Belle

[angiebelle]

I don’t believe the producers dislike Belle at all! They love her, and they love Emilie in particular. I think they just didn’t expect to have Emilie available as a regular, so they had already planned storylines without her. Yes, Belle’s screentime has been frustratingly low this season, but what they have given us has been completely wonderful. I suspect on the likely chance of a third season, Belle will become more fully integrated. It’s just that the producers have a whole lot of story that they want to tell so it’s hard to fit in everything.

[obisgirl]

@AngieBelle wrote:

I don’t believe the producers dislike Belle at all! They love her, and they love Emilie in particular. I think they just didn’t expect to have Emilie available as a regular, so they had already planned storylines without her.

I agree.

[thelonebamf]

I was thinking a bit about some discussion that took place in the “least favorite character” thread when the conversation turned to the classic criticisms of Beauty and the Beast- the whole ‘Stockholm Syndrome” problem etc. I started wondering why Belle is an exception to that criticism (at least in this incarnation).

For the sake of accuracy I went ahead and looked up Stockholm Syndrome – wiki tells me it’s ” a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.”

Also: Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes “strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other.”[4] One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual’s response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they no longer become a threat.[5]

I don’t think this describes the relationship between Belle and Rumple (or Beast in any incarnation) at all, to be honest. While she does grow to empathize with him- it’s actually his actions that don’t match up with SS. (I’m going to go ahead and keep this to Rumbelle for now.) He is really not cruel to her, and does nothing to abuse her. Yes- he does throw her in a dungeon, but that is quickly remedied and the rest of his actions are either fairly neutral or actually kind. At no point does Belle take Rumple’s lack of abuse to be kindness, she responds to his actual kind deeds.

That brings us to the second part of the definition. Belle, while sympathetic towards Rumple- never tries to put herself on his level. Rather, she works to bring him to hers. She thinks he should see things her way, not the reverse. More importantly, when he rejects that she leaves. Twice. Both from his castle and from his home. When she sees that he is unwilling to make the necessary changes she goes. She’s not happy about it, and she is sorry that she has to, but she leaves. It stands to reason that if she’d insisted on staying in the castle back in FTL, Rumple would have let her. Things may have been icy for a while, but he would never have harmed her and a large part of him didn’t want her to go. This is why his interest is piqued when Regina tells him the ‘tragic tale’ and for a moment he believes Belle may be in need of a place to stay. At that moment, he would have eagerly welcomed her back.

A similar series of events happens back in Storybrooke. Belle (sadly) leaves Gold when it becomes apparent that he hasn’t changed as much as he’d like her to believe. Whether she believes her departure will act as motivation for him to change is unclear, but the fact remains that she didn’t stay captive despite her feelings.

I would also say that as threats go- Belle had a very different view of Rumplestiltskin from the get-go. She definitely understood his power, but at no time do we ever get the slightest hint that she’s afraid of him. In fact, during the flashbacks of “Lacey” she tells Robin Hood so. So if Belle isn’t afraid of the beast, there’s no reason for her to develop a coping mechanism to defend herself against him, and since she never developed one, she didn’t end up falling back on it when things went badly. This is what gave her the freedom to make the choice to leave in both cases.

I think this is interesting because the show is very much about parallels and comparisons. I think the way events are unfolding now, Lacey herself is the new beast in the pair. The question is- will Gold be able to walk away as Belle did? I really think that while there is a certain desperation that drew Gold to Lacey, he is soon going to realize that she isn’t the girl for him and that he doesn’t love her. That’s going to be a hard realization, but when it comes- I think he’ll be the one to walk away.

"Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is more difficult than to understand him."

[laurieanne]

I love this explanation and thanks for the definition of SS. I also think that Gold will be the one to walk away if it becomes clear that Lacey is truly dark and wants him to go dark as well. It’s interesting to me that in almost every interview that Emilie gave last week, she said that Lacey is just a free spirit, she isn’t really bad, she just does what she wants and doesn’t care what people think. Maybe there were things left out via editing that gave her a more rounded character, but I definitely saw a girl who was attracted to the dark side of the Dark One. I am all in favor of this storyline and I love what it gives the actors to play with.

I like your description of Lacey as the new beast – exactly. It is a Rumple growth/redemption arc kicked up a few notches on the emotional spectrum because of his love for Belle.

[thelonebamf]

Perhaps the way it will work out is that Gold will realize that Belle helped him to walk towards goodness and that Lacey will help him do so- but in a different way because wheras he had to walk with Belle to get there, he’ll have to walk away from Lacey. I can easily imagine a heartfelt “You ended up helping me find myself after all” goodbye to Lacey just before we get Belle back. 🙂

"Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is more difficult than to understand him."

[angiebelle]

Thank you for the explanation of Stockholm Syndrome- I *knew* Belle didn’t fit! Hearing that Belle has Stockholm Syndrome is one of my biggest pet peeves of all the complaints people have about the princess characters. I’m glad to know I’m not just being biased.

I wonder if it will end up being Gold who eventually has to bring out the good in Lacey for a change. I agree that Lacey came across as darker than Emilie implied. It was positively disturbing to watch her practically cheer Gold on as he beat Keith with his cane. I think Gold will slip for a while, unable to resist that his darkness turns Lacey on, but eventually he will realize that he will lose Belle if he continues.

I wonder what effect being Lacey will have on Belle once her memories come back. I think she’ll be horrified that she behaved like that! And she will also be horrified at Gold’s behavior. I think that maybe that is what Emilie meant by resolution- Belle will remember again but everything is going to be such a shock for her that things might not be all hunky dory afterwards.

[thelonebamf]

Hearing people bring up Stockholm Syndrome in regards to Beauty and the Beast is a pet peeve of mine as well. I guess it’s just people trying to be edgy while applying real world issues to fairy tale characters to make statements about feminism etc.

Belle/Beauty has long been a favorite character of mine and Beauty and the Beast has been one of my favorite stories for as long as I can remember, so it’s one of those things that I’ve picked apart time and time again. I think it’s so strange that this story is the one that comes under fire- when it’s one of the few where a girl is an active heroine. Most fairy tales (or at least most of the ones in common circulation) feature the female lead as a damsel in distress, and sure, I guess that’s problematic- but these stories are hundreds of years old and it’s not like the world was as forward thinking as we’d like to think ourselves. So why is it that Beauty (I’m just going to be generic about the fairy tale) gets some of the harshest criticism? I know a lot of critics would like to see young girls today engrossed in stories with active female heroes, but I think it’s a fallacy to think that the only way a female can be heroic is to pick up a sword and go fight a monster. Beauty wins the day not by fighting, but by learning and wielding empathy. It may be a bit much to say that these are tools commonly associated with the female gender, but I think they are tools that are more accessible to anyone than enchanted weaponry or magic. 🙂 To be honest, these are skills that children of either gender could stand to learn.

Sure, other princesses have been critiqued, Snow White gets it for being either a maid or asleep during her story and the Little Mermaid is faulted for giving up her life for a man, but Beauty seems to get more than her fair share of hate.

Back to Lacey- yes, I have to agree about the scene with Keith. I think the whole episode played a lot darker than Emilie hinted it would, perhaps just because of small details. Did they really have to be making out by a *dumpster*? Did she really have to look so impressed when Gold *returned* to beating the heck out of Keith? The episode went from being awkwardly adorable (“I need dating advice!” “I’m so nervous I spilled the tea!”) to being downright scary. I’m hoping Gold has a “What have I done” moment sooner rather than later. Maybe he’ll be with Lacey for a bit before realizing he doesn’t feel the same way he did with Belle.

If I can draw from personal experience, I’d say that the feeling that I was reading in Rumple’s interactions with Belle were quite complex, but there was a definite amount of uneasiness with her. I don’t mean that she made him feel badly, but she was always making him question things, especially himself. Carlyle does an AMAZING job at pouring emotion into the briefest of glances at Belle. Sometimes it seems as though he can’t believe what he’s hearing. Other times it’s a question of what’s going to happen next. And at other times, it’s the sort of look you give a loved one when you realize you’ve made yourself vulnerable to them- and entrusted them not to hurt you, but you’re still in the fearful stage that something might go wrong. Gold has none of that with Lacey. Lacey is too easy (and I don’t mean that in the slang sense). She doesn’t challenge him, she simply enables him. That uneasiness and questioning aspect of the relationship is missing, and I think Gold will come to realize that soon enough.

"Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is more difficult than to understand him."

[Myril]

@thelonebamf wrote:

Hearing people bring up Stockholm Syndrome in regards to Beauty and the Beast is a pet peeve of mine as well. I guess it’s just people trying to be edgy while applying real world issues to fairy tale characters to make statements about feminism etc.

What I’ve seen as commentaries has little to do with making statements about feminism or other “isms”. Think more it is quite simple that some people find a relationship gross between a man, who is doing so much evil, and could be called a monster, and a woman, who (at first at least) is forced to go and stay with him, because that is what this man demands as price for his help to protect her family and kingdom against ogres. More, Belle is developing sympathy for Rumple after a while, insisting that there is something good in him, despite that Rumple again and again is using people, torturing, killing, doing whatever he thinks he has a right to do and serves his purpose. Some people are looking for something to explain, why Belle despite knowing, having witnessed what Rumple is capable of and is still doing so, insists to see something good in him and keeps hoping for a change to the good, it seems to them disillusional. Explaining it as Stockholm Syndrom kinda helps to deal with the story.

You make some interesting points, why Stockolm Syndrom might not apply to Belle in this show. But a few thoughts concerning kindness and abuse: Abuse can take different forms. Doesn’t look to me like Rumple allowed much contact to other people at first, so factually he was isolating Belle. Isolation is abuse. It is a mean to keep someone under control. It takes away chances to talk to other people, learn about events from the view of others besides yourself and your captivator / abuser. The captivator controls who you have contact with, what you get to see and hear, and how. Rumple locks Belle up over night, at least looked like that, and she can’t decide for herself to come and go until he gives her back the right to decide, that is cruel. Her life, and the life of her family and the people in her kingdom (still don’t like that they did that, why make her a princess) is under constant threat, Rumple can take it away any time. Belle has value for Rumple, had before he started to have feelings for her, his kindness is not an act of pure kindness, it serves him. And not only can the kidnapped, the hostage develop a bonding but so can the captivator over time, the longer the more likely it happens, something sometimes overlooked.

The coping mechanism, what is called in the Wikipedia article identifying with the captivator (not the best term for the processes going on, but leave it at that) is not about dealing with fear for life, or to defend against the captivator, it is to overcome the loss of control or the feeling of loss of control in the situation.

The most astounding thing in cases of abuses and kidnappings is, that occasionally even when having the chance to leave, the abused/captivated person doesn’t leave, because they don’t want to, see even anyone trying to free them as a threat (Stockholm syndrom). They have established by then a relationship to their captivators making them believe, that they have a good enough reason for what they are doing, that they are in control together with the captivator, that they have to stay even to help them to achieve their goals or at least to protect them from being taken down. That doesn’t mean, that they have to fully believe in the same values or put themselves on their captivators levels. But it does mean they make the well-being and the motivation of the captivator their concern, eventually even to the degree to lose regards for their own well-being.

Not saying, the Bell-Rumple story is a typical case of what is called Stockholm Syndrom, but I can see why some people see elements of it in this relationship.

As I see it though the real issue in the whole discussion has been not so much the Beauty but the Beast, not Belle but Rumple. Let’s say, it makes look Rumple more sympathetic than some think any evil guy should look. A lot of people have problems with how Regina is portrayed as well, not always the same people, but often. It’s a general thing about OUaT, a growing uneasiness with how evil is treated and portrayed on the show. Through the relationships, with Belle in case of Rumple/Gold, Henry in case of Regina, the way the relationships appear, it seems like it doesn’t matter what the bad guys do, there is someone always loving them. Okay, there is the threat that this person will turn away, but it looks like the evil guys had not to do much to win the heart of the person, they only have now to struggle to keep it.

Bad guys don’t have normal relationships, and particular not with good people. Klischee, but something many expect. Black-and-white is so much easier to deal with than all the shades of grey. From this point of view it is far easier to accept a relationship between Rumple and Cora than the relationship between Rumple and Belle. There must be something wrong about it, Belle has to be mentally not all sane, otherwise she as a good person would leave that bad guy in an instant. It just can’t be right. It’s a lovely side that Belle sees something good in him, somewhere buried, and has hopes for him to change, but at least she should stay away from him as long as he hasn’t changed, draw a line, and be clear to everybody how much she despises his evil doings. Staying with him seems to diminish the evilness of what Rumple has done and is doing in general (not actually true but it can look like it). (And not my view, just describing how it can be perceived and is by some.)

The way Belle reacted to Hook was a pivotal moment in the discussion. She declares Hook has a rotten heart, denying him what she is so willing to give Rumple again and again – benefit of the doubt. There had been some calling it Stockholm Syndrom before, but from what I observed on forums that was a point for more people to finally get grossed out by the story line, the relationship. And it does raise questions, doesn’t it?

And more people seem now to find it questionable after seeing Lacey. If Lacey is a person somewhat attracted to violence, what does that might tell about Belle and the whole relationship of Rumbelle? Possible Lacey is the opposite, or maybe she is the worst version of Belle. It might be something Regina specifically set up to punish Gold, or it is based on traits which exist in Belle as well, but didn’t show or only in a very different way. Whatever, after this episode there are some more question about the character of Rumbelle.

I know a lot of critics would like to see young girls today engrossed in stories with active female heroes, but I think it’s a fallacy to think that the only way a female can be heroic is to pick up a sword and go fight a monster. Beauty wins the day not by fighting, but by learning and wielding empathy. It may be a bit much to say that these are tools commonly associated with the female gender, but I think they are tools that are more accessible to anyone than enchanted weaponry or magic. 🙂 To be honest, these are skills that children of either gender could stand to learn.

The thing is not, if women can use other tools, as you call it, to be heroic (and agree that heroism shouldn’t be reduced to physical fights), it is that women too can use tools, which have been seen as pretty much men-only way to be heroic, aka weapons and fighting skills, physical violence. It was denied to women to take up the sword and fight, that is why we make such a big deal about women kicking butt on movie and TV screen, be it as the bad, evil woman or as good hero. There is a reason why some make a difference between heroine and female hero. Heroism was connected to masculine ideals, our images of what men typically are and do.

I don’t share your impression, that the Beauty and the Beast gets more criticism than other fairy tales, it gets its share. If there is something special about this tale, then that it is more disputed, if the tale is eventually even a somewhat feminist tale. It is though only common believe, that most other fairy tales feature a damselle-in-distress as female lead, it is not fact.

It doesn’t matter in my opinion, that fairy tales (and folk tales) have been around hundred of years in one or other versions, it doesn’t matter what the cultural and society background was then (unless for looking at changes and to understand how world was understood and seen then), what is in question is how we read and retell them today with our cultures and societies as background.

Not going deeper into these discussions now here, female heroes as well as feminist views on fairy tales, it would go beyond the scope of this topic (not to mention this post is already lengthy)

¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯

[obisgirl]

@thelonebamf wrote:

So if Belle isn’t afraid of the beast, there’s no reason for her to develop a coping mechanism to defend herself against him, and since she never developed one, she didn’t end up falling back on it when things went badly. This is what gave her the freedom to make the choice to leave in both cases.

😮 😯 Seriously, you are my hero. Your English teachers must have seriously loved you when you’d give them essays in high school or college.

Again, I read the whole thing 😆 but you broke down perfectly why SS definitely does not fit Belle.

@thelonebamf wrote:

I think this is interesting because the show is very much about parallels and comparisons. I think the way events are unfolding now, Lacey herself is the new beast in the pair. The question is- will Gold be able to walk away as Belle did? I really think that while there is a certain desperation that drew Gold to Lacey, he is soon going to realize that she isn’t the girl for him and that he doesn’t love her. That’s going to be a hard realization, but when it comes- I think he’ll be the one to walk away.

.

It’s going to be an interesting relationship ahead for them. I’d hate to see Gold walk away from Belle, but that could very well happen if she doesn’t change. He wants to be better for his son, but there’s this conflict to be with Belle regardless of how she’s changed.

[thelonebamf]

Thanks obisgirl, but I think maybe the compliment is undeserved. ^_^;; Myril brings up a lot of good points, several of which I don’t have a good answer for (but I’ll do my best because hot diggity do I like pulling these sorts of things apart). I’ll do my best to keep it relevant to the thread and as much about OUAT Belle as possible.

I think one of the great things about the show is that it doesn’t deal entirely in absolutes of black/white *or* shades of grey. While the show definitely adheres to some core, unbreakable truths- many of the rules are bendable and open to interpretation. This is fantastic! I love that there are people who disagree with my interpretation of characters and who adore characters I loathe. When I first started poking into the fandom and saw the huge amount of support within the fandom for Regina I was surprised and then overjoyed. I really dislike Regina, but the show is varied enough that other people found her relatable. HOW COOL.

So I just want to go ahead and say that I think this is really relevant to our disagreement about Belle and her feelings and actions. (And that this is totally okay and awesome and I’m happy to disagree with you on some things.) But I also agree with you about a lot.

First of all, I want to go ahead and say that I don’t think the show is painting the story of Belle/Rumple as an ideal romantic relationship. I mean, that’s really the whole driving point of the show, isn’t it? That fairy tales have their dark sides: true love doesn’t always work out, “happily ever after” may not last as long as one would hope, innocents suffer, and everyone’s journey is a difficult one. The only thing that makes FTL different than our world is the existence of those few, shining absolute concepts (true love’s kiss etc) that are usually tied to magic.

So back to Belle and her feelings. I think perhaps people may fall in to two camps of thought about this. If you think that she went with this stranger, got locked up, and eventually decided that there must be good in him somewhere despite evidence to the contrary- yes, that is extremely problematic. However, I think the other possibility is that her “sense about people” (or however she phrased it in Lacey) was “active” from the moment she laid eyes on Rumplestiltskin, and she chose to go with him because at no point did she believe she ever had anything to fear from him. If that’s the case, then it’s more the story of her initial impression of him persevering throughout their time together (and then eventually strengthening) and that’s a different series of events all together.

It wasn’t until recently that I had even thought about Belle and Hook’s interactions- so thank you to everyone in the forums here that brought that up. I’ll try not to repeat too much of what I’ve said elsewhere but maybe to tackle their interaction from a different direction. To be frank, we don’t know a lot about Hook. I mean, we know that he’s a pirate, he seemed to be relatively loved by his crew, and he did love Milah. Other than that- much of his character is a mystery. We have no idea what his actions in Neverland might have been and it’s really difficult to judge him the same way we judge Rumplestiltskin (of whom we have so much backstory). So it does really seem unfair for Belle to react to him with so much venom when she witnessed Rumplestiltskin do so much worse.

That is- unless we go ahead and assume that there is something to the whole “people sense” ability she has. (And I admit, this is dubious. Even Emma’s much toted “lie detector” skills seemed only so-so.) She didn’t have to get to know Hook because she was able to sense right away that at his core- he was evil. It’s got little to do with his actual actions- after all, someone can do good things but still have a dark heart. I imagine that in the next few episodes we’re going to see exactly what Hook is capable of.

I think it’s also worth stating that I think Belle has responded not to the Dark One side of Rumple, but to his old self. That’s the “good” that she sees in him. While Rumple as the Dark One was certainly a bad guy- I wonder (just for grins) what kind of villainy Hook would have gotten up to under the same curse. (And it’s important to remember that there *is* still a curse on Rumplestiltskin. It’s one that he chose, and one that he leans on, but it is a curse.) Even at his most powerful (say in the Robin Hood sequence of events) Rumple still had “standards” of behavior. Perhaps the “rotten core” that Belle remarked on in Hook means that without limits- he could have been a much worse villain.

This is all speculation of course, but it’s fun speculation.

Just to touch lightly on the female heroism thing-
I absolutely agree, there’s a lack of females fighting their foes with, err… I don’t know how to put this, so I’ll just say “traditionally male” methods (swords, punching, flame throwers, ninja skills…) but I also think that’s just not what B&B is *about*. I mean, it’s okay for there to be a story about having empathy and understanding. Those are tools as well, and it’s okay to embrace them. I honestly really liked the Magwai story because it showed two women using different strengths- Mulan as a traditional warrior, and Belle realizing she should just do what she was good at- understanding things and disecting puzzles.

I didn’t mean to imply that all or even most fairy tales are about damsels in distress, I just meant that most of the ones that are heavily marketed are. If you asked 100 people off the street to name ten fairy tales, you’re going to get a lot more “Cinderella” and “Snow White” before you get “The Robber Bridegroom” or “Bremen’s Town Musicians”. In a lot of people’s minds fairy tales are equated with princesses. Admittedly, this has heaps to do with Disney. Disney fairy tales are the definitive version in so many people’s minds, just because that’s what they see the most of- but this is actually another reason I’m so glad OUAT is playing in that universe. It helps to develop so many characters (Snow White is a great example) but showing that they weren’t just princesses in far away towers.

But um, yep! Sorry for continuing to derail the thread.I’ll try to be good, I promise. ^_^;;

"Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is more difficult than to understand him."

[Author]

Posts