- This topic has 25,813 replies, 124 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I was waiting for someone to object to this. It absolutely is not the most perfect comparison. You’re right, Hook did cause what he eventually fixed, whereas Rumple was just doing it for his family. Although I will say if you buy Hook not really being in control, than you could put the blame on Emma for turning him into the DO. But really, the comparison was both dark ones sacrificing themselves to save everyone. It was a loose comparison.
I do not buy that Hook was not in control. Emma and Rumpel were in control and completely at fault for their actions. How can it not be Hook’s fault for releasing evil dark ones on the world and yet be Emma’s fault for not letting Hook die? Either everything is not your fault because you are the dark one or everything is your fault. Emma was the dark one too. Emma clearly could decide one way or the other even if it was harder, so so could Hook.
[adrotate group="5"]Like others have said, if Rumple or Emma don’t get a pass for bad things they did as dark ones than neither does Hook. I also don’t think that a good deed omits one’s guilt of a bad deed.
Well said. We can’t dismiss the bad things Hook did, but we can’t dismiss him making the right decision and fighting it in the end.
On an abstract level, that’s a can of worms argument, especially if you’re in the US. (Along the lines of “do you give someone a gun/ teach someone to shoot if they might kill… what if that saves someone else’s life?” and so forth). I’m not touching that with a 40 foot pole
I’ll just say that I think that’s a slightly different type of moral slippery slope than some of Rumple’s more blatant misdeeds. I should amend my tone — I probably came across as more defensive or Rumple than I meant to be. I don’t think Rumple, as he’s written now, is defensible. The intent of my post was more about Rumple’s characterization. I think @Bar Farer nailed what happened to Rumple’s writing. After 3B Rumple is retconned in such a way that what was once “cowardice” became cowardice, no scare quotes.@RG also has something about this in Rumple’s thread, I think. From my perspective, S1-3 Rumple’s character is about the struggle of circumstance of birth vs abstract morality. It was also about toxic masculinity. “Cowardice” in scare quotes because the ideal of EF at the time is to send children to war, and to use the peasants for canon fodder. One could interpret Milah’s story as being about the social penalties of having a husband who does not conform to the standards of “proper” masculinity. Rumple’s story was also about a father who would do anything for his son, morality be damned — and this backfires for him and for Neal terribly. But what was the alternative? He was placed in an absolutely impossible situation. The characterization was thoughtful, but I think A&E were very ambivalent about Rumple from the start, and I suspect that this ambivalence has something to do with subtle classism. (The same way that OUAT is subtly racist). Essentially, one of the “take away points” of Rumple’s development is that if you give the “peasants” some power, they’re likely to misuse it. After 3B and the reboot, the quotation marks are removed, and the aspects of Rumple’s character that were before in “double speak” (which is to say, we had two lines of interpretation: Rumple’s society views him one way, but we, the audience, are shown a different story) are collapsed into one. Now, those features of Rumple that before were shown to be consequences of him reacting to his circumstances in a particular way are re-inscribed as inherent attributes of his character. I profoundly dislike this re-writing of Rumple because, among other things, it cements what was already present but a bit more subtle in Rumple S1-3: they first show us a story about someone from a very marginalized segment of society struggle against his circumstances, in ways that are often very problematic and have absolutely tragic consequences for others and for him. But 3b+ changes that, takes these same exact points, and says “that’s what people like this are like. Give them power, and they are corrupted to want more power.” It’s like the show starts with saying “People in a position of structural weakness sometimes do terrible things, but lets look at their circumstances. Maybe it’s more complicated.” and then it goes “Nope. They’re just bad people.” But at this point, I’ve written about this class thing so many times on here that I’m sounding like a broken record. :-/ Sorry for the rant! And on a lighter note, is anyone here watching The Expanse?I am sorry, but no. Rumpel taught Regina and Cora how to take a heart so they would kill. It is not because they might kill. He gave them a gun, taught them how to use it, then discussed how and who to kill with it. He is responsible for doing that and therefore partially responsible for those kills.
I don’t really want to go into Rumpel, but for me nothing has changed about his character. The only difference is that in Season 5 he said everything that i have always thought about his character. His character is a coward. He did wrong things out of fear even before he became the dark one and certainly since. Those actions have seriously harmed his family. He did those things because he wanted personal power. He became the dark one because he wanted power. He is still the dark one because he still wants power. Nothing is different between Rumpel now, in my opinion, and Rumpel in Season 1. He is exactly as i have always thought he was.
Hook not being in control is nonesense. If he couldn’t resist the darkness, then it should have been from the beginning of the season. It wasn’t, he was able to do what he wanted, the darkness didn’t affect him until episode 10, meaning the darkness was not in control. Not remembering that you are the dark one doesn’t mean that the affect wouldn’t be shown. If someone is sick and doesn’t know that, it doesn’t mean that the sickness won’t show its symptoms.
"All your questions are pointless"
Well said. We can’t dismiss the bad things Hook did, but we can’t dismiss him making the right decision and fighting it in the end.
While I don’t dismiss Hook’s eleventh-hour about-face, I also think he should stay dead. His death is a direct consequence of his bad acts committed as the dark one (brought on my Emma’s selfisness). Even Hook wanted to die; Emma should just honor his dying wish to let him go. GRR Martin’s words, “a good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good” apply here. Just because Hook had a last-minute change of heart, it doesn’t mean he suddenly deserves a medal of honor. No, he attempted to kill Emma’s family. Even more, by his own admission, Hook has killed at least a dozen people, including letting Nimue act through him to kill Merlin in some twisted, centirues-long quest for vengence. He should still pay for his past crimes. That is what justice (or karma) means. Consequently, I also don’t think anyone who’s committed cold-blodded murder on this show “deserves” a happy ending — no matter how many good deeds they’ve since done. Therefore, I think Rumple and Regina should stay behind in the Underworld with Hook and let some of their truly deserving victims go free (e.g. Henry Sr. but not Cora). [* ducks for cover and hides *]
"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
1. He is exactly as i have always thought he was.I agree with the partial responsibility argument, I’m simply pointing out that this type of critique (giving someone a weapon with the intent of getting that someone to use it to kill) is, abstractly, something that has contextual rather than universal morality (along the lines of what do you make of trained soldiers? Spies/political agents? Law enforcement?) it’s also an argument about the use and misuse of technology (taking hearts one might argue is a dark magic technology that’s there independently of Rumple). And I don’t think this is a place to debate political philosophy along the whole monopoly on violence argument so I’ll stop.
On the other points — As I said, I have 0 desire to get into a debate about Rumple’s “moral fiber,” or defending (or condemning) the character — this is unlikely to lead anowhere productive. I gave my interpretation of how I think Rumple’s been written, you gave yours, and neither of us is likely to find the other’s arguments convincing. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. 🙂
I do not buy that Hook was not in control. Emma and Rumpel were in control and completely at fault for their actions. How can it not be Hook’s fault for releasing evil dark ones on the world and yet be Emma’s fault for not letting Hook die? Either everything is not your fault because you are the dark one or everything is your fault. Emma was the dark one too. Emma clearly could decide one way or the other even if it was harder, so so could Hook.
I completely agree 100% with this. It’s one of the things that has annoyed me about 5A. Either Hook has to be held accountable for his actions as the dark one or Rumple should get a free pass for his actions as the dark one. It’s hypocritical writing, you can’t condemn one character whilst allowing another character to get off scot-free when they were both under the same influence.
I am sorry, but no. Rumpel taught Regina and Cora how to take a heart so they would kill. It is not because they might kill. He gave them a gun, taught them how to use it, then discussed how and who to kill with it. He is responsible for doing that and therefore partially responsible for those kills.
I don’t really want to go into Rumpel, but for me nothing has changed about his character. The only difference is that in Season 5 he said everything that i have always thought about his character. His character is a coward. He did wrong things out of fear even before he became the dark one and certainly since. Those actions have seriously harmed his family. He did those things because he wanted personal power. He became the dark one because he wanted power. He is still the dark one because he still wants power. Nothing is different between Rumpel now, in my opinion, and Rumpel in Season 1. He is exactly as i have always thought he was.
I disagree. Firstly in regards to Regina and Cora, Rumple may have loaded the gun and aimed it but at the end of the day, Regina and Cora were the ones who pulled the trigger so ultimately they have to take responsibility for their actions.
Rumple from S1-3B had his reasons for doing what he did. He was a morally grey character, he did the wrong things for the right reasons but he does regret it as implied by a scene between him and Snow White after Snow had killed Cora. It was only around 4A when Rumple suddenly became “for the evilz” and it was a considerable difference. Rumple wanting to “cleave” himself from the control of the dagger is understandable considering what he went through in 3B. However, for some unknown reason, the writers didn’t use that to explain Rumple’s motivation, it was all about the “power and the evilz” and that has never been Rumple’s character. He was never that straightforward.
I think the writers chose to vilify Rumple in order to make Hook look more heroic than he actually is. It’s all an illusion, you put a black spot on a white background, it sticks out like a sore thumb, put it on a dark background, it’s not so noticeable. In other words, Hooks actions against S1-3 Rumple make Hook look bad. Against S4 Rumple, Hook doesn’t look so bad as Rumple is worse.
Basically the writers took a complex layered character like Rumple and turned him into a moustache twirling cardboard villain in order to make Hook look better by comparison. Hook is not a hero in his own right, he is made to look like a hero because other characters are worse.
Hook not being in control is nonesense. If he couldn’t resist the darkness, then it should have been from the beginning of the season. It wasn’t, he was able to do what he wanted, the darkness didn’t affect him until episode 10, meaning the darkness was not in control. Not remembering that you are the dark one doesn’t mean that the affect wouldn’t be shown. If someone is sick and doesn’t know that, it doesn’t mean that the sickness won’t show its symptoms.
Agreed. This all goes back to the hypocritical writing. Either Hook was in control the whole time which means he has to be held accountable for his actions or, because Hook “didn’t know what he was doing”, Rumple should be given a free pass for his actions eg 4A onwards because he was under the influence of the dark one too and therefor “didn’t know what he was doing”.
An important part of fictional writing and world building is to set rules and constraints and stick to them. In this case, being the dark one means you either have full control or you don’t over your actions. You can’t have dark one A have control and dark one B doesn’t. It’s either one or the other otherwise it becomes inconsistent.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixWhile I don’t dismiss his eleventh-hour about-face, I also think he should stay dead.
No argument from me on this one.
Nothing is different between Rumpel now, in my opinion, and Rumpel in Season 1. He is exactly as i have always thought he was.
You will get quite the resistance on this. But based on everything I’ve seen, and how I’ve always seen Rumple, I tend to agree more along the lines of what you said. While there are parts of Rumple’s life, especially early on with Bae and Milah, that point to Rumple being more misunderstood and deep down only did certain things for his son, there are just too many examples that point to him only caring about the power. And it is only really in that one characteristic, that I believe Rumple hasn’t changed. It is only one part of his character, but it seems like it has been the driving force behind his character since becoming the DO. Obviously there is so much more to Rumple that makes him so complex, and based on the writing recently, also very confusing and inconsistent. But that one trait has always remained the same I think.
It is only one part of his character, but it seems like it has been the driving force behind his character since becoming the DO. Obviously there is so much more to Rumple that makes him so complex, and based on the writing recently, also very confusing and inconsistent. But that one trait has always remained the same I think.
I actually agree with you — Rumple’s search for power has been consistently presented as a symptom of his villainy. I just want to point out that on OUAT characters who consciously seek power (presumably beyond their station) tend to be cast as evil. This isn’t just Rumple — this is also Cora, Zelena, Regina, Isaac, Nimue etc
By contrast, characters who accidentally fall into or are born into power (Emma, Snow, Charming, Merlin) are not considered morally suspect. This is a classic fairytale trope, but one that OUAT reproduces non-reflexively.
The lack of reflexivity occasionally backfires when OUAT’s medieval universe encounters modern day sensibilities. So the idea that a desire for upward mobility always = overreaching and a sign of evil is kind of problematic
I actually agree with you — Rumple’s search for power has been consistently presented as a symptom of his villainy.
Hey! We found something we agree on! Haha. One down, and like 3454544 people to go.
Basically the writers took a complex layered character like Rumple and turned him into a moustache twirling cardboard villain in order to make Hook look better by comparison.
Disagree. This seems like unfair blame on the writers. Saying that they needed to make Rumple worse just so they could make Hook palatable, seems like you are just picking on the Hook character. I don’t think these two are mutually exclusive. Not everything revolves around CS.
The topic ‘Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire’ is closed to new replies.