- This topic has 51 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
@Andreth Stark wrote:
However, in that same lecture, he said, on regards of literary belief: “Children” (and I add; all of us, no matter our age) “are capable, of course, of literary belief, when the story-maker’s art is good enough to produce it. That state of mind has been called “willing suspension of disbelief.” But this does not seem to me a good description of what happens. What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful “sub-creator.” He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is “true”: it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside. If you are obliged, by kindliness or circumstance, to stay, then disbelief must be suspended (or stifled), otherwise listening and looking would become intolerable. But this suspension of disbelief is a substitute for the genuine thing, a subterfuge we use when condescending to games or make-believe, or when trying (more or less willingly) to find what virtue we can in the work of an art that has for us failed.”
In this respect, when the writers make things happen with a “magic” or “destiny” or “have faith” explanation, they fail as storymakers. They drive us out of the Secondary World, and it is a painful travelling, since we leave there characters and stories we love as old friends, “secondary world’s” friend we can not look at in the same way anymore.
The only thing I wanted to point out was that if destiny as it pertains to the red thread of fate/destiny is a natural law in their world then wouldn’t a scenario like this draw us deeper into that world. One thing I am not understanding is that with literary belief is that the world a story is set in has its own set of rules, its own natural order, its own physics, its own society etc. So for me the Bae/Emma scenario works because it works under the natural order of FTL. At doesn’t it though? Hasn’t the story been showing impossible circumstances where people are drawn together because of fate/destiny (Snow White and Prince Charming, Nova and Grumpy etc). Many of the love stories within the show are operating well outside of what this world would deem possible because of own beliefs, our own limitations etc… but that doesn’t remove the the possibility of these seemingly impossible events happening in their world.
I understand what you are saying but I always thought that to mean more in the circumstances where within something happens in that world, or specific era of time where anachronisms occur that ruins one’s immersion. For instance writing a regency era fiction and mentioning articles of clothing that would not have existed, or peppered with slang/speech too modern etc. Or within an alternate universe of a familiar world (let’s say our own) where something occurs that until that point would have been impossible: like in a world that still uses steam yet to discover electricity including certain technologies such as items that rely on electricity etc.
[adrotate group="5"]@playarita wrote:
The only thing I wanted to point out was that if destiny as it pertains to the red thread of fate/destiny is a natural law in their world then wouldn’t a scenario like this draw us deeper into that world. One thing I am not understanding is that with literary belief is that the world a story is set in has its own set of rules, its own natural order, its own physics, its own society etc. So for me the Bae/Emma scenario works because it works under the natural order of FTL. At doesn’t it though? Hasn’t the story been showing impossible circumstances where people are drawn together because of fate/destiny (Snow White and Prince Charming, Nova and Grumpy etc). Many of the love stories within the show are operating well outside of what this world would deem possible because of own beliefs, our own limitations etc… but that doesn’t remove the the possibility of these seemingly impossible events happening in their world.
I understand what you are saying but I always thought that to mean more in the circumstances where within something happens in that world, or specific era of time where anachronisms occur that ruins one’s immersion. For instance writing a regency era fiction and mentioning articles of clothing that would not have existed, or peppered with slang/speech too modern etc. Or within an alternate universe of a familiar world (let’s say our own) where something occurs that until that point would have been impossible: like in a world that still uses steam yet to discover electricity including certain technologies such as items that rely on electricity etc.
I don’t see fate or destiny in the examples you give. There is always an ulterior reason; charming and SW know each other so well that they can anticipate the other’s next movement and act consequently. Nova and Dreamy were separated not by destiny but for Blue Faery’s will. Yes, True Love happens. But those persons fell in love with someone met by chance, then love happens and then they fight for their love. I think the show settles it by showing Rumpelstiltskin as the Master of Puppets who sets the pieces in motion from the beginning. Even him becoming the Dark One was a manipulation by the former Dark One. Pinoccio coming to our world wasnot destiny but Gepetto’s request. Emma being the saviour was part of the curse, The Dark One’s creation.
Why Emma and Bae? one is tempted to say “because Henry was needed to be their son. Because there is some other Masteof Puppets and that fits his/her agenda”. And THAT thought is what makes me retain some faith in the story; we don’t know what actually happened there.
Destiny is not enough.I had mentioned their part in the curse (Bae being the beginning and Emma being the end) and I personally believe is what drew them together. However I understand that destiny alone is not enough but I feel that along with the power of the curse drawing them together, Henry who caused Emma to believe in the curse, true love etc. At least for me it makes sense…
Mmmm… i think we’re talking of two different things here. I mean, your reasons actually make sense… from a storytelling point of view, that is to say: symbolims, metaphors… it is pretty nice in fact. Closes the circle.
However, when coming to that sort of story, you loose the feeling of “I want to be there. I want that to be real and,hey! for all i know it could be real! Why not? everything makes sense, everything could happen!”, since they invite more to watch them from a contemplative perspective, to enjoy the view more than to be an active part of them.
I can enjoy the first, rounded sort of stories, of course, as i can enjoy and admire a picture by Andrea del Sarto. But if i have to choose, i prefer the stories that make me being sort of absorbed in them.
Andreth Stark –
If the thought of a puppet masters will helps, why not just think of destiny as the big Boss puppet masters will? Who’s to say thats not really what it is? Idealy, the puppet dont know it’s being led by strings. So therefor it calls the strange coinsidences destiny.@medchen wrote:
Andreth Stark –
If the thought of a puppet masters will helps, why not just think of destiny as the big Boss puppet masters will? Who’s to say thats not really what it is? Idealy, the puppet dont know it’s being led by strings. So therefor it calls the strange coinsidences destiny.It helps! 😛 But i prefer not to do so, because that is as to say “Because the writers want it happens in that way”. Of course, if some Big Puppet Master appears, i’ll be the most pleased one ^^
😉
Ofcourse the writers ARE the bigga Bossa puppeteers in the shows univers. But im just playing here. I get what you say, it would be to easy to just call the fate card if as a writer you ran in to some plot problem.Remember the story isn’t over yet! I agree with the original poster that good writing has to be internally consistent – even more so for fantasy writing than for stories about the “real world” because the viewer has to be made to feel the characters are real enough to care about, no matter whether they are dwarfs, fairies, or whatever. And I think just attributing any needed plot development to “fate” would be lazy writing. But I think if Kitsis and Horowitz intended to use the unlikely coincidence of Emma and Bae’s meeting (2 people out of about 300 million in the US!) purely as a plot device, they wouldn’t have brought it up in the conversation between Emma and Neal. If the show runs long enough, I think they may give us an explanation and that conversation was there to remind us that they recognise how unlikely the original meeting of Emma and Bae was, and they may address it in the future. In the meantime, it serves a great dramatic purpose.
I remember people complaining after the very first episode,”I can’t take this show seriously. What are the odds that Regina just happened to adopt Snow White’s grandson!” Well, even though we still haven’t seen all the details, we did find out in “Tallahassee” that adoption was probably no coincidence, thanks to the involvement of August. There could still be a lot of explanations for what brought Emma and Baelfire together. We all need to keep watching so the show can survive long enough to tell us that story!
@NONNIE wrote:
I always thought it was magnetic attraction that would bring Emma and Neal together… but I still think Emma needs to kick Neal to the curb for abandoning her…. and then take a match to August.
malchore…. You know there will be twists in the future so I hope you do not give up entirely…..
Nonnie
.
.I think so too and I totally agree with you Nonnie about Emma wanting to go after August once she gets back to Storybrooke.
I wouldn’t call Neal being Baelfire a jump the shark moment. That was such an awesome cliffhanger and I think it’ll add an interesting dynamic to the show now. Don’t give up yet.
The topic ‘Bae as Henry’s father is unacceptable – show is dead to me’ is closed to new replies.