sat by his side while he was in the coma than to the wife he doesn't remember, but even that leaves aside the fact that Mary Margaret was really his wife and that everything about his relationship with Kathryn was fake. He wasn't even like the other cursed people who'd lived those fake lives for 28 years. He'd never lived with Kathryn as his wife, and he wasn't given the false memories until the curse was already weakening. So I can't apply real-world standards for what counts as "cheating" to this situation. He was resisting a lie and acting on what felt right, which created a problem in the situation he was in. I think that's different from a real-world cheater who claims it's okay to follow his heart (or, say, Robin).

 

I also think the fact of Neverland, the curse, and multiple worlds keeps the fact that Hook was involved with Emma's son's grandmother from getting creepy. If you move that situation into the real world, it creates new issues like age differences and relationship proximities. But with the fantasy stuff, there are centuries or decades separating relationships without Emma and Hook having a substantial physical age difference so that instead of being at all like family members, they're more like people with some past acquaintances in common. You can't replicate the way they're connected in the real world without changing it too significantly, so we can't apply our view of "creepy" to it.

 

For what it's worth, I have to side-eye bringing Henry to the Underworld. He might be better equipped than neighbor Nancy's kid would be, since he handled himself pretty well in the AU Enchanted Forest and survived Neverland, but his role as Author is too nebulous to consider that as any kind of strength, and he broke the quill that gave him his only real power there. He may have more know-how and experience than your average 13-year-old, but he doesn't have any special power or strength that would make deliberately bringing him into a dangerous situation a good idea.

[tennisgurl]

To me, "Nancy" is more of a reaction to fandom hypocrisy than anything else. I stepped away from fandom for like two days, and came back to find this Nancy business had exploded, and from what I understand, Nancy is criticizing fans who are blaming Emma for taking Henry to the underworld, but have given other characters (like Regina) a pass on dragging him to other, dangerous adventures. Like, this is just a continuing pattern with the show, why get mad now? 

 

But, to your bigger point, I completely agree. People saying that what characters do shouldn't make people upset because "its magic, we dont have to explain it!" drives me up the wall. When you create any work of fiction (especially something sci fi or fantasy related) you are creating a world. You are asking your audience to believe in this world, and its characters, even though they are not actually real. Saying you shouldn't care about something because its magic makes absolutely no sense when you are writing a show that has magic in it! Suspension of disbelief allows us to accept that magic is real, and that its real for these characters. If we do not care that magic isn't real, and that these people arent real, why the hell are we even watching this? Its like the quote that is on TV Tropes right now about suspension of disbelief. No one goes to the puppet show to loudly announce that they see the strings, instead of watching the show. Telling your fans not to think too hard about magic on a show ABOUT magic is like pointing at the strings and telling the audience to look at them! By that logic, no fiction should be thought about at all, and no one should care about fictional characters, because they arent real. It just shatters everything. If the writers cant take the world they created seriously, why should we?

[YaddaYadda]

Would anyone be reacting the way they are if that scene with Emma and Regina telling Henry he wasn't going to the UW, and him being a brat and defying them have been different if we had had it on screen?

 

I think Henry should be put in a forever timeout, but that's just me.

[Curio]

Regarding Henry's family allowing him to come to the Underworld...

I don't understand why this particular instance is such an issue. This plot is clearly being forced on the characters because the writers want to write a half season about the Main 6 going to the Underworld. Much like how it was a bad parenting move for Regina and Emma to both ditch Henry in Storybrooke during 4B to go find Robin and Lily, as a viewer, you have to take a step back and realize the writers don't fully think about how their characters should react to a situation. The writers thought "omg road trip best idea ever!" But Regina and Emma should have never gone together on a road trip across the town line, leaving Henry behind in a town where there are constant dangerous magical threats, and Regina and Emma are the only two powerful "good" magic practitioners who could realistically protect the town, and there was a chance they could never return if Ingrid's scroll didn't work. But the writers didn't care about that, they just wanted a road trip. It's the same thing with the Underworld plot. Sure, you can look at how the characters should react to going to the Underworld, but it doesn't really matter at the end of the day because the writers just think "omg Underworld best idea ever!" Plot > Characters.

 

I think Henry should be put in a forever timeout, but that's just me.

A sleeping curse until the series finale would suffice. Edited January 19, 2016 by Curio

[Faemonic]

when do you apply real-world standards to fictional characters?

 

 

The transference of meaning from fiction relies on mastery of narrative cipher (symbolism, even the most functionally literal of metaphors in a fiction), as well as the relationship between audience member and the work. Bettelheim wrote about some interesting results he had with psychoanalyzing troubled children and treating them with fairy tales, for example. This one boy really liked the fairy tale of Rapunzel because the symbol of her tower conveyed the idea of safety to him, while the boy's grandmother was in the hospital dying and his parents were too busy to take care of the boy. What the symbol of Rapunzel's hair did was tell the boy that he could take care of himself, because her hair was something that came from Rapunzel's own body. So, story symbolism has a profound personal and psychological significance, which is where I'm starting from. 

 

The fairy tale didn't develop from that specific situation nor did it develop for that specific situation,  but the relationship between that audience member and the work was individual.

That's why discussion is important, but not censorship. If that little boy was told that identifying with Rapunzel was bad because she was a girl and he's not supposed to like girly princess tales, or that enjoying that fairy tale was wrong because Rapunzel is anti-feminist rhetoric from some bygone patriarchal time and you shouldn't put women in towers, the effect on the individual is that it would have given him one less coping mechanism. (Or made him feel bad for taking the medium as a coping mechanism.)

 

So, if I say that Regina reminds me of my own abusive mother and I wish she would be more accountable...but it reminds somebody else of themselves and they hope that Regina stops getting hurt because everyone else deserves it for hurting Regina when Regina needs healing most of all...We're both right. Regina isn't real, but we've both developed significant personal meanings associated with her. That comes as much from our individual relationships with life and the world, as it would with our relationships to this television show.

The message that applies to the real world is going to be different for every person, and they're all worth hearing out...if you can take it.  So, if I say that I enjoy Hook because his confidence (in the face of repeated floor-kissing failure, and physical handicap) is one that I want to personally cultivate, but his compulsive flirting comes off to another viewer as the message of "this sexual objectification  of women is normal and expected" then this hypothetical person and I had better talk about mutually-respected boundaries, instead of shouting at each other about how wrong you are ("no, u r!!!!!"). Or, someone else said that they liked Rumple, personally identified with Rumple as a matter of fact, because he's coded queer. So, hearing all of this about Rumple being a terrible person (not character) is hurtful to that person...even though the people saying so aren't saying that Rumple is awful because Rumple is coded queer. Rumple's become a symbolic embodiment to that viewer, to other viewers, and to the creators, of a different idea...but the symbol is the same.

 

The effect of the work is transformed by voicing and discussing the individual perceptions of it, or just by individually perceiving it.

That said...a lot of what this narrative cipher conveys could indicate the mindset of the creators, which (while the art-audience relationship can be individual and complicated) generally gets proliferated, because the story comes from a mind conditioned by culture. It's compatible with a collective sort of meaningfulness. That's part of the discussion around the work itself and, who knows, could loop around to influence the creation of the work itself or derivatives or iterations or...

 

So, I've ranted extensively about the treatment of Mulan indicating that she's basically the Twofer. Mulan isn't real, but othering is, and I feel that fiction is the best platform to point that out, precisely because fiction occupies such an in-between.

Zelena raping Robin Hood? "It's magic fiction!" But what's conveyed looks an awful lot like a lack of consent, so let's talk about that. "But if it is rape, it's a woman raping a man, so that's not as bad!" Whoa...that's not a good idea to keep floating around. Let's talk about this. "But it's not real rape because it wasn't physical brute force, it was just rape by deception." Let's talk about that idea, that a brutal rape is the only really bad rape.

 

That said, it is possible to bring up that something fictional has real-life effects...for the sole purpose of shutting someone else up so you can Win. That's just not the sort of literary analysis that I'm generally interested in.

 

(Sorry, not sure if all that answered the question or not.)

Edited January 20, 2016 by Faemonic

[Rumsy4]

"But it's not real rape because it wasn't physical brute force

 

This is scary because this was an argument actually used in a popular podcast to argue why the Zelena/Robin situation is not rape. For some reason, sometimes people seem okay with depictions of rape on-screen as long as it is not explicitly called out as such. The mention of the word "rape" makes people squirm and feel uncomfortable when they hear it on a Show like OUAT. Rape is never called out as such in this Show. The most the writers have done is had Regina of all people call out Zelena for the "vile" act. 

 

We can't expect 100% realism in the Show, but that doesn't mean that we can't relate it to real life. How else is one supposed to get invested? I can't detach myself to that degree, and doubt most people can either.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Rumsy4

[KingOfHearts]

We can't expect 100% realism in the Show, but that doesn't mean that we can't relate it to real life. How else is one supposed to get invested? I can't detach myself to that degree, and doubt most people can either.

 

 

I can see why they're avoiding "rape" because its such a nasty word, but there's nothing stopping the characters from treating it like rape. No one on the show ever gave a crap that Graham was a sex slave for decades. Graham could only react to it as "bad relationship" because he didn't know he was being controlled. We see his terror when Regina takes his heart, but there's nothing after he is sent to the bed chamber. After 1x07, the whole ordeal is forgotten. Zelena's situation was reacted to slightly better, but it's still a far cry from organic characterization or real world principles.

 

 

when do you apply real-world standards to fictional characters?

 

If A&E spent any time at all worldbuilding, we would probably have a better understanding of the Enchanted Forest's culture and moral bearings. But since they don't and most of this show takes place in modern day America, we can only put it against real world standards. There's also the inconsistencies that really pose this question every other episode. Sometimes killing is necessary, other times its evil even in self-defense. The excuse that it's fairy tales holds no weight because the writers twist morality depending on what's convenient for the plot. It's same as #ItHappenedOffscreen in saying, "It's our show, we'll do whatever the hell we want." Not even the writers know what their universe's morals are.

Edited January 20, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[october]

I can see why they're avoiding "rape" because its such a nasty word, but there's nothing stopping the characters from treating it like rape.

 

If they can't stand to even say the word then I don't think they should be portraying the situation on screen at all. People tip toeing around it and coming up with euphemisms does nothing but empower rapists.

 

From a plot perspective, Regina never had to have sexual contact with Graham. She could've just taken the heart to keep him as her minion and then killed him in Storybrooke when he started to get his memories back. The essence of the story is still the same.

Edited January 20, 2016 by october

[Faemonic]

I suppose, basically, that it's fiction when the speculative element doesn't apply. Taking someone's heart means punching them through the chest and violating their body. You can make a person do something they wouldn't do, had they had a mind of their own, so it's like compromised inhibitions. You numb them to life experiences such as love. All of that is chillingly applicable to sexual abuse, even if you don't show it being used sexually...except for the fact that anyone can just shove the heart back in and the person's okay. (Which would explain why Hook and Aurora were so chill with each other: Hook made amends for the deed by giving the thing back. That's not often possible with sexual abuse.) (And I should really hope that Regina briefed Belle about everything she was going to make her say to Rumple, for purposes of revealing his big plan, and that Belle would agree to the memory wipe after, and agreed to that Regina would keep Belle's heart for insurance. Because that makes it all so much more okay, not only that it's CGI magic in a fantasy genre show.)

 

When Emma's shown as a terrible parent for taking Violet's heart, well, how terrible a parent would she be? There's a lot of in-between "intimidating helicopter parent, for whom no girl will be good enough for her son no matter how much he likes her" which is still not good parenting, and "sexual predator" which is the worst but check out the heart-stealing.

 

So, my neighbor Nancy brought her 13-year-old to Hades, but she didn't because that would never happen. How can you judge the parenting of someone who would literally be in an impossible situation that a real-life parent would never be in? Easily. They're fictional. They can't defend themselves. But I personally gave Henry's tagging along the side-eye because (1.) What is he going to do that's useful??? (2.) Didn't Rumple give that big speech about how Hades is not exactly the best party venue? If nobody followed that up with "Uhh...Henry, maybe you should sit this one out..." or a line about how Rumple is a lying liar about everything not just about megalomania, then they're all bad guardians and parents. (3.) Belle is more infantilized than Henry is. This bothers me.

 

If they'd kept the line about how Henry would find a way to find his family if they all left him behind, then at least I would have gotten on board with that Henry was motivated. I wouldn't know what the motivation was (boredom? abandonment issues? loyalty to Hook?) but I'd call it slightly better parenting that they're letting him speak up about which adventures he's going to be included in. And they trust in his decisions. I think that's a healthy dynamic, even though a journey to the Underworld might not have a real-world parallel. Visiting mom's boyfriend at the rehab clinic? Tagging along to some organized crime syndicate parlay? Withdrawing his entire trust fund and investing in the stock market at 13? What is this even a metaphor for.

[Rumsy4]

If they can't stand to even say the word then I don't think they should be portraying the situation on screen at all. People tip toeing around it and coming up with euphemisms does nothing but empower rapists.

 

When asked about it in the official abc podcast, A&E joked saying they could have been playing chess in her bedroom. I think it's dishonest and disingenuous when creators use rape as a plot device, but never call it out as such, and even joke about it. It's not just A&E, the same happens in others shows as well (some people I know stopped watching GoT after the way the showrunners responded to criticism of a rape depiction). 

 

But I personally gave Henry's tagging along the side-eye because (1.) What is he going to do that's useful??? ...

 

...even though a journey to the Underworld might not have a real-world parallel. Visiting mom's boyfriend at the rehab clinic? Tagging along to some organized crime syndicate parlay? Withdrawing his entire trust fund and investing in the stock market at 13? What is this even a metaphor for.

 

(To be fair, Henry's did help save the day in the storybook AU.) Things don't need to have exact parallels to events in the Real World for us to relate. I am more concerned with the fact that Henry is going to grow up into an uneducated ignoramus, knowing nothing of physics and biology and math. We've seen him work harder on Operation Stupid than on his homework ever. But he's a "Writer" you say all he needs to know is proper grammar and spelling. Well, maybe Henry should have packed a dictionary and English Grammar for Dummies with him so he can read during lunch and dinner breaks. And maybe The Elements of Style and a blank journal. Also, what do people eat in Hell?? 

[Camera One]

Also, what do people eat in Hell?? 

 

Well, we know Snow and Charming will probably feast on Humble Pie.

[Curio]

I think that's a healthy dynamic, even though a journey to the Underworld might not have a real-world parallel.

The best real-world analogy I can think of is a family that is stuck in a war zone. Let's be frank—Storybrooke isn't the safest of places. It's constantly under attack by crazy people and dangerous magical creatures. Leaving Henry behind in such a place by himself isn't the safest of options either. (We'll just ignore the fact that all the infants were left behind in this place...) Ideally, Regina or Snow or Charming should have probably stayed behind with Henry to help protect Storybrooke from the next inevitable attack (as the mayor, isn't that Regina's job?), but that's never going to be an option because the writers would spontaneously combust if they didn't have their main cast all together. So here you have this close-knit family who just lost an important member of the group—the leader's True Love—and he's been taken to an extremely dangerous location. In the real world, perhaps you have a close-knit tribe who have gone through many battles together in their dangerous town that is constantly threatened by warlords. But now one of them has been taken hostage and was dragged into an even more dangerous jungle territory that has been described to be "like hell." It might seem like a suicide mission going into this new territory to rescue him, yet the tribe agrees to go. But what do they do about the boy who's turning into a young man who wants to prove to everyone he isn't a little kid anymore? Who also happens to be close to the man who was taken hostage? Do they leave him behind in their town that's always under attack by warlords, or do they take him along where there are at least several adults who are extremely powerful who could protect him in this new territory?

 

On the show, it comes down to poor planning by the adults. Emma, Snow, Charming, Regina, Robin, and Gold aren't all needed to complete this rescue mission. If they were smart, one or two of them should have stayed behind to protect the children and Storybrooke. But it's TS;TW, so...

Edited January 20, 2016 by Curio

[Shanna Marie]

Sure, you can look at how the characters should react to going to the Underworld, but it doesn't really matter at the end of the day because the writers just think "omg Underworld best idea ever!" Plot > Characters.

I think that's a big reason behind most of this show's wonky morality. It would ruin the planned plot for the characters to behave like normal people, so they do what the plot requires, whether it's forgiving someone, not forgiving someone, being angry about something, being okay with something, punishing someone, not punishing someone, or doing something. They couldn't have told the story they wanted to tell with Regina stuck in prison or executed, and they wanted to do the family thing, so none or Regina's victims are all that bothered by what she did to them even though any person in the real world would probably have issues with someone who killed their family members, tried to kill them, tortured them, and tore their family apart. But they needed Zelena to be a prisoner for the plot to work, so she got punished. They apparently need Henry in the Underworld, so he goes with them, regardless of whether any real parent would bring a 13-year-old along or even whether these parents would or whether Henry himself would really want to go (does the Underworld really sound too cool to miss? Did he really care that much about Hook?). In another story line, he might be left behind because they need that for the plot.

 

Belle is more infantilized than Henry is. This bothers me.

That is an issue. The 13-year-old is being given more agency than an adult woman. Henry is told the truth about what his grandfather did and allowed to decide for himself whether he wants to go rectify the situation. Meanwhile, Belle is kept in the dark about what her husband did, with the other characters agreeing not to tell her, and is left sleeping while everyone else goes off on their quest. She's left out of some pretty damn vital information about her life and not given the choice about whether to take action about it, whether that action is ditching Rumple and taking off on that trip she'd planned or going to the Underworld. Even the fact that she's made poor decisions in the past doesn't excuse this because she has the right to the information, regardless of what she does with it, and she can't be expected to make good decisions if people aren't telling her what's really going on. This is the core of why her relationship with Rumple bugs me because he's always withheld information from her, going back to not telling her that her father was looking for her in Storybrooke and trashing her signs looking for her father (abuser red flag -- trying to isolate her from friends and family). Not to mention his various schemes and plots he does while she sleeps, sometimes naturally and sometimes under a spell so she'll be out of the way. But he's supposed to be awful. It's really bad when the other characters hide this stuff from her.

[KingOfHearts]

 

It's really bad when the other characters hide this stuff from her.

Yeah, it's pretty apparent no one but Hook gives Belle the time of day. Emma doesn't get to give her tips on independence like she did with Ashley. Snow and Charming just use her for babysitting. Regina only sees her as a pawn between her and Rumple. They all know she's in an abusive relationship and never treat her like an individual person. I remember in 4A when they only addressed as her as "Gold's happy ending", which peeves me. It's almost as if everyone hopes Rumple having her will keep him on a leash, so they don't get involved. They also take advantage of her as the Velma of the group.

 

Belle isn't allowed to have friends. She can only interact with Rumple or people she'll only see for five minutes of her life. The writers abuse her as a character much like Rumple - they want all the perks of a love interest while forsaking the idea of individuality. It boggles my mind that she has been part of the main cast for so long yet her story is always the throwaway. She really is just a prop.

Edited January 21, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

It's occurred to me that the real questionable parenting choice in the journey to the Underworld isn't whether or not a 13-year-old who survived Neverland and the AU Enchanted Forest gets to decide whether or not he wants to go, but whether parents of a newborn should take off and leave the kid behind a day after her birth. That's a pretty critical time for bonding and attachment that will have ramifications in the child's emotional development. Poor Pistachio, within a day or so of her birth, her birth mother gets sent to another world and then her father and the woman who's presumably going to be a mother to her take off and leave her in the care of the fairies. That means she'll likely bond with and attach to the fairies caring for her, and then be yanked away from them when her father and Regina return. Robin is abandoning his newborn daughter for the sake of a guy he's had maybe two conversations with -- and one of those conversations was about how excited he was about his daughter. Given Hook's history, it's a pretty good bet that if he were given a say in the matter, he'd tell Robin to stay with his child.

 

Actually, I can't believe the writers are missing a chance to make Regina a martyr here, if she felt obligated to go help Emma but Robin had to stay behind with his child, so that means Regina's happiness is being ruined by Emma because she's yet again being ripped away from her soulmate, and it's because of Emma's boyfriend. But I guess they couldn't think of anything for Robin to do apart from Regina and they made him a regular, so they threw him into the quest, where he'll mostly serve the function of human scenery.

 

It's also iffy for the Charmings to leave Snowflake behind, but at least he's several months older, was breast fed, and has had enough time to bond and attach with his parents. He's at an age when you wouldn't question the parents letting him spend the weekend at grandma's house while they had some alone time. But I'd really wonder about a parent leaving a one-day-old infant with a babysitter to go off somewhere.

[Selina K]

 Robin is abandoning his newborn daughter for the sake of a guy he's had maybe two conversations with -- and one of those conversations was about how excited he was about his daughter. 

 

This is an epic observation.  This is such a consistency and writing fail.

[Faemonic]

When asked about it in the official abc podcast, A&E joked saying they could have been playing chess in her bedroom. I think it's dishonest and disingenuous when creators use rape as a plot device, but never call it out as such, and even joke about it. It's not just A&E, the same happens in others shows as well (some people I know stopped watching GoT after the way the showrunners responded to criticism of a rape depiction). 

I mentioned that fiction is the best platform to discuss those ideas, because fiction is made of and for ideas. However, the effects of those ideas aren't less important for it. Criticizing a work for its portrayals is maybe a more grassroots approach. Real life criticisms of creators is more stop-gap, but it's a real life action against real life effects. It's more direct.

 

When the two overlap, it's easy to get confused. Adam and Eddie not thinking through the timeline for the lives of their fictional characters isn't as bad as them actually being statutory rapists. At the same time, it also makes it very easy for real people who could exercise responsibility and agency...to dismiss all suggestions that they could and should do that.

 

Back to Shanna Marie's original question, about when to invest in fiction and when to detach...

 

(To be fair, Henry's did help save the day in the storybook AU.) Things don't need to have exact parallels to events in the Real World for us to relate. I am more concerned with the fact that Henry is going to grow up into an uneducated ignoramus, knowing nothing of physics and biology and math. We've seen him work harder on Operation Stupid than on his homework ever. But he's a "Writer" you say all he needs to know is proper grammar and spelling. Well, maybe Henry should have packed a dictionary and English Grammar for Dummies with him so he can read during lunch and dinner breaks. And maybe The Elements of Style and a blank journal. Also, what do people eat in Hell??

 

 

That is an issue. The 13-year-old is being given more agency than an adult woman.

 

It's occurred to me that the real questionable parenting choice in the journey to the Underworld isn't whether or not a 13-year-old who survived Neverland and the AU Enchanted Forest gets to decide whether or not he wants to go, but whether parents of a newborn should take off and leave the kid behind a day after her birth. That's a pretty critical time for bonding and attachment (...) I'd really wonder about a parent leaving a one-day-old infant with a babysitter to go off somewhere.

 

What I'm seeing from these is that investment in the work comes from at least two places. The first is logical sense. Henry has magic literacy powers and he's fictional, so it shouldn't be a real concern if he hardly ever goes to school, but it's going to nag, because the lack of consequences don't make sense. Given what we know, setting aside that it's fictional because that's what suspense of disbelief is. That sort of meta shows that we're straining our suspension of disbelief, not snapping it.

 

The second place is emotional sense. I'm outraged on Belle's behalf and she's not even real, and that I'm more often outraged at Belle doesn't make her more real (actually, it makes her less real to me, because I go TS;TW instead of hey these characters are cruel and immoral people.) Some fans discussed the trailer of the episode that explained the circumstances surrounding Zelena's birth, and the reaction was first, "Please don't let Zelena's dad be Leopold! Cora wouldn't be so evil as to arrange her daughter's marriage to Regina's half-sister's father..." And the general consensus was, actually, Cora would actually be that gross, but the writer's wouldn't ever be that gross and oblivious about it. To a less culturally-charged degree, it's much less "squick! squiiick get it away from me!" and more "huh...what?" when Robin leaves his daughter to rescue Hook. Because that's a Pyrrhic victory if Robin does manage to drag Hook back to the world of the living...only so that Hook can be made to listen more about how much Robin loves the daughter he left?

 

That might be kind of funny, actually, but Shanna's meta made it sad. I could dismiss that meta in a similar way as Nancy if I could argue, "It's a dark comedy, like Christopher Titus' sitcom!" But it's not a dark comedy. It's supposed to be realistic fairy tales. Cinderella as a pregnant 19-year-old maid, that's heavy stuff, a social poverty nightmare if you've grown up being told that childbirth out of wedlock gets all the contempt because you're supposed to be going to university and become the astronaut or paleontologist or opera singer that you always wanted to be as a kid. Or I could go for, "Oh, come on, you know Pistachio is always going to be treated like a prop. In-show or out-of-show!" But even I know that, and I still think it's bad (bad craft, bad reasoning, bad parenting.) Because I haven't fully dis-invested.

 

If we go all the way with how it's just fiction, then I think the real message in that dismissal...is a literal dismissal. In "it's just fiction" I'm hearing that we should make like Nancy and not even be present, as audience members, to ratings or discussions, just not exist on the radar of the show. Because as fans more than viewers, we're more prone to putting too much time and effort into something that might not be enriching our lives in any way, or worse. It's only fiction, that is, the nature of fiction leaves its very existence at the mercy of our attentions. But our thoughts and emotions shouldn't be at the mercy of anything that isn't true and makes no sense. (Of course, a good relationship to a good fiction will be more give-and-take than zero-sum like this.)

Edited January 23, 2016 by Faemonic

[KingOfHearts]

This show seems to think romantic relationships are the only way to a happy ending. Every single main character, even Henry, has a love interest. 

Zelena's is coming in 5B if you don't count Rumple.

Even Zelena makes a comment about how sad it is that another woman could only find her happiness in a man, to which Regina replies that it's not like that. But in the writing, it totally is. Any secondary character who is not in a pairing is sidelined. Lily, Ruby and Will were all victims of this because they were only platonic friends with major characters at the time. Ruby leaves and only comes back because she's gotten paired with Mulan. Will was dating Belle, but he vanished after they broke up. The only reason Robin is still here is because he's a love interest for Regina.

 

It's a pretty common pattern and kind of irksome. If you're not involved in a relationship, you should be sad and lonely or you should just get lost. That seems to be the message coming across, intentional or not.

Edited January 30, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Faemonic]

Whenever that happens on a show, I call that "drifting into Noah's ark mode". Season 1 had the canon OTP (that's One True Pairing) drive the main plot, but the grand finale was all about love between family, and a lot of in-between was about re-discovering the importance of knowing right from wrong, and bureaucracy, and politics, and personal trauma, and discovering vital organs in a murder investigation...I actually liked the second Merida episode (though I agree the placement in the series might have been awkward) because of the themes of sovereignty and responsibility to rule. Maybe I missed out on those themes all those Arthur-centrics I haven't caught up on, but it's been more of a throwaway line when it comes to whether Snow or Elsa or Aurora or Regina have right to reign, take census, write up budget reports, make sure garbage collection trucks arrive on time, repair property damage...

 

Just like, "Of course your happy ever after isn't a man, but being open to love is part of all happiness" or "My happy ever after isn't a man, it's feeling comfortable in the world and man just so happens to be part of that in this specific instance." The words are there, but I agree the whole show is a Noah's Ark now, with only romantic pairings allowed onscreen.

[Curio]

This show seems to think romantic relationships are the only way to a happy ending. Every single main character, even Henry, has a love interest. [...] It's a pretty common pattern and kind of irksome. If you're not involved in a relationship, you should be sad and lonely or you should just get lost. That seems to be the message coming across, intentional or not.

Maybe I'm a hopeless romantic at heart, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for the show to promote finding a romantic relationship as part of a happy ending. In life, I think we all hope to find someone special who we can confide in and trust and be our better half. But I think the way that society always pushes romantic relationships on people all the time, along with the commercialization of needing a big elaborate wedding to prove to others that you've found romantic love, has made people cynical about it all. No, you don't need a romantic relationship to be happy. But if you happen to find one along the way? Then that's also an amazing feeling.

 

But I agree that not every character needs a romantic love interest to have a happy ending. I think Regina was the one character who didn't need to find romantic love in order to find her happy ending. I always thought Regina fixing her fucked-up relationship with Henry would have been enough of a happy ending for her, and it also seemed like proper karma for the woman who has destroyed so many people's romantic relationships in the past to ultimately be denied one by the universe in the present. But then the show saddled her with Robin, and it seems like they only did that so the writers could check "Regina has a True Love Boyfriend" off their checklist.

[KingOfHearts]

 

Maybe I'm a hopeless romantic at heart, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for the show to promote finding a romantic relationship as part of a happy ending. In life, I think we all hope to find someone special who we can confide in and trust and be our better half. But I think the way that society always pushes romantic relationships on people all the time, along with the commercialization of needing a big elaborate wedding to prove to others that you've found romantic love, has made people cynical about it all. No, you don't need a romantic relationship to be happy. But if you happen to find one along the way? Then that's also an amazing feeling.

I agree, but I don't think the show gives adequate spotlight to other paths to happiness. A&E struggle with diversity in general, ironically in a show with a multiverse full of a variety of characters. They have no interest in exploring platonic relationships, families (another irony), or other non-romantic involvements. The writing has a very narrow and tunneled view of life, where everything is black and white, nothing is human, and all problems are solved with a kiss or hug.

Edited January 31, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[october]

Even Zelena makes a comment about how sad it is that another woman could only find her happiness in a man, to which Regina replies that it's not like that. But in the writing, it totally is.

That was a real WTF moment for me. When Regina went into her S4 downward spiral and started to believe that fate was against her it was all because of the loss of Robin. Otherwise she had everything she could reasonably want in life: a good relationship with Henry, her former victims burying the hatchet and tripping over themselves to be her best friends, a big house, her magic, material wealth, personal safety, a cushy job. And despite being separated from Robin, the guy was still in love with her and didn't hold her executing his wife against her. Instead she's all 'my life is ruined!1!!'

[Curio]

Otherwise [Regina] had everything she could reasonably want in life: a good relationship with Henry, her former victims burying the hatchet and tripping over themselves to be her best friends, a big house, her magic, material wealth, personal safety, a cushy job.

This is why Regina's "Robin isn't my happy ending, feeling at home in the world" drivel rings completely false. 

 

Here's the exact exchange from that episode:

Zelena: Another woman defining her happiness relative to the love of a man. It's sad, really.

Regina: Oh, don't get it wrong, greenie. Robin isn't my happy ending. My happy ending is finally feeling at home in the world. Robin's just a part of that world. A world that you're going to be forced to watch from a distance, with the most restrictive visitation rights in history. See you at the next ultrasound.

Isaac: So you don't want me writing anything?

Regina: No. I already have everything I need.

Before Robin came into the picture in 4B, Regina had all those things october listed: Henry, friends, her old job as Mayor for reasons that happened offscreen, her huge mansion, wealth, and magic. Especially after Season 3 and how Regina kept going on about how Henry was the only person she had in the world and how she nearly put herself under a sleeping curse just because she was separated from him, it's total bullshit to think that she was so miserable in 4B with Henry still around. 

 

So how did Regina not feel "at home in the world" up until that point? She was living the best life out of everyone in Storybrooke—the only missing ingredient was Robin. If she finally felt happy enough with her life to stop the stupid author quest once Robin was back in the picture, then sorry Regina, a man did in fact define your happiness. Not Henry, not your friends, not your wealth, not your magic...only Robin. Regina was only able to say "I have everything I need" once Robin came back.

 

What the show should have done was to take away some of Regina's material things and knock her down a peg or two where finding that romantic love would have been enough to still make her feel "at home in the world." Maybe Regina lost her magic, or lost her house and wealth, or something more damning then losing a boyfriend of two weeks. Because in comparison to the other couples on the show, her complaining about her lot in life just seems silly. Snow and David don't make that much money, don't have any magic, but they still are generally happy people because they love each other. Emma has had a pretty terrible life, people are constantly dying around her, she's got enormous pressure to constantly save everyone, happens to have magic but it's more of a burden than a gift, and up until Season 5, still lived with her parents. What made Emma's life happy was the love of Henry and the occasional love from her parents. Emma didn't even seek out Hook as a potential boyfriend, he was the one who pursued her and broke down those walls. On Hook's side of the equation, he has no magic, no house, no family, possibly some buried gold somewhere that he never seems to use that much, wears one outfit, but Emma is enough to make him happy. Belle has no magic and truly loves Rumple, but constantly has to deal with the Dark One problems.

 

Most of the characters have that "missing link" in life where the romantic love is enough to make it better. Snow and David have no magic and very little wealth. Emma doesn't have much wealth and has the constant burden of having to put everyone else first because she's the Savior. Rumple has extreme wealth, but the Dark One curse prevents him from truly having a completely happy life. Regina had no excuse for not "finally feeling at home in the world" before Robin appeared again.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Curio

[Camera One]

Regina had no excuse for not "finally feeling at home in the world" before Robin appeared again.

 

Regina thought what she needed was Robin, but actually, she couldn't "feel at home in the world" because for so long, she had been misunderstood and shunned, to the extent that only she could understand what Emma has gone through, but now, she could "finally feel at home in the world", since she had the genuine support and love of people around her like Emma, Henry, Snow, Charming, Hook and Belle, who were all helping to get her happy ending.  With such love, she can now fully comprehend what her sage mother had told her so many years before, that she was stopping herself from finding happiness (you can only take advice about happiness from someone who murdered someone you loved, of course).

 

I'll wait until we all finish laughing now.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Camera One

[RadioGirl27]

But I agree that not every character needs a romantic love interest to have a happy ending. I think Regina was the one character who didn't need to find romantic love in order to find her happy ending. I always thought Regina fixing her fucked-up relationship with Henry would have been enough of a happy ending for her, and it also seemed like proper karma for the woman who has destroyed so many people's romantic relationships in the past to ultimately be denied one by the universe in the present. But then the show saddled her with Robin, and it seems like they only did that so the writers could check "Regina has a True Love Boyfriend" off their checklist.

Yeah, I agree with you. Neither Regina nor Rumple should have love interests. But, in Regina's case, I remember reading somewhere that it was Lana who asked for a love interest for Regina, and we know that Lana gets what she wants from the writers.

[KingOfHearts]

Hm, that's funny - I thought Daniel was her happy ending. No wait... it was destroying Snow White. Oops, I mean getting Henry as her full-time son.

 

If Robin were to die tragically, would Regina still feel "at home with the world" after her period of grieving?

Edited January 31, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[KAOS Agent]

Regina basically said she would flip out if Robin died when she pressured Emma into saving him in Camelot. I'm not sure what that says about needing a man to be happy, but it does call into question just what/who holds the reins of Regina's moral choices. Is Regina being perfectly happy the only thing that keeps her from reverting to evil? One of the reasons I disliked 4B was the wholesale belief that Regina must have absolutely everything she wants in order to be happy while other characters don't have it all and still manage to be happy without dragging a magical author into things. Even when she did have Robin back, Regina was still after the author because Robin came with baggage that she didn't like. So no, it wasn't just about the man, it was about having everything exactly as she wanted it even though getting what she wanted negatively affected others (writing off Zelena meant Robin lost Pistachio as well) and that's a pretty sad message this show was peddling right up to the end of the arc. They never really ever did say that Regina was wrong either, just that she changed her mind because reasons.

 

So what's the moral of Regina's 4B arc? That when you have everything you ever wanted, you don't need an author? As a morality tale, 4B was really messed up. Regina needed to come to the decision to reject the author before Robin returned to her life because otherwise, her entire turn around falls flat. She got what she wanted before the author and his ink were available. She didn't need him, so her opting to reject him was meaningless. A better moral would have been rejecting the easy way out and planning to work hard for her happy ending and then having Robin return as a "reward" for that choice. What the hell kind of story is it when not doing something only maintains the status quo?

Edited January 31, 2016 by KAOS Agent

[Curio]

So what's the moral of Regina's 4B arc? That when you have everything you ever wanted, you don't need an author? As a morality tale, 4B was really messed up. Regina needed to come to the decision to reject the author before Robin returned to her life because otherwise, her entire turn around falls flat.

 

There were no morals in 4B, only confusion and double standards. It would have been just as easy to do a story arc where Regina initially started doing Operation Dumbass at the beginning of 4B, but then came to the conclusion halfway through the arc that she was doing yet another convoluted shortcut to try and achieve her happy ending, and ditched the author idea. So around 4x14 or 4x15, Regina changes tactics and tries to find her happy ending the "hard way" instead, and begins helping everyone she's ever wronged find their happy endings. Lo and behold, good things start happening to Regina. Out of the blue, she receives a text from Robin saying "I miss you." She just happens to stumble across an Internet article that reported Robin's horse incident in New York City that gives her a clue about his whereabouts. (Even though she was the one who freaking gave him the keys to Neal's apartment so she knew exactly where he was and didn't need Emma's help to find him.) Positive small things like that could start happening after she ditched the author plan and began My Name Is Earl. That way, the lightbulb would click and she'd realize, "oh wait, maybe doing things the hard way is worth it."

 

At the end of the arc, they still could have done their alternate universe plot because all of Regina's plotting to release the author in the beginning of 4A could have accidentally set him free. So when the author is free and walking around, everyone would be like how did this happen?? and Regina would be like ummm I might have tried to find a shortcut for my happy ending and began a spell to release him, but I didn't think it would actually work and everyone would be like way to go Regina, this is all your fault, but we're willing to forgive you because you actually ditched the plan and began some legitimate hard work towards your happy ending. And then the last few episodes could have been the alternate universe because that was a plot that should have easily been a few episodes long.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Curio

[YaddaYadda]

Regina could have changed her mind way before 4x20, but then it would have become a race against Rumple (which it kind of was, but really wasn't in the end because of the whole ink situation). In the end Rumple is the one who wrote the story. Henry was left all alone which is something Emma and Regina wanted to avoid when Pan cast his curse. The whole reason Emma didn't follow her family to the EF during the missing year was because she didn't want Henry to end up alone.

 

Henry ends up alone.

David doesn't have a heart, and is a minion

Snow is evil

Regina is a bandit on the run, and then she dies or nearly dies

Emma has been locked up in a tower with her memories intact, and no magic

Hook is a coward, and then he dies

 

Rumple has zero love for these people. But here we are...

 

They love peddling how Regina is now a hero which is something I have a difficult time with because actions speak louder than words. 

 

Season 4 really regressed Regina, and it's really too bad because I actually liked her in season 3. This season, they seemed to be coming back on a track with her, but with the whole controlling Emma with the dagger, and doing stuff to Zelena with a smile on her face, I think Regina is about to fall down the rabbit hole in a big way. There was too much projecting her feelings about magic and dark magic onto Emma for something not to go completely wrong.

Edited February 1, 2016 by YaddaYadda

[Curio]

Season 4 really regressed Regina, and it's really too bad because I actually liked her in season 3. This season, they seemed to be coming back on a track with her, but with the whole controlling Emma with the dagger, and doing stuff to Zelena with a smile on her face, I think Regina is about to fall down the rabbit hole in a big way. There was too much projecting her feelings about magic and dark magic onto Emma for something not to go completely wrong.

I don't think the writers see it this way. We do, obviously, but the writers tend to have blinders on around Regina. They honestly want us to believe Regina was always right in 5A with her actions, whether it was hypocritically yelling at her sister about playing the victim card, or callously controlling Emma with the dagger. If they wanted us to think Regina was wrong for controlling Emma, then they wouldn't have put in Emma's line about how "Regina was right" for doing it. Even though they completely contradicted that line an episode later when Emma apologized to Hook for doing literally the exact same thing.

 

Regina isn't being set up for a fall because the writers don't think she needs to be knocked down a peg to begin with. 

Edited February 1, 2016 by Curio