- This topic has 63 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
So, according to word I heard in comic con Adam and Eddy defined the difference between True Love and Soul Mates. Apparently they believe True Loves is someone you truly love but a soul mate is someone your supposed to be with. So…Yeah, if someone has the actual quote please post it but I want to give a example from another franchise of True Loves and Soul mates from one of my favorite series Doctor Who.
So for all Whovians out there The Doctor has met many people I would consider a “True Love” Whether that be Rose, River Song, Sarah Jane etc. But in terms of a soul mate The Doctor’s Soul mate is his TARDIS, because in the end that’s who the Doctor is supposed to be with, the one thing that will always be there for the Doctor, the one thing that will understand him, companions and love ones come and go but the Doctor will always have his TARDIS for they are both “The Last Children of Gallifrey” (For now anyway)
I hope that explains my thinking on True Loves and Soul Mates.
[adrotate group="5"]Considering that Eddy has said that Cora and Rumple were soul mates, backed up by Jane, in season 2, the whole topic just something I can’t discuss without a lot of irrational anger at a television show.
Keeper of Rumplestiltskin's and Neal's spears and war paint and crystal ball.
Well first off, let’s talk about the modern notion of Doctor Who having a true love when in the classic series he never had any such thing. I understand that you want to draw from another favorite show, but frankly over the entire span of DW, this is a very new concept that speaks more to the idea of modern heroism in TV; the protagonist simply MUST have a love interest for dramatic conflict. So I get your comparison, but it doesn’t actually fly when you consider the entire almost-51 yr breadth of Doctor Who. (And yes Sarah Jane is classic, but 3rd/4th Doctor never considered her a love interest, but a very dear friend. The chemistry you saw on screen was due in large part to the chemistry of Tom Baker and Elizabeth Sladen)
As for ONCE I’m going to give an opinion that I have seen now several times from every type of shippers: Adam and Eddy made a mistake at SDCC and put their foot in their mouths. They were unprepared for the question, made something up, and it turns out that it’s something that flies in the face of the show and the message it has been imparting since Day One. This show literally opens with True Love as the single strongest and most important element in the world. To say that your soul mate is somehow better–a concept that was not introduced until S3A with Regina and Robin–is bizarre. It’s even stranger when you remember that they once called Rumple and Cora soul mates but then said that what Rumple had with Belle was True Love and therefore of a higher and deeper quality. Add to this the idea that Snowing has never been called soul mates but always the most pure of true love (in fact, that’s what Zelena called little baby Snowflake in 320). ADD in again to this the fact that their savior is True Love Incarnate and it’s gets stranger still.
True Love was/is the center of this show. Always has been. Suddenly elevating “soul mates” above that makes no sense. Emma broke the curse with TLK on her TL, Henry. Regina broke the curse with TLK on her TL, Henry, not her soul mate Robin with whom she had been kissing a few episodes before. This is not to say that soul mates aren’t important Adam and Eddy went off the fly on this at SDCC and it shows when you reflect on the show.
Is there an actual difference? Who knows. I would call Snowing both Tue Love and Soul Mates. I would say the same for Rumbelle. But the way A and E tried to distinguish the two came across as recton-y.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I have to agree with RG – I think A&E were asked what was possibly the most obvious question there could be about OUAT and they were completely unprepared for it. From what I’ve seen, A&E tend to stink at answering questions on the fly. Which is why I pretty much never take anything they say as truth or without an enormous grain of sand!
For me personally, the idea of people having One True Love or Soul Mate is almost silly. How many of us have loved only one person? Is romantic love more “true” than the love between a parent and child? Siblings? Friends? OUAT can get itself wrapped in knots when they start using those words, but for me, the overall story of the show is about true love in it’s various forms. I understand that my love for my husband isn’t stronger or lesser than the love for my child it’s just…different. So, for me, I relate to the stories that are less focused on ONE True Love, like Snowing, and are more about the various kinds of True Love that exist. I love the backstories of characters like Emma, Rumple, Regina, Hook, Robin…because they have loved and lost, and are trying to love again. That ‘new’ love doesn’t diminish their love for that other person, or make the love in the prior relationship not “true.” Neal & Emma, Regina & Daniel, Robin & Marian — these are all examples of True Love…but for various reasons, their time together has passed, and they have learned to love again. They’re not better or worse, stronger or lesser, than the relationships they have – romantic and otherwise – in present day. We as viewers can certainly prefer one character’s ship over another (except maybe Rumple’s…I mean really is there anyone who likes him with Milah more than Rumbelle??) but for me, that doesn’t mean that my ‘character’ and my ‘ship’ is better than any other; it’s just my own personal preference, colored by my own experiences in life.
Emma as the Product of True Love…this one I’ve been pondering on, and I think I’ve come to the conclusion that the only reason Emma is the savior is because the pieces of Rumple’s puzzle fell into place at the right time. However, I don’t know that his curse specifically needed SNOWING’s True Love and their child to work. Could it have worked with Cinderella and whatever her husband’s name is and their kid or Philora and their child had the timing been right? I think it could. Emma’s purpose as the Savoir, really, ended in S1 when she broke Rumple’s curse with her TL kiss with Henry. Since, the characters have learned to depend on her and she’s tried to rise to the role of leader, but is the title ‘Savior’ really relevant? To me, no. She broke Rumple’s curse without having her magic. The fact that she later learned she was capable of magic is more coincidence than fate, to me.
OUAT can get itself wrapped in knots when they start using those words, but for me, the overall story of the show is about true love in it’s various forms.
That’s primarily what I’m exploring in my true love meta, that there isn’t just one kind of love on OUAT. There’s so many different forms of love, romantic love, familial love — it’s all about love and personally, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what Adam and Eddy said. I’m happy that they were able to make a distinction between the two. Could it have been a bit clearer? YES.
The concept of soulmates, the dictionary definition, actually is not that different from say kindred spirits. There’s not singular definition for everything, everyone is going to have their own interpretation but I did think it was really helpful that they provided a definition and I’m so glad that question was asked.
Hope that kinda makes sense. And I look forward to reading other people’s comments on this. It’s all very fascinating to me 😉
Ooh, yay, someone started this thread! I just posted most of this in a different thread, but this makes more sense.
<p style=”box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.74902);”>First of all I have to say that yeah, there’s a strong possibility that they didn’t really have an answer to that question and so what they said isn’t really what they meant. In light of that, I kinda thought people were taking it a bit too seriously, to be honest. I mean, for one thing, defining soulmates as “the <em style=”box-sizing: border-box;”>idea that there’s one person for you” doesn’t sound like a very firm, law-of-magic kind of definition to me, more of an opinion thing. And in “Quite a Common Fairy”, Regina mentions finding ANOTHER soulmate during her first conversation with Tinker Bell. She clearly considered Daniel her soulmate, and apparently so is Robin. Either Regina was wrong or the whole exclusive aspect of soulmates isn’t exactly written in stone. I think True Love is still the be-all and end-all of powerful magic in the show. And surely soulmates can share True Love; I definitely don’t think they were saying that the two are mutually exclusive I (nor would that make any sense).</p>
<p style=”box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.74902);”>Here’s my new possibly crazy theory: maybe one of the important distinctions is that True Love doesn’t just happen–you have to grow to love someone–while soulmates are fixed and unchanging. Perhaps a soulmate is a kind of relationship that just exists between two people, like a parent and child or a brother and sister…and it doesn’t equate to instant, guaranteed True Love the same way blood relationships don’t; it just increases the odds and ease of developing True Love. Surely Emma and Henry didn’t have True Love as soon as they met despite having a clear blood relationship; they had to develop it. And obviously there was no True Love between Rumple and Malcolm despite being father and son, but we know for sure that Regina and Henry have parent-child True Love even without the blood tie. Maybe that also means that two people can romantically fall in True Love even if they aren’t soulmates even if it might be more difficult (and that circumstances can keep soulmates from developing True Love as well). I don’t know, that theory just kind of evolved while I was writing this, haha. I’m looking forward to this discussion! :-)</p>Perhaps a soulmate is a kind of relationship that just exists between two people, like a parent and child or a brother and sister…and it doesn’t equate to instant, guaranteed True Love the same way blood relationships don’t; it just increases the odds and ease of developing True Love. Surely Emma and Henry didn’t have True Love as soon as they met despite having a clear blood relationship; they had to develop it. …but we know for sure that Regina and Henry have parent-child True Love even without the blood tie. Maybe that also means that two people can romantically fall in True Love even if they aren’t soulmates
Yes, I agree.
Also remember guys, Adam and Eddy said these two ideas are in flux; which means it’s still changing and evolving. It’s a very good discussion here about the two but things can or might still change in season four.
Perhaps a soulmate is a kind of relationship that just exists between two people, like a parent and child or a brother and sister…and it doesn’t equate to instant, guaranteed True Love the same way blood relationships don’t; it just increases the odds and ease of developing True Love. Surely Emma and Henry didn’t have True Love as soon as they met despite having a clear blood relationship; they had to develop it. …but we know for sure that Regina and Henry have parent-child True Love even without the blood tie. Maybe that also means that two people can romantically fall in True Love even if they aren’t soulmates
Yes, I agree. Also remember guys, Adam and Eddy said these two ideas are in flux; which means it’s still changing and evolving. It’s a very good discussion here about the two but things can or might still change in season four.
And here’s my opinion on the in flux idea: it’s the best way to cover your bases. They know, by now, that if they say something that angers the fandom, they’ll never (never never never) hear the end of it. So what do you do? You present an idea and then say, “oh but it could always change!” The fact that they can’t give a solid definition without following up with a hand wave of potential future changes is incredibly telling: they don’t have solid definitions or ideas. The word soul mate wasn’t a concept on this show until S3A in 303. Until then True Love was the solid bedrock of the show–and that’s true love in all its glorious forms, romantic and familial and friendly. Soul Mates got introduced as a separate idea. The fact that they want to elevate one over the other is where I’m having issues. It undermines the couples that were built on true love, namely Snowing and Rumbelle.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Here’s what Adam and Eddy said:
Eddy Kitsis: “True-Love is when you truly love somebody. A soul-mate is when you think there’s only one person for you. And I think on our show we’ve learned that happy endings aren’t always what you expect. And so even if you love somebody and that doesn’t work out, it’s okay to love again.”
Adam Horowitz: “I think with both true-loves and soul-mates, these are things that are in flux. You can work at them, you can find them,..There is always hope for finding what you think is your true-love or soul-mate.” [x]So, ok, this can be broken down a bit. We’ve actually seen True Loves behave the same way as Adam and Eddy describe soulmates.
Snowing is a perfect example. Yes, they truly love each other but there’s no one else for them except each other. The only person for Snow is Charming and the only person for Snow is Charming. If you were to consider what we know of Snowing, then you could also classify them as soulmates as well as true love and one true love.
I don’t think the idea of concepts lessons the power of true love. It’s just a different kind of love and this show delves into DIFFERENT kinds of love. We not only have romantic true love, but familial love, friendship love — all kinds of love. Soulmates just adds an extra layer of love.
Hope that Snowing example helped.
The topic ‘Soul Mates and True Loves, Similarities, Differences, and what does it all mean.’ is closed to new replies.