Happily Ever After: Relationships Are Hard

[retrograde]

That could be solved by him being caught with both daggers. Rumple makes a big gesture of handing the dagger back to Belle, then the real one falls out of his sleeve...

[Camera One]

I assume "switching the dagger at will" as per Jane Espenson's tweet meant that Rumple could just snap his finger and they would switch places?  It doesn't explain why he had to slip it back into her purse at the beginning of the season, though.  If he gets caught, he can just mind-wipe Belle like Regina did Henry way back when.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Camera One

[Mari]

I assume "switching the dagger at will" as per Jane Espenson's tweet meant that Rumple could just snap his finger and they would switch places?.

It probably does. Handwave, magic. But how does that even make sense? There were too many times zapping the dagger from place to place would've been helpful to the current Dark One. The dagger is one of the few things that Dark Ones absolutely cannot use magic on. Otherwise, why couldn't Zoso sap the dagger away from the duke? Or Rumple from Zelena?

[Serena]

Exactly. I can believe Rumple can use his magic to take Belle's fake dagger and give her the real one, but he absolutely should not be able to take the real dagger from her with magic if she has it. Why wouldn't he do it to Anna when she had it, then? Or Zelena?

[Curio]

Welcome to Whose Once is it Anyway? where all the magical rules are made up and the curses don't matter.

[jhlipton]

Welcome to Whose Once is it Anyway? where all the magical rules are made up and the curses don't matter.

 

This show would be 100 times better with Aisha Tyler in the cast or the writing room or, preferably both.

Edited December 4, 2014 by jhlipton

[Shanna Marie]

I assume she "gave it back" to him because of the imminent arrival of the Shattered Sight Spell. If she had the Dagger when under the spell, she could do him real damage.

Anyone under the Shattered Sight spell in control of the Dark One could do some serious damage, period, so it would make sense for her to insist on giving the dagger back, and he would have a good excuse to take it, and then he no longer has to worry about fake dagger shenanigans (unless she finds the fake later while he has the real one). It just would have been nice to actually see that scene. It does feel like maybe there should have been more between him hauling her out of the diner and him sealing her into the shop. That would have been a good place to show her giving the dagger back and telling him she trusts him. The scene right after that where Hook tells Rumple that Belle really loves him would even fit better if that had just taken place and Hook was lurking to hear it.

 

And speaking of Hook, I know there was some tumblr mocking at any mention here of Belle and Hook ever being friends, but Hook has been Belle's advocate through all this. He started out in a tacky place, just wanting to use his knowledge of the dagger as leverage against Rumple and apparently not caring how it would make Belle feel (though, when you think about it, telling her should have been the right thing while keeping silent was the wrong thing, even if the truth would have made her unhappy). But since he's been de-hearted, Hook's been reminding Rumple at every step of the way how his actions might affect Belle, and Rumple's been brushing his concerns aside. Hook was rather aghast that Rumple was so willing to destroy Belle's efforts to create a counterspell by hatting the fairies and he seemed to feel betrayed on Belle's behalf that Rumple was using her genuine love for him to manipulate her. I'm sure some of that is Hook's attempt to find the one possible way of maybe appealing to whatever better nature Rumple might ever have, but he does seem to be really concerned about what all this will do to Belle, and he seems utterly baffled at the idea that a man would act this way toward a woman he loves.

[daxx]

He is baffled that a man would behave that way to the woman he loves. It totally does not make any kind of sense to the pirate. He would never treat a woman he loves like that. He would never put at risk what he has with Emma for mere power.

[Notwisconsin]

Yeah, but prophets do it all the time. So do Chistian saints. The Buddha had a wife and kid he abandoned.

[Souris]

This show would be 100 times better with Aisha Tyler in the cast or the writing room or, preferably both.

Now I'm remembering Colin sitting beside her at the Fan Favorites panel and looking ever so slightly overwhelmed when she really got going.

[Souris]

I’ve decided that I think Mulan and Marian should get together. They’re both kick-ass women who are in need of a happy ending.

 

The only way Sleeping Warrior is going to happen is if Philip dies, and I don’t really want that to happen. So Mulan should get a new love interest. And Marian is awesome and deserves better than Robin. Mulan is supposedly a part of the Merry Men (despite being AWOL), and I think Marian was probably their real leader from the start, since she has real conviction and Robin is such a feckless, weak tool.

 

So Warrior Maid for the win!

Edited December 7, 2014 by Souris

[Camera One]

Unfortunately, they've had zero interest in giving Marion any screentime or making her an actual character.  She was in a piece of the premiere, we got to see her eat ice cream, and then she promptly froze.  We never even found out what she and Robin talked about when they were finally alone, we never got a flashback for how she met Robin, or even how she and Robin were separated.  I agree that I want Marion to have a happy ending with someone, and Mulan could be a good choice if they actually cared enough.

 

At least Mulan was treated as an actual supporting character, albeit the come-and-go-and-disappear kind.  I too don't want them to kill off Philip either.  I actually didn't feel that much chemistry between Mulan and Aurora, so I hope they will bring in a new love interest for Mulan.  I read an article where the actress who played Mulan had lunch with Adam I think? and he said they're "working on it" in terms of bringing Mulan back.  Now that could very well be just for a single episode, so that might not be enough time to develop an actual romantic storyline.  

Edited December 7, 2014 by Camera One

[retrograde]

I'd like to see Marian make friends with Snow. They're both into archery, have spent time living in the forest, and are raising young sons. And Snow needs a friend with Red no longer around. 

 

ETA: Oh! And both have spent time on Regina's death row. 

Edited December 8, 2014 by retrograde

[Rumsy4]

Snow hasn't even thanked Marian!

[Mari]

Snow hasn't even thanked Marian!

Well, Marian did get in the way of Regina's happy ending.  Snow completely understands what a horrible, evil, terrible, unforgivable thing it is to get in the way of Regina's happy ending.

 

Regina--and the show--won't let us forget it.

[daxx]

Interesting meta about CS and OQ relationships being foils to one another just like Emma and Regina are.

There may be spoilers. I am so spoiled I don't even notice them anymore.

http://jasperann.tumblr.com/post/104619494574/i-know-there-are-people-invested-in-oq-i-never

[Serena]

I read that yesterday. I wish I could believe that's what they're going for, but I don't think the writers put even a small portion of the thought the meta writer put into it.

[Shanna Marie]

I wish I could believe that's what they're going for, but I don't think the writers put even a small portion of the thought the meta writer put into it.

It's not so much the thought put into it as it is that I can't imagine the writers deliberately writing something to put anything to do with Regina in such a negative light or that a couple ordained by pixie dust would be so horribly wrong. They've given every indication that they think they're writing a grand, romantic story here and that it's not at all icky. Seriously, they had Snow White endorsing Regina's relationship with a married man whose wife is currently under a curse. And it's awfully adorable that this writer thinks that Robin doesn't know what Regina did to Marian or that it would matter at all to him. All he'd say is, "You're different now! That's not the woman I know." Which is pretty much how he reacted when Marian called her a monster.

[Curio]

And it's awfully adorable that this writer thinks that Robin doesn't know what Regina did to Marian or that it would matter at all to him. All he'd say is, "You're different now! That's not the woman I know." Which is pretty much how he reacted when Marian called her a monster.

 

I find it hilarious that the writers still haven't given us a clear indication about whether or not Robin knows any of that on screen. (And they probably never will.) Just like how I don't expect the writers to give Belle and Rumple the proper amount of relationship fallout and drama after all of Rumple's conniving this entire season, I don't expect the writers to tap into the gift-wrapped drama they have with the whole Regina/Robin/Marian debacle.

 

But I guess I shouldn't complain that Outlaw Queen has been pretty quiet for the most part during 4A. (Shhh...I'm still trying to forget about their "graveyard smash." It never happened!)

[Shanna Marie]

Speaking of Rumple and Belle and Outlaw (gag) Queen, the "you never give up on the person you love" concept was mentioned today in the spoiler thread (not a spoiler in and of itself), and you know, that sounds lovely, but is actually pretty toxic when you make it an absolute.

 

Under normal circumstances, it works -- Snow and David didn't give up on each other when circumstances were tearing them apart, and that was good. Hook didn't give up on Emma when she was so mixed up she couldn't let herself open herself up to love from anyone, and that worked out okay. If he'd walked away at the first brush-off, both of them would have been the worse for it. She shouldn't give up on saving him from Rumple if she ever finds out what's going on.

 

But then it can be taken too far. If the person you love is married, should you still not give up? Are you supposed to keep hanging on and doing anything to make the relationship happen, even if it means turning someone away from his family? What if you're the one who's married, and the one you love isn't the person you're married to? Aren't you giving up someone, no matter which way you choose? And what about the spouse? When does that person get to give up, or if she still loves her straying husband, does she have to keep hanging on and not giving up even while he's running around with an evil queen? If no one is allowed to give up, then that gets really messy. What is considered an insurmountable obstacle that warrants giving up?

 

How badly can a person behave before it's okay to give up on him or her? Or are you supposed to keep hanging in there, no matter how bad they are? How badly are you supposed to let someone hurt or betray you before you give up and walk away? Is there ever a line? Do you hang in there when it's obvious that your love is just having a bad day? What about if they're acting so out of character that something must be wrong and you really need to have enough faith in them to look for the cause? What if they're plotting to let everyone in town die? When are you allowed to stop believing in someone because they've given you no evidence that your faith will ever pay off? Is absolute unconditional love a good thing in a romantic relationship or is it potentially toxic?

 

That's why I'm worried that Regina won't give up on Robin and that Belle will never lose faith in Rumple, no matter what he does. And this will be shown by the show to be a good thing.

[Rumsy4]

I agree--it is a dangerous and toxic mentality. Ultimately, it places the responsibility of saving or reforming someone on an innocent person who may even be the victim in the situation. But A&E have consistently made it a moral touchstone in the story they are telling. Good people should not only forgive the person who did them wrong, but they should also trust them even when they keep backsliding, and never give up on them. It doesn't make for a meaningful or equal relationship by any account, though!  

[KingOfHearts]

 

Speaking of Rumple and Belle and Outlaw (gag) Queen, the "you never give up on the person you love" concept was mentioned today in the spoiler thread (not a spoiler in and of itself), and you know, that sounds lovely, but is actually pretty toxic when you make it an absolute.

 

To me, it depends on how you define love. If you mean love as in caring about someone deeply, like family or friends, then that phrase might always ring true. But romantic love is not something you should push under all circumstances, especially if the person you love is mistreating/deceiving you (Rumpbelle) or they're married. (Outlaw Queen). That's more of an emotion or desire, as opposed to a true affection of the heart. Love is not always complacent or happy with the other's actions, either. (I'm looking at you, Belle.)

Edited December 9, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Faemonic]

the "you never give up on the person you love" concept was mentioned today in the spoiler thread (not a spoiler in and of itself), and you know, that sounds lovely, but is actually pretty toxic when you make it an absolute.

In my opinion it has to always be a collaboration, a negotiation, every moment, whether it's family or chosen company. What bothered me the most about 405 wasn't Emma prostrating herself before a vindictive Regina, so much as that Regina was right on one point: reconciliation won't happen because Regina doesn't want it to. Regina said that. She said that with words. What does the usually-lovely Elsa say to that? "You don't give up on people."

 

But the thing is, with something as clear as, "do not want", to disregard that could indicate either opening up to negotiation because this is a relationship...or, that the would-be hero doesn't consider the other person a person! Like, a whole human being with their own experience, perspective, and opinion about the relationship. Nope. You don't give up on "people" because you're better than other people are, you know better, you should be the authority of the other person's life instead of them. Ugh, no!

 

In my opinion, both participants in any relationship ought to...well, participate. It will only work if you both don't give up on the relationship itself, and if one person gives up, then it's part of negotiating the relationship to either encourage them or leave them...but it's important not to undermine or override their autonomy.

 

Everybody has their unique personal boundaries, needs, contributions, limitations...and each individual, even if they're not nearly as self-aware as Regina, ought to be given as much sovereignty over that internal world as anybody they have a relationship with would have sovereignty over their own internal world.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Faemonic

[Shanna Marie]

But the thing is, with something as clear as, "do not want", to disregard that could indicate either opening up to negotiation because this is a relationship...or, that the would-be hero doesn't consider the other person a person! Like, a whole human being with their own experience, perspective, and opinion about the relationship. Nope. You don't give up on "people" because you're better than other people are, you know better, you should be the authority of the other person's life instead of them. Ugh, no!

That's the problem with this "you never give up on the people you love" thing. When taken literally, it condones stalking -- you may have said you don't want a relationship with me, but you don't give up on the people you love, so I'm going to keep pursuing you, regardless of what you feel. And really, that's what Emma was doing to Regina and what Elsa was encouraging. Emma was presuming that Regina didn't really mean what she specifically said. Yes, there are times when a person may be prickly or have a lot of defenses and be afraid of something they really want, and in those cases patience does pay off. Hook and Emma are a good example. She wasn't necessarily receptive, but she never told him no, she told him "good" when he said he'd think about her, and she kept calling on him for help. That would be a case of someone you don't give up on who just needs you to be patient. He was willing to be her friend and let her set the pace instead of flouncing when she didn't instantly go for him. But when someone outright says they don't want something, I'd consider it their problem if they really do want it. It's then up to them to figure that out and retract their statement. It's presumptive for someone else to decide they didn't really mean it and keep pursuing. So when Regina said she didn't want Emma to be her friend, then that's when Emma needs to back off. Then if Regina has second thoughts or figures that maybe she does want Emma as a friend, it's up to her to say she didn't mean that or she changed her mind.

 

This reminds me of the early episodes of the series Coupling, where one of the men had broken up with one of the women, and she announced that she didn't accept that, that they both had a say in the relationship, and she didn't agree to break up even if he didn't want to be with her. She was depicted as being kind of insane for that. On this show, she would have been a sterling example of true love.

 

To me, it depends on how you define love. If you mean love as in caring about someone deeply, like family or friends, then that phrase might always ring true. But romantic love is not something you should push under all circumstances, especially if the person you love is mistreating/deceiving you (Rumpbelle) or they're married. (Outlaw Queen). That's more of an emotion or desire, as opposed to a true affection of the heart. Love is not always complacent or happy with the other's actions, either. (I'm looking at you, Belle.)

It is possible to love someone in the sense of caring without being in love romantically. You can wish the best for them, hope they turn their life around, or ache for the bad choices they've made while still separating your life from theirs, and that shouldn't be seen as "giving up." Otherwise, it's a recipe for abuse if one person feels she (or he) can't leave a dangerous or painful situation because that would be giving up. Churches struggle with this in dealing with domestic violence because unconditional love is such an ideal, and that meant too many people were encouraged to go back to abusive partners and forgive them. Pastors are having to get training for counseling in such a way that it doesn't treat victims as having failed for leaving to protect themselves. In the case of love for a person married to someone else, giving up may be a greater, more unselfish love -- I still love you, but my love for you is causing too much pain for too many people, so I'm removing myself from this situation.

 

And there may even be times when giving up is the right thing to do -- if your romantic partner turns out to be a mass murderer, I think it's perfectly okay to decide that you don't love that person anymore or that your love was based on an image of that person that wasn't real and to give up entirely on having that person in your life. With all the stuff Rumple has done, it would only be good sense for Belle to realize she was in love with a fantasy that doesn't exist and decide she can't love the person he actually is now. She can't change him, no matter how much she loves him. Only he can change himself.

[Curio]

With all the stuff Rumple has done, it would only be good sense for Belle to realize she was in love with a fantasy that doesn't exist and decide she can't love the person he actually is now. She can't change him, no matter how much she loves him. Only he can change himself.

 

I know the show has already established Rumple and Belle as a "True Love" couple (or at least they were in Skin Deep), but it'll send such an awful message if Belle doesn't distance herself from Rumple once she finds out about everything he's been doing behind her back. Robin's unwavering love for Regina seems to push her towards heroism, but the more Belle supports Rumple, he slides further into villainy.

I also just realized a huge parallel between Rumple/Milah and Rumple/Belle that gives me hope that Belle will leave him. One of the main reasons Milah ran away is because Rumple was too stubborn to listen to her pleas to leave town and start a new life. Now, ironically, Rumple is the one wanting to leave town and do... whatever world domination plan he wants to do... but Belle seems content staying in Storybrooke. Yet again, Rumple refuses to think about what his wife wants and only thinks about his selfish desires.

 

I doubt the show will ever go there, but the only satisfying ending I can see for those two is a tragic one. Just like with Bae, if Rumple had only chosen Belle's love over power, he could have avoided a ton of crap. I see Rumple as this show's true Big Bad, so it'd be a satisfying ending if Rumple (for real) sacrificed his big evil plans and/or his life in the series finale to save Belle. But I just can't see how those two can live happily ever after everything that has gone down in 4A.

[Faemonic]

Interesting meta about CS and OQ relationships being foils to one another just like Emma and Regina are.

There may be spoilers. I am so spoiled I don't even notice them anymore.

http://jasperann.tumblr.com/post/104619494574/i-know-there-are-people-invested-in-oq-i-never

 

Interesting that Robin Hood's actor wasn't made a regular. I didn't know that. Also interesting speculation, but I am so, so sure that it's not going to happen. The writers love Regina too much.

 

I know the show has already established Rumple and Belle as a "True Love" couple (or at least they were in Skin Deep), but it'll send such an awful message if Belle doesn't distance herself from Rumple once she finds out about everything he's been doing behind her back. Robin's unwavering love for Regina seems to push her towards heroism, but the more Belle supports Rumple, he slides further into villainy.

 

I doubt the show will ever go there, but the only satisfying ending I can see for those two is a tragic one.

Aaand I think the writers also love Rumpel too much. Or, he'd too handy to keep around and make complicated conflict. It's already sent such an awful message that Belle didn't distance herself from Rumple once she found out that Rumple killed Milah and lied to her about it so that she had to find out from Hook. Actually, I wonder if Belle still thinks that Hook lied about it, like maybe she thinks Hook is as deluded as Regina in Hook blaming Rumple for setting into motion events that led to Milah's death with two or three degrees of separation and the whole "ripped her heart out and crushed it" was metaphorical. Maybe that's why Belle is so convinced that Rumple wouldn't lie to her about the dagger.

 

It was already getting squicky at, "Don't you see? That you're a monster is exactly the reason I have to stay," but when I remember Belle's reaction towards the matter of Milah, that's when I decide that this is never again going to be the relationship dynamic I liked so much in Skin Deep.

[YaddaYadda]

Maybe that's why Belle is so convinced that Rumple wouldn't lie to her about the dagger.

 

The other option is that she's a complete idiot.  I mean mirror!Belle was just awesome!  The truth about the dagger, Rumple's manipulations and it ended with Belle apologizing for hurting Rumple and then he has the audacity to tell her she might hurt him during the shattered sight spell and she bought that.

 

They've written Belle as being book smart and nothing else.  It seems that if it's not contained in a book, then Belle doesn't know anything about anything.  It's sad, really.  It's one thing to want to see the best in everyone and a whole other thing to be completely naïve and gullible.

 

I sort of have some hopes for her for the winter finale with everything they've dropped thus far for her wanting to be a hero and knowing about the hat from Anna and things like that, but she's so incredibly dim most of the time that I'm not so clear on this.

[Mari]

I also just realized a huge parallel between Rumple/Milah and Rumple/Belle that gives me hope that Belle will leave him. One of the main reasons Milah ran away is because Rumple was too stubborn to listen to her pleas to leave town and start a new life. Now, ironically, Rumple is the one wanting to leave town and do... whatever world domination plan he wants to do... but Belle seems content staying in Storybrooke. Yet again, Rumple refuses to think about what his wife wants and only thinks about his selfish desires.

Has he ever talked to Belle about leaving town? Because flashback Belle and occasionally Storybrook Belle have both craved adventure. If he talked to her about wanting to start over somewhere else, she might go for it simply because it would be a grand new thing to do. (Although she might have a qualm or two about all the people Rumple hatted, should she find out about them.)

[KingOfHearts]

 

Has he ever talked to Belle about leaving town? Because flashback Belle and occasionally Storybrook Belle have both craved adventure. If he talked to her about wanting to start over somewhere else, she might go for it simply because it would be a grand new thing to do. (Although she might have a qualm or two about all the people Rumple hatted, should she find out about them.)

 

I could totally see Belle wanting to leave Storybrooke. She said in Skin Deep she "wanted to see the world", and in The Outsider she wanted to go with him to find Bae. 

Edited December 10, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

The issue isn't whether or not Belle wants to leave Storybrooke. The problem is that Rumple has never even asked her and is planning to take her from Storybrooke, whether or not she wants to go, with plans to alter her memories or put her under a spell so she won't know what happened when he takes her, and with plans to lie to her so she won't know how or why they left. Even if Belle wanted to see the world, she wouldn't be okay with that (I'd hope), and she definitely wouldn't be okay with it requiring someone to die -- even Hook -- and a number of people to lose their powers and have some kind of unknown fate in order for it to happen. Rumple's Plan A would have included the death of Belle's father, which he doesn't seem to have given a moment's thought to and hadn't even considered that this might bother her.

 

In thinking about the misogynist vs. selfish bastard discussion that was in the villains thread, it's occurred to me that the only marriages/serious relationships among the Enchanted Forest folks that look at all like the traditional (for our world) patriarchal relationship in which the husband calls all the shots and the wife is essentially property are Rumple's marriages. Everyone else feels a lot more equal, and just about any other male character who tried what Rumple is pulling would probably not fare very well with his wife. Cora was clearly dominant in her marriage with Henry Sr. We don't know about Gerda's marriage to her husband, but it seems like she was the one making decisions about what to do about Elsa, and she was the one who inherited the throne. Snow and David seem like equal partners, with her being the one who's the ruler. We didn't see a lot of Eva and Leo, but she was the one who took charge of the situation with Cora. Milah and Hook appeared to be fairly equal partners. Robin talked about Marian influencing him, and she was on a job when she disappeared, so she must have taken an active role in the group. But with Rumple and Milah, he was the one making the decision about where they would live and what they would do, and he expected her to abide by that, and now with Belle he's making the decision about where they'll go and what kind of life they'll have, and he plans to force her to abide by that, even if it means altering her will.

 

So, does that have anything to do with misogyny on his part, or just more selfish bastard? And if that kind of relationship isn't the norm in their world, it would certainly explain why Milah felt justified in leaving.

[Amerilla]

As usual, I think we're giving this far more thought than the writers. This whole "leave Storybrooke and rule the world" business is nothing more than a lame-ass attempt to give Rumple something to do now that they've killed off the plot that occupied his time for most of the series. They can't have Rumple actually talk to Belle about anything because they want to save the conflict for the as an Epic Moment of confrontation that will almost immediately be erased to bring the show back to formula.

There is zero groundwork for any of it. There's nothing about it that is character-driven. In terms of the story they've told up to this point, it makes no sense that Rumple would want to leave Storybrooke or that Belle would be happy as a docile small-town librarian.

It really drives me to distraction.

[KingOfHearts]

 

As usual, I think we're giving this far more thought than the writers. This whole "leave Storybrooke and rule the world" business is nothing more than a lame-ass attempt to give Rumple something to do now that they've killed off the plot that occupied his time for most of the series.

I'm sincerely hoping Rumple has something more specific to his plan, but I wouldn't count on it. Ruling the world is just too vague for the Rumple we all know and love/hate.

 

 

They can't have Rumple actually talk to Belle about anything because they want to save the conflict for the as an Epic Moment of confrontation that will almost immediately be erased to bring the show back to formula.

Rumple should just turn her back into Lacey. "Oh no! Sorry, magical accident, everyone! Fresh out of memory potions..."

[Rumsy4]

Rumple should just turn her back into Lacey. "Oh no! Sorry, magical accident, everyone! Fresh out of memory potions..."

 

He'll probably be happier with Lacey at this point. He does like Belle's constant bleating of how good and heroic he is, but if he really plans on World Domination, he must know that Belle wouldn't approve. At least, I think she wouldn't approve. I don't even know anymore. Belle has confused me the most this season.

[Geeni]

 

that Belle would be happy as a docile small-town librarian.

 

Well, she's happy being the stupid, battered wife who's blind to all her abusive husband's crimes, so it's not that far-fetched to think about.

 

 

They can't have Rumple actually talk to Belle about anything because they want to save the conflict for the as an Epic Moment of confrontation that will almost immediately be erased to bring the show back to formula.

 

When has he ever talked to her about anything, even before S3 ? What do these two possibly talk about when they're together, how "good" his heart is? The entire relationship is fanservice-driven, to be honest.

 

I have the same problem with Regina/Robin.

[Jean]

Rumbelle is just typical of the bad boy-good girl trope down to a tee. And nothing good ever comes out of those. For the most part the trope seems to be popular because for some reason it's seen as romantic that the bad guy is bad to the entire world but is a big sad teddy bear to the woman he loves. She's unique guys! But inevitably, 100% of the time, the bad boy always does something messed up to the "heroine" and now she gets lumped in with the rest of the world that he treats like crap. The shine is taken away and the only 2 solutions are, the girl gets to stay dumb and forgive the guy and/or the guy changes.

I recall the Rumbelle fandom tearing Moe apart cause he wanted to erase Belle's memories and the argument then was well at least Rumple respects her agency. I didn't agree with that assessment then and I still don't. Now that Rumple is wanting to do the exact same thing with altering her memories it's not even up for debate.

[Shanna Marie]

Rumbelle is just typical of the bad boy-good girl trope down to a tee. And nothing good ever comes out of those. For the most part the trope seems to be popular because for some reason it's seen as romantic that the bad guy is bad to the entire world but is a big sad teddy bear to the woman he loves. She's unique guys!

The problem I've always had with that trope is that to me it's almost worse for him to have the one person he treats well because that proves that he does know better and is capable of doing better and is therefore making a conscious decision not to do what's right in general. If someone is a jerk to everyone, then there's always the chance he doesn't know better or is wired wrong or otherwise has something wrong with him. With Rumple, if he was awful to everyone all the time, then you could say it's the effect of the Dark One, or whatever. But if he's capable of being kind to Belle, then he's capable of kindness and just chooses not to be kind, in general, which I think makes him a pretty terrible person, and it makes Belle look selfish if she's okay with his other actions because his being kind to her proves that he has a good heart.

[The Cake is a Pie]

To be fair, the entire Beauty & the Beast story is born from that trope, so they're really just staying true to their origin.

[Shanna Marie]

To be fair, the entire Beauty & the Beast story is born from that trope, so they're really just staying true to their origin.

Not really. In the Beauty and the Beast story, the beast is basically kind. He might be poorly socialized, but he really does have a good heart beneath his fearsome appearance. The Beauty is special because she's able to look past his appearance to see his kind heart, while everyone else takes one look and just goes "Beast!" The enchanted servants being intensely loyal is fairly common in the tale (and not just the Disney version), and would they be that loyal and caring to him if he were actually a horrible person? He seems to treat them as well as he can. He isn't an all-powerful wizard, he doesn't manipulate an entire society to get what he wants, he doesn't refuse to lose the curse that keeps him a beast because he wants power, he doesn't kill people for the slightest insults, he doesn't alter Beauty's memories so she won't know about the horrible things he's done. The Beast isn't really a "bad boy" at all. He's basically a nerd who looks scary.

 

That's why I hate what they've done to that story with the Rumple/Belle relationship because Rumple is not good at heart and kind to people while merely looking scary. He actually does horrible things. She knows he does horrible things. People are actually kinder to him than he deserves instead of the other way around. The Charming family treats him like family and went to great lengths to save his life, but he's okay letting them all die to get what he wants. He was willing to erase the mother of his grandson from existence in order to get power. This is NOT the Beauty and the Beast story, no matter how many times they waltz while she wears a golden gown.

[Curio]

In the Beauty and the Beast story, the beast is basically kind. He might be poorly socialized, but he really does have a good heart beneath his fearsome appearance. The Beauty is special because she's able to look past his appearance to see his kind heart, while everyone else takes one look and just goes "Beast!"

 

Interestingly, if you just replace a few words in there, Captain Swan actually fits that description better than Rumbelle does:

 

The beast pirate is basically kind. He might be poorly socialized, but he really does have a good heart beneath his fearsome (if you think Hook's previous pirate outfit was intimidating) appearance. The Beauty (Swan) is special because she's able to look past his appearance to see his kind heart, while everyone else takes one look and just goes "Beast!" "Pirate!"

[The Cake is a Pie]

In the fairy tale, the Beast is usually an arrogant prince cursed with the beast form for his rudeness, so no, not "kind hearted" at first. He learns to be kind and love through Belle's love, hence the whole "bad boy transformed by the love of a woman" trope. 

 

In any case, if the Beast is supposed to have a kind heart underneath the ugly exterior, that only further supports why Belle (OUAT Belle) continues to bleat that she believes Rumple to be a good man despite all his actions against that. We, the audience, know it's idiotic and abusive and dysfunctional, but at least Belle as a character is staying true to her fairytale origins.

[Shanna Marie]

I wouldn't exactly call Hook's exterior "beastly." :-)

 

You know, they could have done an interesting Beauty and the Beast story with Anton/Tiny, where he really was a good person who happened to be a giant. What happens if someone of regular human size falls in love with him in Storybrooke -- and then what happens when they return to the Enchanted Forest and he's a giant again? Or could someone of ordinary human size fall for a giant, and then Storybrooke turned out to be their opportunity to be together?

 

But I guess he left Storybrooke for Hawaii.

[Shanna Marie]

In the fairy tale, the Beast is usually an arrogant prince cursed with the beast form for his rudeness, so no, not "kind hearted" at first.

The rudeness curse was from the Disney version. The classic tales tend to not even say why or how he was cursed, and he frequently woos Beauty with courtly behavior. He only demands that Beauty stay with him because her request of merely a single rose rather than jewels means she's likely to be the one to break the curse, and he sends her father home with great gifts and looks after her family.

 

Here's a good take (with annotations) of the story as told in The Blue Fairy Book: http://www.surlalunefairytales.com/beautybeast/index.html

 

Even in the Disney version where he was cursed for his rudeness (there's an interesting post somewhere on the Internet that points out the disturbing things about the movie, and one of them is that it seems like he must have been a child at that point, so I guess it was Regina who cursed him -- "I was TEN!"), he was loved by his servants and mostly kind to them, and he was just unsocialized with Belle. He wasn't a power-hungry, manipulative murderer and torturer willing to kill to get what he wanted and willing to wipe Belle's memory of his bad deeds.

[The Cake is a Pie]

Well, yeah, I'm not saying this Rumple/Belle relationship is a straight remake of the fairytale. I'm just saying if we complain that Rumbelle is typical of the bad boy/good girl trope, that is because their origin story pretty much IS that trope. Rumbelle is just another version. Sometimes the bad boy really is kind and the good girl gets him to change, sometimes the good girl is oh so wrong and just doesn't see it.

 

Don't even get me started on all the disturbing and confusing things about the Disney cartoon. (He would have been 11! How is there a painting of the adult prince?! When was Chip born???)

 

Sorry, I keep coming back to edit:

Since the show is Disney-affiliated and Rumbelle basically recreated the B&B dance in costume, and Chip and Lumiere exist, I'm going to go ahead and assume that version of the story is the one they're "inspired" by.

Edited December 10, 2014 by The Cake is a Pie

[Amerilla]

Folk-tale scholar Marina Warner wrote an essay back in 2009 called "Go! Be a Beast." In it, she argued that the emphasis on the Beast and Belle's role in his life has changed from the 17th/18th Century, in part because our relationship to the idea of the wild Beast has changed. Four centuries ago, the wild was something to be feared and tamed. Now in the modern era, when we are separated from the wild by urbanization and population growth, we're attracted to the wild and wild things as something exotic and exciting. 

 

She noted that modern versions of Beauty/Belle don't require her to be the curative force to tame the Beast. More often, she accepts and remains with the Beast as he is, or she herself becomes a beast. In any case, it's tied to Belle's own transformation and/or sexual maturation. “Beauty has to learn to love the beast in him, in order to know the beast in herself."

 

Within the show, I think they try to have it both ways. Belle is presentedas a source of love and constancy through which Rumpel will eventually be freed from his Curse and returned to normal humanity. At the same time - because they don't want to take the Dark One away until the last possible second, no matter how ridiculous it's getting to keep him stuck in moustache-twirling eeevil - they have to telegraph that she sort of doesn't mind him the way he is. The problem is that they're not showing any ambivalence in her straddling that line, until that moment when it suits the plot. 

[ShadowFacts]

 

The problem I've always had with that trope is that to me it's almost worse for him to have the one person he treats well because that proves that he does know better and is capable of doing better and is therefore making a conscious decision not to do what's right in general. If someone is a jerk to everyone, then there's always the chance he doesn't know better or is wired wrong or otherwise has something wrong with him.

 

That's a good description of Regina.  I think both of them retain some humanity, the difference is that Regina has not been cursed, but Rumple has been under the Dark One curse for hundreds of years.  It will be interesting to see how his personality or behavior changes after he is free of the dagger, if at all.  Does he intend to only be free of the dagger's power to control him and keep all of his magical ability, to include apparent immortality?  If so, he may not change at all.  If he becomes fully human, it still might take him a lifetime to shake off all he has been and return to his essential self.  Something tells me we really won't find much out in this regard.

[Dianthus]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the 'Beauty and the Beast' story may have come about as a way to ease the fears of young women who were being married off to older men, many of whom were complete strangers to those women. "Give him a chance," the story seems to say, "and you may find he's not so bad after all."

@Amerilla: 'Beauty loving the beast in him, to know the beast in herself' reminds me somewhat of Buffy and Spike from BtVS. He was the physical embodiment of her Inner Darkness. It also makes me think of the ST: TOS ep The Enemy Within. We all have a greater or lesser degree of darkness inside, and accepting that is part of the maturation process.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Dianthus

[Faemonic]

In thinking about the misogynist vs. selfish bastard discussion that was in the villains thread, it's occurred to me that the only marriages/serious relationships among the Enchanted Forest folks that look at all like the traditional (for our world) patriarchal relationship in which the husband calls all the shots and the wife is essentially property are Rumple's marriages. Everyone else feels a lot more equal, and just about any other male character who tried what Rumple is pulling would probably not fare very well with his wife. 

 

So, does that have anything to do with misogyny on his part, or just more selfish bastard? And if that kind of relationship isn't the norm in their world, it would certainly explain why Milah felt justified in leaving.

That's a very interesting observation. I try to include Rumple in the "But wait, Fairytale Land could be a matriarchy" world that I view Killian's possibly sexually-objectifying villain trait in, because Rumple's not as much of a wrench in that theory as Jonathan was... but, yeah, okay, throw away Grand Theory (Nooo! My precious!) and focus on actual relationships as particles of society that create a contained context by their performance...

 

And, yeah, clearly just more Selfish Bastard. You teach people how to treat you, is the way it's supposed to go, but Milah's snarking and shouting didn't work, her pleading to leave didn't work, even her leaving didn't work when they met up again... Usually, when Belle leaves, Rumple lets her go, and doesn't seem to expect Belle to return, but because she does return I think he's un-learned even that one jot of reining-in of entitlement. It's as if he knows he's have to learn to actually be in a communicating relationship if he's honest, but to learn that he has to be honest.

 

Much as I enjoy Big Name Rumbelle Shipper Screwball Ninja's essays about this, the one condition she's set for no longer shipping Rumbelle is Rumple ever hits Belle. (I'm guessing if it's because he's angry, and not, like, if Lacey came back and went dark and tried to kill him to inherit Storybrooke's own federal reserve and Rumple had to defend himself.) But for me, lies by omission and especially manipulation by omission that really makes this into not a relationship is actually skeevy enough for me to walk the plank off this ship...if I hadn't already.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Faemonic

[KingOfHearts]

 

Much as I enjoy Big Name Rumbelle Shipper Screwball Ninja's essays about this, the one condition she's set for no longer shipping Rumbelle is Rumple ever hits Belle. (I'm guessing if it's because he's angry, and not, like, if Lacey came back and went dark and tried to kill him to inherit Storybrooke's own federal reserve and Rumple had to defend himself.) But for me, lies by omission and especially manipulation by omission that really makes this into not a relationship is actually skeevy enough for me to walk the plank off this ship...if I hadn't already.

 

Whether its physical abuse or emotional abuse, it's still abuse. He's done much worse than simply hitting her on the cheek. Rumple has manipulated her feelings and twisted her whole life around his finger. He's deceived her so much that their marriage may as well be dust. It's sick to know what he's been doing now, then to look at that Beauty and the Beast dance that was supposed to be oh so charming and romantic. He's taking advantage of Belle for his own selfish purposes, and Belle is dumb as a brick about it. That's why I can't ship Rumpbelle any more.

 

And when you describe the relationship just like I did, the similarities with Beauty and the Beast just get smaller and smaller.

Edited December 11, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Jean]

Yes Beauty and the Beast is a bad boy-good girl trope but it was a complete story played out in 2 hours. The problems I'm speaking of mainly applies to tv and books to a certain degree. I won't get into how far apart Disney's Beast is to Rumple on the badness scale since that's been covered by everyone else, but when that story is played out over 4 seasons? It's headed straight down towards the pits of idiocy as demonstrated by the fact that Rumbelle only worked well for one episode, Skin Deep. The 2 hour movie or 1 episode only really allows for one screwup or a 10 minute spat before the bad guy is fully and truly "reformed." Everyone's allowed 1 screwup. That's never going to happen in a long running series though.

 

Rumple is a character that should never be a love interest. There's plenty of other romantic leading men on this show for that. Now it seems like every single action of his is framed within the context of Rumbelle, which I think was Robert's point in an interview awhile back. I liked him with Cora but I thought their ending was perfect for them. If he has to be with someone, I much rather him be with someone like Ingrid. She doesn't take crap from him, is powerful in her own right, she's not power crazy so there's not that "bringing out the worst" in each other dynamic he had with Cora and she would be protective of Emma and therefore the good guys. That would be a better way to "leash" him than what they've done with Rumbelle. Ingrid would just thwart him instead of bleating about his good heart and she has the power to go toe to toe with him. Watching them try to outwit each other would be entertaining at least.

[Rumsy4]

Belle's character should be much stronger. Someone should slip some self help books into her collection.

Or maybe just "He's Just Not That Into You". ;-)

The whole arc of Henry working in Rumple's shop should have been significant in terms of developing a relationship between Rumple and Henry. And yet, they deleted the only meaningful scene between them where Rumple actually gave good advice to Henry and connected with him.