- This topic has 63 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
What I’m curious about is whether or not there have been Saviors before Emma. If that’s where the ink for the Author comes from, there would’ve had to have been previous saviors, right?
Yes good question. But I’d say we could look at history/mythology for an answer to that. There have always been savior figures. They spring up in every mythology known to man. It’s our rather monotheistic world view that makes us think there can only be ONE. But..you’ve seen the Matrix, yeah? Neo in the “One” but he’s also one of many. He’s part of an equation that played itself out over and over. He’s not the first, but he is the last. That’s Emma. She might not be the first Savior, because Savior’s rise up in times of cosmological crises, but she is the Last.
With these magical world existing outside of time, I’ve thought of the Matrix a lot lately in regards to once. I’ve wondered if these stories have been playing out over and over again with the characters being aware of it.
[adrotate group="5"]Yes good question. But I’d say we could look at history/mythology for an answer to that. There have always been savior figures. They spring up in every mythology known to man. It’s our rather monotheistic world view that makes us think there can only be ONE.
Even in the Bible, there are arguably several savior-like figures, who all predate Christ (e.g. Noah, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Esther, and David).
But..you’ve seen the Matrix, yeah? Neo in the “One” but he’s also one of many. He’s part of an equation that played itself out over and over. He’s not the first, but he is the last. That’s Emma. She might not be the first Savior, because Savior’s rise up in times of cosmological crises, but she is the Last.
Yeah. If Emma is comparable to Christ, she is the one who will “overcome death, once and for all.”
"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
I’ve wondered if these stories have been playing out over and over again with the characters being aware of it.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot as well lately. The idea that our characters are just stock characters of the universe–archetypes–playing out the same light vs dark story over and over is very true to how stories work across time and space. My all time favorite OUAT promo was right before S3A in which the department set everyone up as their archetype–the Queen, the Princess, The Knight, The Pirate, The Wizard, the Savior. What are those if not just archetypes who keep getting caught up in the eternal never ending struggle for light and goodness?
It also brings to mind some stuff I wrote a few weeks back not only about Emma’s Monomyth but also about Emma as the Eternal Champion.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I’ve wondered if these stories have been playing out over and over again with the characters being aware of it.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot as well lately. The idea that our characters are just stock characters of the universe–archetypes–playing out the same light vs dark story over and over is very true to how stories work across time and space. My all time favorite OUAT promo was right before S3A in which the department set everyone up as their archetype–the Queen, the Princess, The Knight, The Pirate, The Wizard, the Savior. What are those if not just archetypes who keep getting caught up in the eternal never ending struggle for light and goodness? It also brings to mind some stuff I wrote a few weeks back not only about Emma’s Monomyth but also about Emma as the Eternal Champion.
I read those your thoughts when you posted them. I’ve wondered if that if with every new iteration, the story evolves a little bit – like the story changes, which could explain why these stories are so different than the traditional (or even Disney) versions we know.
You gotta love Regina and her way of greeting new people into town!!! Though…what would she need with Emma’s portion of darkness???
Because Regina is really Rumple in a magical disguise. He needs Emma’s darkness to change fate so that Isaac can write the villains their happy endings.
That’s a very strong and plausible theory….I’ll jump on that bandwagon!
Yup. That definitely looks like Lana Parrilla impersonating Robert Carlyle impersonating Rumplestiltskin 🙂 I’ll get on the bandwagon too. That “Well… you do have some darkness in you” line is a dead ringer for Rumple.
The blood looks like it reacted with some other ingredient in the ink well. Any theories as to what it is? True love potion? Tears of the innocent? Eye of newt?
My guess is that it needs to be something “light”-related, such that the magic of the quill/storytelling draws on both light and darkness to manifest the stories as reality.
I read those your thoughts when you posted them. I’ve wondered if that if with every new iteration, the story evolves a little bit – like the story changes, which could explain why these stories are so different than the traditional (or even Disney) versions we know.
Yes I think that there would have to be changes because of the decisions made by the previous iterations. Archetypes though they may be, they do not exist in a vacuum. They are still people who make some choice that cascades, as it were.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"My guess is that it needs to be something “light”-related, such that the magic of the quill/storytelling draws on both light and darkness to manifest the stories as reality.
A hair from Henry’s head? After all, he’s the product of both dark and light magic. Or maybe a hair from baby Neal’s head, since he’s an innocent and a product of the truest of true love.
"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
My guess is that it needs to be something “light”-related, such that the magic of the quill/storytelling draws on both light and darkness to manifest the stories as reality.
A hair from Henry’s head? After all, he’s the product of both dark and light magic. Or maybe a hair from baby Neal’s head, since he’s an innocent and a product of the truest of true love.
Well maybe it’s Emma’s blood. Lily’s dark blood and Emma’s light blood. That’s rather poetic in and of itself. (if highly disturbing at the same time)
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I’m telling you guys. Lily’s blood = ink for book.
Ew. But it’s so gross and perfectly twisted, it’s probably going to be true.
Here’s the part, I still don’t get though. The Author doesn’t seem very resistant to helping Rumple re-write his happy ending. So, why does he need Emma to still need to be corrupted?
Here’s the part, I still don’t get though. The Author doesn’t seem very resistant to helping Rumple re-write his happy ending. So, why does he need Emma to still need to be corrupted?
Maybe it’s less about Rumple and his happy ending and more about making sure Rumple *keeps* his HEA. If the Savior remains pure, then she can change what Rumple and the Author rewrite. But if you corrupt the Savior, make her a darker version of herself, then she can’t undo the changes.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"
The topic ‘420: Sneak Peeks (1 and 2)’ is closed to new replies.