Morality in Storybrooke / Social Issues: Threads Combined!

[Shanna Marie]

The Emma/Neal situation basically comes down to Neal being horribly miscast, with an actor who's not just older but who looks much older than he is. It would have been a lot less squicky if Emma had met Neal/Bae not too long after he arrived back in our world -- if he'd been maybe 18 or 19 at most and still adapting to modern times. Then it would have come across more like two scared kids who felt lost and out of place finding comfort in each other, and then his panicked reaction about finding out who she was would also have been a little more sympathetic. But I don't think MRJ could have looked 24 with all the help in the world, and there was no way on earth you could convince anyone he was 19. They needed a kind of baby-faced actor with a lot more resemblance to teen Bae, so they could have aged him up or down by changing his hair and wardrobe and adjusting scruff levels.

 

I would never want anyone other than Colin to be Hook, but someone more like him (aside from eye color) would have been a better Neal. He looks a lot more like he could be in the same family as Rumple, Henry, and young Bae, he looks closer to Emma's age as an adult, and give him a shave, messier hair and younger clothes and he could probably have passed for a teenager while still being obviously the same person when they ran into him again as an adult. Heck, "teen" Emma would have looked like she was robbing the cradle.

[Camera One]

Systematically, the writers have made Snow do the major so-called horrible things Regina has done.  Regina killed Snow's father, and in Season 2, they had Snow kill Regina's beloved mother right when she realized that Regina would have been enough.  Regina cast the Dark Curse, so in Season 3, they had Snow cast the Dark Curse.  Regina deprived Snowing of 28 years of their daughter's life, causing misery to an innocent child, and in Season 4, they had Snowing do the same to Maleficent and Lily, spending an entire episode to highlight the angst and pain it caused in Lily.  A&E has put Snow and Charming in a position where they don't have a leg to stand on in defending themselves.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

Next up--Snow was responsible for the death of an entire kingdom, and Charming had several sex slaves before he met Snow.

[Mathius]

In one episode, Lily has been allowed to have more of a reaction to what was done to her as a baby than Emma has ever been allowed to react to what happened to her and the person who was responsible.

Unfortunately, Snow and Charming are always held responsible for it, Lily even threw the accusation that they "shoved you through a wardrobe". The fact that Regina was going to kill baby Emma is conveniently NEVER brought up.

Emma is stuck begging for the friendship of the woman who's responsible for her life being awful

OK, here I must actually defend Regina: she was responsible for Emma not growing up with her parents (and even then not single-handedly so), but she wasn't responsible for her life being awful. Emma's life being awful was pure bad luck and poor choices of several people (August, Neal, Lily, Ingrid, and even Emma herself). There was no reason Emma being sent through to TLWM without her parents automatically meant she couldn't live a good, happy life with friends and a stepfamily, it just sadly happened not to be the case with her. Edited May 2, 2015 by Mathius

[Faemonic]

About Big Baelfire being statutory rapey miscast: Robert Sheehan is all. They could have given him Body Piercings And Silk Screen Tattoos (Of Youth) to match Morrison's eyeglasses and ponytail.

 

Although I do remember that it did seem to defuse some shipper wars brewing back in the Buffy fandom when some backstage fans reminded everybody that Charisma Carpenter auditioned for Buffy and Sarah Gellar auditioned for Cordelia and would everybody still be so angry if they got each other's parts?

 

 

Personally, though, I really don't believe that I could see Nealfire (played by Colin O'Donoghue) and August pull that on Emma and go, "Oh, but they're both such hawties I'll totes forgive them in a couple of episode." Although Colin could pull off...a passing natural American/Canadian accent. Doubt that would save the character.

 

 

Back to the topic, I would throw in there the observation that statutory rape seems to be considered about as similarly "doesn't count as real rape" as rape by fraud, date rape, gray rape, coma rape, coerced consent, nominal consent, and canola. Because our world's got Problems.

 

How this relates to OUaT, though, that's where I think the fantasy elements actually can make it less icky. I would actually give Nealfire a pass simply for being overaged and I could buy the Neverland Emotional Stunting Island. But as I keep saying, his age was the least of their problems, and Swan Thief had Problems. Philip and Charming smooching sleeping women, I also give a pass not because of some "point of no return" in their established relationships granting unquestioned sexual access, but because without those kisses these women wouldn't have woken up ever.

 

Heart controlling should, however, be added to the Wheel of Power and Control in the Storybrooke domestic violence shelters. Because I feel that's an apt metaphor for what's actually happening when, say, one partner uses children as a bargaining chip in the relationship, or threatens the safety of family and friends that the victim of abuse has usually already been isolated from, or even threatens to damage objects of great sentimental value--not a hand is laid on the victim, but abusive control and imbalance of power is what's happening.

 

Doesn't change much for the case of Zarian, either. Or, sadly...Rumple. (Classy attitude you showed about your murdered ex-wife, there, Mr. Gold. Was that really your "dagger" speaking darkness into your heart? Hrmm-mm.)

[Shanna Marie]

Personally, though, I really don't believe that I could see Nealfire (played by Colin O'Donoghue) and August pull that on Emma and go, "Oh, but they're both such hawties I'll totes forgive them in a couple of episode."

For me, it's not really about hotness, but I can forgive an 18-19 year old (physically) a lot more than I can forgive a 24-30 year old, especially if the 18 or 19-year-old has just arrived in a strange land and is utterly alone in the world and freaked out. If the Bae/Neal who'd been with Emma had only been in our world a few years and had only been a few years older than she was (and looked it), I think he would have been a lot more sympathetic. He'd have seemed almost as vulnerable as she was rather than predatory, and if he'd only just arrived from Neverland and was starting to make his way in this world, then his "Oh, hell no!" reaction to learning that his girlfriend was also from his world would have been a lot more understandable. Of course, we wouldn't have known all this in "Tallahassee," but it would have been an "oh, now I get it" reaction when it was revealed. It wouldn't make up for the harm that was done to her or excuse him, but it would have made a better bridge with the teen Bae we knew and would have kept me from wanting him to die in a fire. I think that still being in transition from Neverland would also have helped with that sense of the magical stuff making it a little more palatable because he wouldn't have been thinking about the real world -- would he even have had any sex ed in Neverland, unless Hook gave him The Talk? Can you even imagine either Coward!Rumple or Dark One!Rumple having the birds and bees talk before he left? Plus, it might have explained her parents not having any issues whatsoever with the guy who knocked up their underage daughter and then bailed on her if he was obviously an irresponsible kid at the time rather than a grown-ass man who should have kept his creepy hands off a child.

 

For a 24-year-old (at least) who'd been in this world for a lot longer, it not only gets into legal statutory rape territory, but he looks like a raging weenie for jumping on the excuse to bail on her (and that's why the "I had no choice" thing never sat well with me. I thought the way it was played, and in the context of everything else he did regarding his father, it came across like him jumping at a good reason to ditch Emma so he could distance himself from all things Enchanted Forest). If he'd been in our world for nearly a decade (or longer), you'd expect him to know the usual grownup stuff, like how birth control works. And it really didn't help matters that he looked about 40 at the time, so he really seemed like someone who should know better.

[Serena]

I mean, that's true technically, but it's like saying someone who chooses to drive drunk isn't responsible for killing 3 kids crossing the road, because it's just bad luck that those kids weren't at home watching tv and were going to the park instead.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Serena

[Mathius]

Yes, but there's a much higher likelihood for those kinds of accidents. I'm pretty sure that the majority of real life people who end up as orphans in the foster system don't grow up miserable and loveless with crappy adoptive families and no friends. That Emma's life sucked so hard is a plot contrivance since she was needed to have the most cynical, emotionally walled personality possible, and any sort of happiness or stability in her life would contradict this. It was this plot contrivance combined with the Henry-Regina dynamic and all of "True North" that gave Once its notorious "anti-adoption" accusations back in the first season.

[Shanna Marie]

It was this plot contrivance combined with the Henry-Regina dynamic and all of "True North" that gave Once its notorious "anti-adoption" accusations back in the first season.

And unfortunately, their overcorrection of that has been a big part of ruining the characterizations. Instead of whitewashing Regina and her treatment of Henry to turn that into a positive adoptive relationship after showing the abuse, if they'd just shown us a positive adoptive family instead, it would have helped a lot. Surely there was a character who could have turned out to have been adopted and happy. Or after the curse was broken, the family that had been raising a kid who turned out not to be theirs ended up adopting the kid after they got their memories back and it turned out the kid had been orphaned in one of Regina's killing sprees, since they already felt like a family. But that would have required writing the aftermath of the curse.

 

Anyway, I'd say that Regina was responsible for "ruining" Emma's life about as much as Emma was responsible for ruining Regina's life (by existing, by breaking the curse, by saving Marian's life). Only Regina was acting with malice in the things she did and Emma was generally trying to help people with unintended bad consequences to Regina. And yet how many times has Regina been allowed to screech about Emma ruining her life? And how many times has Emma been allowed to blame Regina at all for her life? I think the one time (when she wasn't under a dark influence) was when she reassured Snow that it was Regina's fault, not Snow's, that Emma didn't get the life Snow wanted for her.

[queenbee]

 A little late to the conversation:

 

From the Writers thread:

 

I think there's a difference between offering forgiveness to a person who has done unthinkable acts and another thing entirely whether or not that person deserves a happy ending. 

 

 I really agree with this. It drives me crazy that this show thinks Regina deserves a happy ending. She doesn't deserve anything, Or rather, through the graciousness of others she isn't getting what she deserves but has been given another chance. That shouldn't be another chance at love, that should be another chance to make right choices. If we are accepting that grace is a thing and that other characters are showing Regina grace, they should not be excusing any further wrong actions that Regina does. For example, with the horrible adultery exchange, if people really do care about Regina they should be encouraging her not to sleep with Robin Hood again ie. don't do bad things again. When she took Belle's heart, the "heroes" (if they suspected) should have told Regina to give it back. We don't have grace, we have false equalizing of certain crimes, and the justification of hurtful and immoral choices. (I've used Regina as an example, but really this could apply to other characters as well.)

Edited May 3, 2015 by queenbee

[LizaD]

was this plot contrivance combined with the Henry-Regina dynamic and all of "True North" that gave Once its notorious "anti-adoption" accusations back in the first season.

Please. Let's be honest. Most of the "notorious" anti-adoption accusations were from rabid Woegina stans who believe she's the most perfect saint biggest victim ever. Even the writers know this but they want to cater to that psycho crowd so no sympathy for them. Also the same faction that cries homophobia all the time too probably. The writers admitted it. They said at Paleyfest that they specifically made sure to write lines about how loving Woegina was too Henry. Why only them? There are tons of other adoption-foster examples. Does that sound like a general problem about portraying social issues being fixed? No it was pandering to the crowd who eats up their Mary Sue Woegina fan fiction. And after they make fun of every other "social issues" calling it fantasy and therefore doesn't matter? Yeah no, the only social issue they care about are the ones that make Woegina a bigger victim or a bigger saint.

Anti-adoption BS. None of the blood relations on this show are any better. See Rump/Pan. Is that anti-biological family? Or anti-single fatherhood? It's called soapy drama. Everyone must have a miserable childhood, adoption or not. Just a soap opera rule.

[Mathius]

Hey, I was never arguing that the anti-adoption stance was valid, only that it happened.

[Serena]

Please. Let's be honest. Most of the "notorious" anti-adoption accusations were from rabid Woegina stans who believe she's the most perfect saint biggest victim ever. Even the writers know this but they want to cater to that psycho crowd so no sympathy for them. Also the same faction that cries homophobia all the time too probably. The writers admitted it. They said at Paleyfest that they specifically made sure to write lines about how loving Woegina was too Henry. Why only them? There are tons of other adoption-foster examples. Does that sound like a general problem about portraying social issues being fixed? No it was pandering to the crowd who eats up their Mary Sue Woegina fan fiction. And after they make fun of every other "social issues" calling it fantasy and therefore doesn't matter? Yeah no, the only social issue they care about are the ones that make Woegina a bigger victim or a bigger saint.

Anti-adoption BS. None of the blood relations on this show are any better. See Rump/Pan. Is that anti-biological family? Or anti-single fatherhood? It's called soapy drama. Everyone must have a miserable childhood, adoption or not. Just a soap opera rule.

Not to mention, they have no problem having Lily completely dismiss what seem to be her perfectly lovely adoptive parents, for no reason apparently.

[Faemonic]

So, I watched 4.21 "Mother". The platitude is so obvious onscreen that I could grit my teeth until they shatter. Part of it, I'm sure, is the pacing of the entire story, where everything is a day and this entire story arc has been squished into 11 episodes. The themes ought to be more complex and nuanced, and leave things open to question for us adult viewers, but they're Disney fairy tales so there's going to be an answer that's a theme. All the moral ambiguity shall be left to discussions among viewers, with a strong temptation right now for disappointed capslock, at least in my case. I shall resist.

 

...Okay, I turned into a dragon and flew around spilling the blood of my enemies over the fields and burning standby-standers into char. I'm back and feel better much now, but I think some children of the collatoral damage I caused will avenge the random people I attacked in about ten years, thirty if I do a couple of time-freezing spells. (Maybe I should have just capslocked...)

 

First, I think it's thanks to Colin's broken leg back in the second season that I get the seed of headcanon that Hook got to sit in a locker in New York, convinced that he killed The Dark One, and realized that it didn't bring Milah back and didn't make him feel that much better...like, 300-year-old-quest worth of Better. Once that's out of the way, he gets to face the fact that once upon a time he sold out the only living memory of Milah to the One True Villain in this entire series. That's got to sting, and he completely deserved it, and nobody's going to cozy up to his leather and convince him that he's got a good heart, that he's got to earn. That's why Hook is the only reason that I watch this show anymore...one of the reasons why.

 

And I really think that Lily should have had that moment. Her transformation into a dragon could have been some metaphor for natural human emotional processes, or it could have been a tantrum stamped down with a platitude, and unfortunately with Lily it came off to me as the latter. There wasn't a single moment where she was shown to realize, "Snow White was bleeding from the head after I knocked her into the rock with my tail. Did I hurt her that badly? I didn't mean it! I was just saying, and planning, but if I actually did it then what have I done??? I never mean it when I destroy anything, and I keep destroying things!"

 

What Maleficent said about looking to the future and being happy with what they're given is a good idea, but the last thing that ever makes that actually happen is to tell an angry and embittered person that that's what they're supposed to "choose" right now with a snap of the fingers, and invalidate a lifetime of confusion and pain. That's not healing. Even Maleficent got an apology from Snowing to mellow her out. She wouldn't speak to them two episodes ago. She threatened Cruella with a painful death that would have lasted for days! If that last one came about, then it would have been tragic for everybody, and horrifying to most. But it would have shown a process. Lily ought to have been allowed that process, with or without Snow's torture and near-death and self-flagellation over decades.

 

I can't even hold Snow responsible for anything anymore even, actually, because all I see is her dancing at the end of puppet strings. I never know anymore what she'll consider worth the evil or collateral damage, and what she'll self-flagellate for three seasons over. Ginny Goodwin acts the hell out of every line that she's given, but this version of Snow White is not even a character anymore because there's just no cohesion. Emma's forgiveness of her in this episode meant nothing. Okay, maybe it means that Life Won't Wait for your internal turmoil process to mellow, because Storybrooke has dragons and sharp rocks all over the bloody place, like literally, the place will be covered in blood because of all the sharp rocks...so, forgive as fast as you can before the people you're angry at are dead and not by your hand so bummer and you love them deep down too. Maybe it means that gazing out at waterscapes with Killian Jones, sipping rum (at like 2 in the afternoon, Emma, I don't think your boyfriend is a good influence on you...) can do a lot to hurry up a process of a lifetime. But within relationships and character development that used to be central (does anybody else remember season one?? I think Maleficent had a unicorn) it...kind of struck me as super meaningless.

[Faemonic]

Breaking News: Rape by fraud was slightly more than a blip on Robin Hood's emotional radar and we got exactly one (1) moment of his emoting about that. It must be the best acting that Sean Maguire has been allowed to do thus far. Now over to you, Regina.

 

Women's reproductive rights! In this latest episode, this is a tepid issue. Although for a show that seems to just absolutely love babies oh so very much, I wonder where Roland and Snowflake even were while all the grown-up's storylines were going on. Henry Jr. was in this episode, and then got a mention, and then...nothing.

[Rumsy4]

Yes, to everything you said, Faemonic. There is little coherency in the narrative when characters act one way then the other from episode to episode.

[Camera One]

When I rewatched "Heart of Gold" last night, the best LOL line was... "When you steal for yourself, you're a thief.  When you steal for someone else, you're a hero."  

[Shanna Marie]

Bringing over from the Writers thread:

For example the actress who plays Regina said in an interview how she spoke to the producers about developing the Regina/Henry relationship after mothers who had adopted children had talked to her about their views on the story. I actually agree with what the actress was saying; just because Emma arrives in town that doesn't diminish the fact Regina is still his mother.

I actually disagree with this. It was never about whether or not Regina was Henry's mother. It was about how Henry was being treated. She was a bad mother because she's the Evil Queen and was using Henry as a pawn and tool in her scheme, not because she was an adoptive mother rather than a birth mother. Regina could have carried Henry for nine months, given birth to him, and breast fed him, and she still would have been a bad mother if she'd treated him the way she did. Emma's arrival in town didn't change any of that, other than bringing more of Regina's bitchiness to the surface, so that she was willing to use Henry to hurt Emma. Henry sought out Emma not so much because she was his birth mother, but because she was the Savior who could break the curse. He just had to play the mother card with her because that was the only way to get her attention long enough to come to believe about being the Savior.

 

Of course, once Regina started gaslighting him and setting him up to be hurt so that Emma would look bad and murdering people, and while she was too busy trying to ruin Snow and Emma to pay much attention to Henry at all, it was natural for a kid to turn to someone else to play the loving mother role in his life. The poor kid was probably starved of affection and very, very lonely. They did mention that Regina was apparently a good mother to him for at least the early part of his life and even mentioned that she'd changed every diaper and soothed every fever. She just couldn't deal with her world starting to crumble around the edges when he got old enough to realize that something was terribly wrong because he was the only person growing and aging. Really, her just trying to bring him up in that kind of environment was selfish of her and rather questionable parenting. It was physically impossible for him to have a normal life and be properly socialized, thanks to her curse.

 

The problem with retconning and whitewashing in response to one social issue complaint is that you can get into conflicts with other social issues complaints. I wonder what survivors of emotional abuse think about the wonderful, perfect relationship Regina and Henry currently supposedly have (I actually think there's a lot that's unhealthy about it, but that doesn't seem to be what they think they're showing) without really having worked through any issues and with no lasting ramifications after the kind of emotional -- and later physical, with her holding him prisoner with vines -- abuse they showed previously. I've been seeing all those "Mother's Day isn't the same for those of us who had toxic relationships" posts on Facebook this weekend, and it seems a disservice to real abuse survivors to wave a magic wand and heal a relationship to the point that abuse is forgiven and forgotten. At least Regina does talk about regretting that, but it's weird that Henry's now her biggest cheerleader.

[daxx]

Yes this, I am divorcing my husband after years of narcissistic behavior and verbal/emotional abuse.

He, since I asked for the divorce has turned himself around, found Jesus and is on his way to becoming a different person. That doesn't undo the damage to me. He triggers me often not meaning to.

I cannot unsee what I have seen or unhear what he has said. Forgiveness does not equal forgetting and there is no going back for me. I would imagine it would be far worse for a child.

[Faemonic]

When I rewatched "Heart of Gold" last night, the best LOL line was... "When you steal for yourself, you're a thief.  When you steal for someone else, you're a hero."  

Does anybody else get reminded of this entry from Sars' advice column? 

 

Listen up, all you young anarchists. Shoplifting is not cultural rebellion. Shoplifting does not Stick It To The Man. Shoplifting is stealing, period, full stop. I mean, sure, some of us have found ourselves broke and stuffed a couple of sticks of jerky down our pants, and some of us have taken dares from our new bad-girl best friends and pinched make-up from the drugstore or whatever. Nobody's perfect. But stealing for the sake of stealing is not a defensible position. It leads to price increases, wage freezes for lower-level employees, and a general atmosphere of distrust, and Jack believes otherwise, he's as stupid and naive as he is self-absorbed and insufferable.

 

And excuse me for just a moment here, but — "striking a blow for human rights"? "STRIKING A BLOW FOR HUMAN RIGHTS"? Oh, but of course! Let's hoist Jack up on our shoulders for stealing a can of fucking tomatoes, shall we? Jack, a hero for our times!Chinese dissidents languish in prison, but Jack stole a can of tomatoes! Women in some cultures undergo female circumcision against their wills, often bleeding to death if they don't contract HIV, but Jack — Jack stole a CAN of TOMATOES! Writing letters for Amnesty International? That's for amateurs! Joining the Peace Corps? Hardly makes a difference! Volunteering at refugee camps in Southeast Asia? A MERE BAGATELLE! Why bother with those trifles, when we can all follow the shining beacon of Jack's example and PINCH CANS OF FOOD THAT ONLY COST A BUCK AND A HALF TO START WITH? Jack's contraband tomatoes inspire us all! Jack! Jack! Jack! Jack!

 

Pffft.Fuck that shit. Buy Jack his can of tomatoes, jam them straight up his ass to keep his head company, and tell Young Karl Marx that he owes your bourgeois ass a buck twenty-five.

[KingOfHearts]

This show treats secondary/extra deaths incredibly superficially. It's more like dying in a video game or as a red shirt in Star Trek. Normally that wouldn't bother me, but when characters like Snow, who are fiercely against murder, don't bat an eye, I call twisted morality. When Zelana pseudo kills (but not really!) Neal, no one forgives her. They hold it to her to this day. But when Regina slaughters a village of extras, she deserves a second chance. When Snow kills Cora in self-defense, she's a horrible monster who deserves to die. But when Rumple murders Tamara in cold blood, Neal doesn't even give a crap that his fiance is mysteriously missing.

 

It's all about them mains, isn't it?

[FurryFury]

It's a pretty common trope, it's called Protagonist Centered Morality on TV Tropes. I kinda hate it (unless it's being played with).

Edited May 11, 2015 by FurryFury

[KingOfHearts]

 

It's a pretty common trope, it's called Protagonist Centered Morality on TV Tropes. I kinda hate it (unless it's being played with).

I remember a few Star Trek episodes making fun of this trope. They would show a story featuring a few of the lower ranks no one cared about and one of the main characters (usually the captain) interacting with them. Even Lost made a few jokes about it with the other survivors complaining that they're never in the loop.

[ParadoxLost]

I've always cringed at whenever a character on this show would control someone by taking their heart.  I was quite perturbed with Snowing over removing Emma's potential for darkness as well.  Free will and all that.

 

Now that Emma's name is on the dagger, I find myself a little nervous at the idea that people can use the dagger to control her.  I never once thought it was a good idea to let Rumpel get control of the dagger when his name was on it.

 

I think there will be some opportunities for interesting morality discussions in season 5.

[Faemonic]

Emma can still have Free Will. Even though the Dark One itself is bespelled to be tethered to a human soul, so that it could be controlled by the dagger...there was nothing in the spell that said that the Dark One's human host cannot control the dagger themselves. So, Zoso had free reign plus Dark One powers until the Duke came along...and Rumple had that same right for hundreds of years before Zelena came along.

I'd actually consider that a massive oversight in the Dark One Tether Spell. Okay, maybe that it's bound to a human soul with human motivations that, even with a phenomenal amount of personal power from being able to control themselves, would still only exercise personal autonomy, rather than...I don't know, godlike malevolence...but if I were the Sorcerer I'd try to bind it to one unit of a True Love dynamic and have the other control the dagger. If they betray that love, then that could trigger something like the Dark One 404 Error of The Dark One stabbing themselves and returning to the firebrand elevator full of dark one gloop (the Lumiere episode). Maybe True Love is like the magic version of reconciling Newtonian physics with relativity. I mean, "being in love" or "being loving" doesn't necessarily mean "being a good person" ...hello Cora.

When Emma Dark One Swan was whisked away by Darkness, her dagger landed between her parents, Hook, Regina, and that other guy with the indecipherable code. I'm not worried right now about anybody who disrespects Dark One Emma enough to command her to do anything but "don't kill us!" but...I agree, it's interesting how it could turn out.

[jhlipton]

I mean, "being in love" or "being loving" doesn't necessarily mean "being a good person" ...hello Cora.

 

Cora was never in love nor was she ever being loving.  Everything that she claimed to be doing for Regina was for Cora and only for Cora.

[MaiLuna]

I wasn't exactly sure  in which thread to bring this up but here it goes. Do you guys think this show has a bit of a thing for stealing? It's like everyone in this show was/is a thief. Jiminy and his parents were pickpockets, Snow was a bandit, Robin had a whole gang of thieves, Will was a thief even before joining the Merry Men, Hook was a pirate, so is Blackbeard; Emma, Neal and Lily stole in the LWoM too, Rumpel has a full shop of stolen items...I don't know, I've just noticed there's a lot of stealing on this show. August also stole from Neal and then Tamara, and even Henry has stolen things a few times.

[FurryFury]

Cora was never in love nor was she ever being loving.  Everything that she claimed to be doing for Regina was for Cora and only for Cora.

After removing her heart, yeah, but before that, she was like any other person. She may have been (hell, she was) a bitch and pretty evil, but she could love. In fact, this is why she removed her heart in the first place, she wanted to get rid of this weakness. (Ah, she was so genre blind! This isn't how this show works! In real life, this move would have given her so much more!)

[tennisgurl]

 

I wasn't exactly sure  in which thread to bring this up but here it goes. Do you guys think this show has a bit of a thing for stealing?

Maybe because thievery is kind of a common trope in fairy tale stories? And just in general. Lovable rouge thieves, cat burglars, highway men, con artists, they're really common in stories. So I guess it makes sense they would focus on that in this show. I don't know if its something they mean to do, but it just sort of happens. Plus, with people like Hook, Hood, or even Archie, its the kind of crime that is a bad thing, but can still be redeemed. Its easier for a show to have someone who was a thief in the past become a good guy, than someone who was a mass murderer.* Or at least, its easier to be MORE of a decent person, and not have as long of a redemption arc. 

 

*I mean, Regina and Rumple have been been with the good guys, and are both multiple murderers, so maybe that's not the best example in this show...

[jhlipton]

After removing her heart, yeah, but before that, she was like any other person. She may have been (hell, she was) a bitch and pretty evil, but she could love. In fact, this is why she removed her heart in the first place, she wanted to get rid of this weakness. (Ah, she was so genre blind! This isn't how this show works! In real life, this move would have given her so much more!)

 

I could quibble that anyone whole could remove their heart to no feel love probably isn't overflowing with it in the first place, But I will grant that she may have felt love before that.  But, unlike Will or --ick -- Regina, certainly not after.

[Shanna Marie]

I could quibble that anyone whole could remove their heart to no feel love probably isn't overflowing with it in the first place

Not to mention, she could callously leave a newborn by the side of the road because the baby interfered with her plans -- and that was done with a heart. So, yeah, even with a heart she wasn't exactly warm and cuddly. I don't think the lack of a heart can be blamed for much of what she did.

[Camera One]

The show has also contradicted the effects of heart removal so many times since then.  Regina without a heart in 3B hardly made a difference.

[jhlipton]

The show has also contradicted the effects of heart removal so many times since then.  Regina without a heart in 3B hardly made a difference.

 

Also, Will, in  most of Wonderland.

[Whodunnit]

I finally watched the "Lilly" episode and the start of "Mother". As far as I can tell, what we saw with Graham has been confirmed with Robin: This show has a disturbing attitude of "It's not rape if you're into it", despite the fact that Graham was brainwashed and Robin was deceived. Not cool, A&E, not cool.

Edited for clarification.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Whodunnit

[Faemonic]

From the fandom issues thread:

 

 

 

IF Regina or Emma were a man I do believe the show would most definably make Regina and Emma cannon.  They are pure gold (no pun intended) and they make for pure fairytale storyline much better then either Hook or Robin Hood do.  The only reason Hook or Robin were chose as possible love interests for Regina or Emma was because none of them have well established fairy tale love interests

 

I don't know about the creative process with the writers, so I definitely disagree with the bolded part, but I definitely think that Reginald and Emmanuel would be as aggressively shipped as Sherlock and Watson, or Castiel and the Wincester brothers. And the showrunners and network executives alike would be just as resistant to making it happen in canon.

 

 

 

there is already a handsome male character that has murdered children, sold them to Peter Pan, and talked abou thow he used drinks as tactics to sleep with women.

 

See earlier in this very thread where I make a wall of text about OUAT's Hook essentially being a genderswapped brunet English version of femme fatale Saffron from Firefly, but that's if we divorce the creators from the work itself (hello, Derridan literary analysis) and give only a momentary acknowledgment to viewers whose experience is less layered with meta.

 

As I also mentioned, getting drunk is still largely considered "gray rape" rather than an act of undermining consent by refusing to sustain inhibitions (that is, the informed and lucid personal boundaries of the person in question). I definitely disagree that "gray" rape is even a thing, but whoever wrote that line seems to think it's acceptable enough to joke about, and to characterize Hook that way without in-story condemnation. This isn't to say that this absolves Captain Hook as a character of any responsibility of the effect that he has, as a character, on the culture that consumes his presence as an entertainment medium. What does absolve him of that responsibility is the fact that he's fictional, and therefore a construct that can only be "taken to task" by analysis either in terms of the skill and craft by which he is brought to life, or the effect that this entire entertainment medium has on society: as a product of the patriarchy, or as an active reinforcer of oppressive ideas such as lowering inhibitions of a sexual partner is acceptable behavior.

 

...Or, as the above quoted post was originally in the fandom and viewer issues thread, I guess we can condemn young women and gay men for having an avenue such as this character to explore their sexuality! Yeah, sure, let's just go with that. How dare anybody else have their own interpretation about anything they experience! Fans of Problematic media are Bad For Society. So very Bad For Society, everybody.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Faemonic

[Shanna Marie]

Funny, I was just thinking about the infamous "Emma gets past Hook drunk so she can take advantage of him while he makes a wisecrack about it usually being the other way around for him" scene that spawned the whole Rapist!Hook meme, while I've also been pondering the DudeBro "rape is hot, so we'll show you lots of it and then pretend it's all about gritty realism and Art" writing on Game of Thrones.

 

I've thought that the line was a big mistake because it seems so very out of character for Hook. Every woman he's shown interest in, Milah, Emma, and even Cora, has been a very strong, powerful woman whom he's treated as an equal, if not superior. His courtship/seduction method with Emma was to make his interest known, then step back and show his worth to her, letting her be the one to make all the moves and set the pace. She initiated the first kisses, she asked him out for their first date, she said the first I Love You. Meanwhile, although he's insecure about his worth as a human being, he seems to have total confidence in his sexual appeal. He'd consider it an insult to imply that he had to get a woman drunk before she would have sex with him. His way of picking up women in a bar would be more likely to be to show up, flash a smile and the baby blues, sit back and let the women fight it out amongst themselves over which one got him, then let the winner drag him home to have her wicked way with him.

 

And then there's the fact that's usually forgotten in the outrage that although he made a quip about it, Emma was the one who was actually getting him drunk so she could exploit him. I guess it doesn't look so bad since we know Emma wasn't going to rape him, just keep him distracted, and she even had (reluctant) consent from his future self to do what she needed to do. But then it occurred to me: the infamous quip actually makes Emma's actions less rapey, since he didn't know what her real agenda was. In saying what he said, he was letting her know that he knew what she was up to, and that meant that if he let it continue, it was by his choice. He was putting himself under her control and willingly losing control. In some respects, you could look at what he said as a bit of roleplaying -- "I normally don't do things like this because I'm the aggressive male, but I'm putting myself at your mercy." It's kind of a gender flip on the "I'm such a good girl that I would usually never do sort of thing, but you've overwhelmed me" act that plays into the usual sexual stereotypes.

[FurryFury]

while I've also been pondering the DudeBro "rape is hot, so we'll show you lots of it and then pretend it's all about gritty realism and Art" writing on Game of Thrones.

 

Oh good don't remind me of that, I still can't bring myself to watch that episode and am still burning with incandescent rage. Especially after seeing "funny" memes about it (yes, they do exist...)

 

I think it's clear by now that Adam and Eddie simply don't give such issues as rape enough thought - which is consistent for a pretty big part (if not the majority) of male nerds (sadly). Thus we get the "rape by fraud/brainwashing is a-OK" stuff with the Mills sisters. So it's quite possible (I'd say very likely) it didn't even occur to them that this line could be critically analyzed by people with different thought process. Especially since even in real world, as far as I know, alcohol isn't considered the same as a date rape drug, as far as these cases go.

[truelovekiss]

I also had a problem with the way adoption is portrayed. In the first season, it was very much Emma=good savior, product of true love, real mom, etc and Regina was his evil queen adoptive mom. Henry was unhappy when the series began. He was a lonely outcast kid in therapy, who didn't feel connected to his mom. Regina made a lot of mistakes with him. But she did a lot of things right, and she loves him more than anything. She knew he was that savior's son, and that could lead to her undoing, but she loved him and wanted him anyway. I love that Henry is close to his birth family, but I can't help but rankle whenever they try to downplay his relationship with Regina, as if the first 10 years of his life didn't matter.

[Dani-Ellie]

I don't think the adoption was ever the issue. I think the fact that Henry was adopted by the Evil Queen was the issue.

 

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, Regina abused her child. We saw her do things to emotionally hurt him, we saw him tell her how much it hurt him that she made him feel like he was crazy, and she even admitted that she didn't know how to love very well. The first ten years of Henry's life do matter and it's absolutely wonderful that someone adopted Henry rather than Henry languishing in the system but when Regina adopted a child, she took on the responsibility for providing for Henry's physical and emotional well-being. I don't think the fact that Regina's an adoptive mother excuses her from child abuse.

[Mari]

Yes.

 

The problem wasn't that Henry was adopted--it was that Henry was adopted by someone who was willing to cause him pain, simply because it meant she could make someone she didn't like hurt, too.

 

That's abuse.  It's not discipline, it's not misunderstandings.  it's abuse.

 

And, well, while most adoptive parents--just like biological parents--are loving, caring people doing their best?  There are also a few out there--just like biological parents--who are not loving, caring people doing their best, and who deliberately cause harm to their own children..

 

In the first season, Regina was that second kind, and having the show completely overlook that is horrifying to me, because the message stopped being "Stand up for yourself, report it, and get away from your abusive parent."  it was "Just be really, really nice to your abusive parent and maybe they'll start to love you and stop."

[Serena]

Funny, I was just thinking about the infamous "Emma gets past Hook drunk so she can take advantage of him while he makes a wisecrack about it usually being the other way around for him" scene that spawned the whole Rapist!Hook meme, while I've also been pondering the DudeBro "rape is hot, so we'll show you lots of it and then pretend it's all about gritty realism and Art" writing on Game of Thrones.

 

Oh, you sweet summer child (am I quoting GOT right?). You think *that* spawned the "Hook is a rapist" meme? That has been going on - I'm not even slightly exaggerated - since when the first sneak peek from 204 featuring Hook came out. Again, I am not kidding at all.

 

As to the adoption thing: Regina was horrifically abusive to Henry during the first *and* second season. In one of the last episodes of season 2, well after her supposed "redemption arc" had started, she told him she was going to murder everyone he knew. MURDER. EVERYONE. HE KNEW. When he expressed his horror, she erased his memory.

 

As a comparison, when someone did that (changing memories) to a loved one in Buffy, that was cause for a breakup that lasted a while. In Once? Never even brought up again.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Serena

[Rumsy4]

The Show's obsession with forgiveness and second chances trumps concepts of justice. Grace does triumph over justice, but the writers are not creative enough to deliver on that concept convincingly. They rely on disingenuous storytelling to achieve it--by giving more weight to villian-sob stories, victim-blaming, abuse-justification, and dismantling the erstwhile heroes with bad retcons. The Show's moral foundations are like shifting sand. Right and wrong depends on the character and the episode and the story arc. I'm past taking this show seriously. lol

[KingOfHearts]

 

Grace does triumph over justice, but the writers are not creative enough to deliver on that concept convincingly

A key element to grace is repentance. You can't accept mercy without making an effort to change. Grace is not intended for those who keep on wrongdoing without remorse - it's for those who are ashamed of their pasts and want to make things anew. Zelena is still muahahahaing in a mental ward with her rape baby in tow, Rumple just trapped everyone in a fake universe and attempted to kill a kid in it, and Regina is just now coming into the light. Yeah I'm sorry, but "they're family" means nothing. Love is one thing but stupidity is another.

 

Oh and there's a thing about characters not letting their emotions out or reacting to anything, making them more like robots than forgiving kinfolk. But I won't go into that.

Edited May 24, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Faemonic]

it's quite possible (I'd say very likely) it didn't even occur to them that this line could be critically analyzed by people with different thought process. Especially since even in real world, as far as I know, alcohol isn't considered the same as a date rape drug, as far as these cases go.

It's definitely a problem that they don't consider the principle behind it, but only the medium. Alcohol lowers inhibitions and therefore compromises consent. While it is possible to get just tipsy enough to have a fun roll in the hay that you won't regret the morning after, it's a giant creepy Problem that real life dudebros (usually dudebros) pass around that this means it's okay to get laid by getting their partner so drunk that said partner can't fight back, is passed out and can't talk back with a "no i do not want" or even "would you do that again, but harder and a little more to the left, no, I meant my left", and can't even remember after that who it was they had sex with. Or, it's not even "who it was they had sex with" because you'd both need to be into it for it to be considered "with" and not "at".

 

I agree with Shanna Marie that it was out of character for Hook to go that way. Maybe in other people's headcanons, Hook flirts because he has a violently aggressive sex drive and will therefore do anything and everything to get laid, including getting his partner drunk to the point that they're not even partners but victims--so that line about Hook getting women drunk as a regular tactic just confirmed that sort of characterization.

 

Oh, you sweet summer child (am I quoting GOT right?). You think *that* spawned the "Hook is a rapist" meme? That has been going on - I'm not even slightly exaggerated - since when the first sneak peek from 204 featuring Hook came out. Again, I am not kidding at all.

Was it the "my men need 'companionship'" line that did him in? You would think that would have made Milah a much more sympathetic character. Or was it just the pirate thing?

 

I've thought that the line was a big mistake because it seems so very out of character for Hook.

< snip >

although he's insecure about his worth as a human being, he seems to have total confidence in his sexual appeal. He'd consider it an insult to imply that he had to get a woman drunk before she would have sex with him. His way of picking up women in a bar would be more likely to be to show up

I agree. But since the character is only made up of what we can see onscreen... I could keep going, "Argh, the writers" because you know it's never argh-the-actors, but what makes the character isn't how cohesive they are in my headcanon. He said what he said.

 

 

 

 

there's the fact that's usually forgotten in the outrage that although he made a quip about it, Emma was the one who was actually getting him drunk so she could exploit him. I guess it doesn't look so bad since we know Emma wasn't going to rape him, just keep him distracted

Your headcanon Emma is more chivalrous than mine.

 

 

 

But then it occurred to me: the infamous quip actually makes Emma's actions less rapey, since he didn't know what her real agenda was. In saying what he said, he was letting her know that he knew what she was up to, and that meant that if he let it continue, it was by his choice. He was putting himself under her control and willingly losing control. In some respects, you could look at what he said as a bit of roleplaying -- "I normally don't do things like this because I'm the aggressive male, but I'm putting myself at your mercy." It's kind of a gender flip on the "I'm such a good girl that I would usually never do sort of thing, but you've overwhelmed me" act that plays into the usual sexual stereotypes.

That's brilliant, if Past Hook suspected Emma of having some ulterior motive to approaching him, but if it involved Emma flirting with him (or more) then he'd happily play along.

 

I just thought he was in so much denial about his alcohol addiction that he would project it onto completely sober people.

 

In any case, that wretched line didn't even jive with the rest of his dialogue. Past Hook basically told Emma that if she didn't want a nightcap, he would just up and go find somebody else who does. Interchangeability might be objectifying, but that's the least rapey thing anybody can say, and that came from a Killian so drunk that he called the ship that he'd sailed for two centuries "the Rolly Jojer". And then after telling off Smee he caught Emma on her way back up to the deck and wondered aloud if she was having second thoughts. The fug would Captain Rape care how many thoughts she has? And his follow-up wasn't, "good--because we're on the point of no return, here"; it wasn't complaints about his balls being bluer than a tropical lagoon and she owes him some relief, it wasn't any nonsense like that but "my apologies, you deserve my full and prompt attention." He was probably five seconds away from vomiting on Emma's shoes and passing out.

 

 

Changing gears to something far more general:

 

A key element to grace is repentance. You can't accept mercy without making an effort to change. Grace is not intended for those who keep on wrongdoing without remorse - it's for those who are ashamed of their pasts and want to make things anew.

I definitely agree, but there seems to be this awful idea floating about that calculating grace is a distraction from the moral imperative to cultivate it. Like, either everybody or nobody in the whole world ever deserves grace, but it's more for the sake of those giving it than those taking (advantage of) it. That said, I also don't believe in ideological purity being the way of the human condition. Grace is a result of a process, and demanding that it be generated by default leads to emulating grace and repressing rather than processing a lot of the less-than-gracious natural human reactions.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Faemonic

[Faemonic]

Double-posting to take this from the fandom thread again:

 

YaddaYadda, on 24 May 2015 - 9:24 PM, said:

 

I don't get these accusations that anyone who doesn't support SQ is automatically a homophobe, is automatically a hater and discriminates against a minority group.

 

RadioGirl27, on 24 May 2015 - 11:09 PM, said:

 

they use it because it's the only way they can get some relevance. When you are shipping an abuse victim with her abuser, you need something strong like homophobia to be relevant and talked about.

 

That sort of reminds me of a criticism of Song of the South. Actually, it was criticism of criticism. Song of the South is notorious for being horrifyingly racist, but the reviewer pointed out that the worst thing it does is perpetuate the stereotype that Black people are boring. In the reviewer's opinion, the entire film was so poorly paced that the only thing worthy of notice was how dated it was in terms of unexamined cultural norms...suuuch as racism. By contrast, Gone With the Wind is at least as racist as Song of the South, but it's known as this Epic Historical Drama (with problematic aspects). 

 

Mari, on 24 May 2015 - 10:50 PM, said:

    I am not saying that some people are not racist or homophobic, or that when they are they shouldn't be confronted.  I am only saying that because those things are increasingly looked down upon, accusing people of that is occasionally open to abuse.

 

There are accusations of social justice "going too far" when it has not even gone far enough to achieve equality, but has only gone far enough to establish conversations about inequality from the people who most suffer it. Those conversations are, I believe, important and should be encouraged to grow.

 

But when there are established conversations and communities, there is going to be an established narrative. When that established narrative has been challenged into definition by the cultural hegemony that oppresses and marginalizes other people, then any deviance from that narrative becomes a threat...even from differently oppressed or even less privileged demographics.

 

 

So, racism in the feminist movement is a thing. Biphobia in the LGBT community is a thing. LGBT domestic violence is actually a thing, but nobody's allowed to say that because homophobes will say the real thing wrong with LGBT domestic violence is the LGBT part, because straight couples have better resources to correct those abusive relationships.

 

I imagine that only compounds the problem, and definitely privileges some weaponized stereotype or other ideal over the individual subjective experience. Which is bad.

 

 

*

 

So, about Swan Queen in general... I actually think that it could work, but it won't because These Writers. If A&E had stuck to their guns in that Swan Queen wouldn't happen because Regina had done Emma so much wrong that any budding romance would be snipped in the, well, bud...then that might have deflected the accusations of homophobia enough. But since then Regina's character development took a turn for that Regina didn't actually do all that bad, at least nothing that she can't be excused for, that Emma can't understand and forgive. The "why not?" then becomes, well, A&E and their writers aren't equipped to write lesbians.

 

Hell, look at all the raping going on. They're not equipped to write heterosexuals...or family relationships...or moral ambiguity (what else is in This Show?) And it's uncomfortable to watch them try and fail and not even know what went wrong. If A&E and the writers aren't open to writing lesbians, that's idealistically bad but I'd breathe a sigh of relief just because I personally did not like how they handled Sleeping Warrior. 

 

All that said, I must also opine that the worst argument I've heard against Swan Queen is that it doesn't fit "the established sexual orientations of the characters".

 

Ehh...

 

Born This Way, while I'm sure is affirming and true to some individuals, has become one of those narratives that I believe is harmful due to how much volume that has. I believe that the Born This Way narrative has created hostile conditions for bisexual panromantics and demisexuals in LGBT spaces that purport to be safe and supportive of people who aren't cisgendered heterosexuals. But it's not safe anywhere to be queer or questioning, because that's ambiguous, and ambiguity is weakness. Nobody's allowed to be human. Ironically, I've seen the effect this has that only heterosexual relationships can be seen to develop organically within these strict categories of who is orientated towards which gender--instead of where aspects of individual personalities create romantic chemistry.

[Shanna Marie]

The problem wasn't that Henry was adopted--it was that Henry was adopted by someone who was willing to cause him pain, simply because it meant she could make someone she didn't like hurt, too.

Regina with Henry, as shown in the early Storybrooke flashbacks, seems like the kind of parent who has a kid as a lifestyle accessory, not because of actually wanting a child. She was trying to fill a gaping hole in her heart and was trying to get someone who wasn't forced to love and obey her because of the curse, but got frustrated when he didn't do exactly as she wanted him to do. I would imagine there are both birth and adoptive parents like that, but probably more birth parents because most respectable adoption agencies screen for that sort of thing and weed out the parents who just want a life-size doll to dress up and put in their Christmas card photos or who are under the mistaken belief that they'll make up for all the love they've never had with unconditional love from an infant (rather than realizing it's the other way around because a newborn is a 24-hour need machine).

 

Emma wasn't even shown to be that great a mother with Henry in season one. She had no clue what she was doing. She was just better than Regina because she wasn't a sociopathic narcissist and actually cared about Henry's feelings more than she cared about whether she got what she wanted. If Henry had gone to Granny or Archie or Marco or anyone else in town for help and they were capable in spite of the curse, they'd have been treating him better than Regina, regardless of DNA. It's not as though birth parents were shown to be perfect, either. Cora was worse to Regina than Regina was to Henry, and they shared DNA. In fact, parents in general don't come out well on this show. Rumple's father abandoned him for eternal youth (but the spinsters who raised him seemed to be kind). Bae's mother abandoned him to run away with a pirate, and his father tormented anyone who got close to him and tried to control his life before choosing power over him. Cora abandoned one newborn, then physically and emotionally abused her next child while using her as a pawn in her own schemes, and meanwhile Regina's father was weak and neglectful. David's father sold one of his children and then got himself killed in a drunk driving accident. Hook's father abandoned him. Belle's father is a control freak (though considering some of the stupid decisions she's made, you can kind of understand the impulse).

 

It's really hard to look at the overall context of the show and come to the conclusion that there's any kind of "adoptive parents are bad!" message going on. More like "Parents can really screw up their kids."

 

That's brilliant, if Past Hook suspected Emma of having some ulterior motive to approaching him, but if it involved Emma flirting with him (or more) then he'd happily play along.

That would fit with what we've seen otherwise in him, with him being perfectly happy to play second fiddle to a strong woman and let her call the shots and set the pace in the relationship. It seems like he might be into the idea of putting himself under the control of a woman he found appealing, but then to play along with expectations he'd at least pretend to be alpha and give lip service to the idea that otherwise he might be more forceful, and he's making an exception just this once, because she's special. (And Hook, as he's developed, seems to be the least alpha screen pirate ever.)

[Faemonic]

One social issue that they don't seem to know what to do with in this show is the class structure. I was thinking about this while watching Into the Woods, where the peasants immediately bow in the presence of the prince and are deferential and tongue-tied. The gulf is so obviously huge.

 

It's probably a worldbuilding failure, but while they do have peasants and commoners and nobility on this show, it's treated as a non-issue unless it's an issue.

 

Bumping this thread with this because of what you pointed out in Anna's episode with David.

 

Hmm...before, yeah, it used to come off as a worldbuilding failure. On the other hand, I'm seeing a parallel now between Anna and Belle. Anna told David that he likes to give up despite him being raised to never win even the security that Anna enjoyed wandering the palace and never needing to worry about the next meal, Belle with a similar background told Hook that he should have been stronger...when it came to resisting a magic heart clutching command.

 

True, both Anna and Belle didn't seem to be up for any actual governing at the time, neither had a troop of bodyguards at the time, neither had real connections to call upon, I don't know what they do for money (is Belle on Storybrooke tax payroll, or is Moe supporting her from the trust fund donated by their subjects and she's only working at the library for the experience?) and Anna was in disguise so I don't know what "princess" even really means in the Damsel Errant context. For all David knew, Anna came to Misthaven with her rude Arandellean manners. 

 

I have read something about how class group is different from economic class, but I don't know how that could apply to, say, Hook with his possibly scandalous fugitive father and possibly blue-blood origins and definitely criminal career. People probably have called Hook "pirate" more often than they've called David "sheep-boy".

 

Generally, though, I figured that the biggest power divide was between people with magic and people without magic. Rumple might have started out as a peasant, but once magic then castle! And dukedoms to strongarm! And tithes from fearful commoners, probably!

 

Then again, he did think to ask Regina to make him rich and comfortable. Maybe Dark One Anna might have bartered for something more sentimental, and been content in an apartment like Will's with only one cup of coffee for lunch and dinner.

 

Grumpy, Happy, and Granny pushing for Snow White to fix the electricity (what but didn't Grumpy do that all by himself in the first season) is probably the closest we'll get to #DemocracyProblems rather than #AristocracyProblems

 

Edited July 26, 2015 by Faemonic

[Shanna Marie]

Belle with a similar background told Hook that he should have been stronger...when it came to resisting a magic heart clutching command.

You know, I hadn't even thought about that. Ouch. Maybe she was referring to the blackmail stuff that led into it, and he should have been stronger there so he could have warned them before he was under magical control, but that's the thing that was so silly about the blackmail plot -- it didn't end up meaning anything because Rumple needed Hook's heart no matter what. Even if Hook had been a saint he would have taken his heart and used it. So, yeah, being stronger doesn't apply. I'm not sure I see that as a class thing, though. That's more of Belle's weird morality. She's got a lot of self-righteousness going on and different standards for different people. This is, after all, the woman who still claims that Rumple has a good heart, no matter how many awful things she's seen him do, and yet she judges other people pretty harshly.

 

Anna was in disguise so I don't know what "princess" even really means in the Damsel Errant context. For all David knew, Anna came to Misthaven with her rude Arandellean manners.

I was going to say that David had to know who she was because he figured out she was Kristoff's fiancee, but then he didn't figure out who Elsa's sister was until seeing the necklace, so I guess he didn't know the identity of Kristoff's fiancee. But with that situation, the important part for me was that she knew she was a princess, and she was trying to apply her standards to a peasant. She was criticizing someone with few rights who could be legally pushed around by just about everyone, who could (and later did) have his life upended on the whim of someone of higher rank, for giving in to someone with power over him. That was more a failing on her part than on his. Even if he did know who/what she was, part of being who and what he was meant he wasn't likely to feel he had a right to criticize her.

 

We still don't know how widely known David's origins are. Their close colleagues (the dwarfs) know he wasn't born a prince. Didn't someone say something about it when George was stirring people up against Ruby? I just don't remember who hurled the insult in saying they weren't sheep he could herd, or however that went. But otherwise, it's been a non-issue, which I find disappointing because there's so much to work with and use there. We don't even know if Emma knows who he really is, and he's her father -- she told Past Rumple that her father was Prince James. David told Hook he was a twin, but we don't know if he knows the full twin story (and I would love to see Hook's reaction because then I don't think we'd be hearing the last about David being a shepherd). How would the general population react if they did know. Would the commoners embrace him as the People's Prince, or would they see him as an upstart getting airs above his station and thinking he was better than his origins? Would the nobles accept him or sneer at him behind his back? I always wondered about that in those fairy tales about the third son of the woodsman who ended up winning the hand of the princess. How did things go for him after that? There were some of the fairy tales that had a less-known part two, in which either the princess or her mother schemed to try to do away with him because they didn't like the idea of him marrying into the family. This situation seems similar.

 

Generally, though, I figured that the biggest power divide was between people with magic and people without magic.

That's the key, and that's where the justice system gets wonky. The only solution for dealing with Regina was execution because they knew they couldn't hold her in prison with her power, and Snow couldn't bear to execute her, so she got away with murder, literally. A non-magical person who committed similar crimes would probably have at least been sentenced to life in prison. Hook's vengeance quest had a lot to do with the fact that it would have been impossible to bring Rumple to justice. Rumple was never going to answer to those crimes in any legal sense. Anyone else who murdered one person and maimed another would have suffered some kind of consequences. Will spent more time in jail for breaking into the library than Regina did for mass murder, regicide, rape, murder, kidnapping, and multiple attempted murders. So apparently having power in that sense puts you into the same sphere as the class who are above the law.

 

That's why it's a shame that they bungled the plotline with the anti-magic faction. It would have been interesting to see how some of the Storybrooke citizens might have reacted to that. Would there have been Enchanted Forest natives eager to sign on to the "keep magic out of our world" cause because they were tired of their lives being jerked around by magic users? They'd have had worse experiences with magic than any World Without Magic natives. Now that you don't lose your identity from crossing the border, has anyone wanted to leave town just to get away from the mayhem and live in a safer place?

[Actionmage]

Would there have been Enchanted Forest natives eager to sign on to the "keep magic out of our world" cause because they were tired of their lives being jerked around by magic users? They'd have had worse experiences with magic than any World Without Magic natives. Now that you don't lose your identity from crossing the border, has anyone wanted to leave town just to get away from the mayhem and live in a safer place?

 

You know that if any character did leave and they had a storyline about living without Magic, that character would be mugged violently within five minutes of daring to look around at wherever they ended up. The character would be badly treated/ ignored by the police force. Having no money, no connections and possibly treated rudely by a potential job interviewer, the character would run back to Storybrooke. The message being the same as 1939's Wizard of Oz's ("...if I ever go looking for my heart's desire again, I won't look any further than my own back yard. Because if it isn't there, I never really lost it to begin with! Is that right?") or "better the devil you know." But that's how I see it playing out on This Show, These Writers.

 

To take the some of the S1 side characters and see how they do in our world could be great fun! But that's me. Give me "boring" talk while drying dishes and lots of silliness like character continuity and mostly realistic reactions to stuff they experience.

 

Maybe if they had Regina try to forgo her magic to live with Robin in The City (New York or Boston or wherever), there could be some exploration a little bit? (Going on the theory that, apparently, a story can't be told outside of the Charming/Mills/Rumplestiltskin matrix/ family.)

Edited July 28, 2015 by Actionmage

[Shanna Marie]

Coming over from the "other fairy tales" thread and the discussion of the woobie villain with the sad backstory that excuses everything ...

 

I've been thinking about the challenges of writing interesting good people and how audiences these days are primed to hate the "good" people and automatically sympathize with the "bad" people, who get to have more fun while having the sad backstory that explains and excuses their behavior. This show likes to say that "Evil isn't born, it's made," but although they've never outright come out and said it, they kind of seem to think that good is made, like it just happens.

 

So, Cora is "made" evil because she got pregnant and was abandoned, and then she failed to con Leopold into marrying her after Eva told on her. Basically, her social climbing antics backfired on her, but I guess it wasn't her fault.

 

Regina was "made" evil because her mother was evil and killed her boyfriend, and that's why Regina embarked on a lifelong vendetta against a child who was manipulated by her evil mother, in which she slaughtered villages, murdered her husband and her father, ripped hearts out of people to make them her slaves, and destroyed a civilization. Not her fault because her boyfriend was murdered and her mom was abusive.

 

Zelena was "made" evil because her birth mother abandoned her and her adoptive father revealed when she was an adult that he didn't like her and thought she was wicked because of her magical powers, and then she learned that her half sister was brought up in luxury and was married to a king, so she got insanely jealous of her sister.

 

Rumple was "made" evil because his community rejected him after he injured himself to get out of going into battle, his wife left him, his son was going to be drafted into the military, and then he saw a chance to kill the Dark One and take his power, and then the power went to his head.

 

Hook was made evil when his king betrayed him, resulting in the death of his brother, and he became a pirate because he couldn't go along with his king's genocidal plans, and then he became more evil when his wife (by common law, at least)/lover was murdered and his hand was chopped off by the Dark One who was above the law.

 

But on the good side:

Snow went through hardships, but they seem to be saying that she's good because she had good parents and was brought up in a pleasant environment.

 

Emma went through hardships, but she's good because all the darkness in her was magically removed and because she's the Savior.

 

David's good because he grew up on a farm with a good mother, and later got a lecture from Anna, I guess?

 

I suppose there is Archie/Jiminy, who chose good after growing up with bad parents and seeing the consequences of their bad actions.

 

Belle read books about heroes and wanted to be one, but there's no explanation beyond that. Aurora, Ariel, Philip, et. al. are good just because that's how their stories go, I guess. Cinderella, at least, seems to have come out of hardship, but she was good before the hardship in most stories because of good parents and a comfortable life.

 

So in general, there's no real reason for people being good, but entire epic backstories to explain evil. Good seems to come out of privilege and evil out of hardship. If you're good, it's because you had a good, easy life, and if you're bad, it's not your fault because something bad must have happened to you. But if you look at the real world, I think most of the really good people, the ones who count as saints, have generally come out of difficult circumstances. That's how they gain empathy and the ability to see the suffering of others. Evil seems more likely to come out of privilege -- that "the rules don't apply to me because I'm special" attitude. Yeah, there's a hardness that can come out of difficult circumstances, but it seems to be more of a petty evil, the shoot the convenience store clerk to steal ten bucks kind of thing. Big-picture evil on a scale that matches the deeds in these stories seems a lot more likely to come out of comfort in the real world.