- This topic has 25,813 replies, 124 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I think the main sticking point for most people about Hook isn’t that he’s done bad things (most of the characters on this show have done bad things at some point), it’s the fact that he suffers no consequences for these bad things which builds resentment. For example, in season 2, Hook threatened Belle, shot her and made her lose he memories. His “redemption” arc started at the end of season 2 yet he did not genuinely apologise to her until season 6. In-universe the time span between those two seasons might not be long (though it’s over a year because of the missing year), however, for the audience it’s been 4 YEARS! Yet somehow, Belle and Hook became best friends and everyone thinks the sun shines out of Hook’s backside. Now, in all fairness, Hook has made some great leaps forward in season 6. I used to HATE Hook during seasons 2,3,4 and 5 but now during season 6 I actually kind of like him (if only because of the fact that he one of the only characters, besides Rumple and Gideon, that gives a damn about Belle). I think Hook garners a lot of hate, not necessarily because of Hook himself, but because of how bad he makes other characters look. More specifically, how bad he makes EMMA look. Emma is not the same character we met in season 1. This has nothing to do with her “walls” or lack of them now, it’s her personality. Emma has had a personality transplant for the worse. She used to care about people, anyone who needed help, regardless of who they are, now the only one Emma cares about is Hook. Even her own son and family fall by the wayside. CS is unhealthy because of Emma’s tunnel vision. If the writers were trying to make a point about how anyone, even “heroes”, could find themselves in an unhealthy relationship, then CS would be a great storyline as we see Emma get sucked in more and more as the series progresses. However, the writers have tried to play CS as this “great romance” and it’s just not built right. Hook and Emma had GREAT CHEMISTRY in Tallahassee (back when Emma was still Emma) and the writers could’ve built from there a snarky relationship that develops into something more. Instead they have Hook leave Emma and co to die in a cell, he terrorises Belle and shoots her, betrays Regina to GOAT, and nearly leaving the town to die. All terrible things that should’ve at least garnered a “What the hell, Hook?!” if not more. He came back to help and assisted in travelling to Neverland to save Henry, a good first step, but suddenly all he he’s interested in is getting into Emma’s pants. He didn’t go to Neverland for Henry’s sake, he went because it would make him look good to Emma. The moment Hook looks like he’s making progress, he takes two steps back. Does he get called out on this behaviour? Nope! Emma turns a blind eye. That the problem. The Emma we knew in the early seasons would’ve taken Hook down several pegs instead of pandering after him and ignoring any of his misdeeds. Emma is no longer Emma. Add in the bizarre costume choices and Emma looks ill, she’s lost that bright spark she had in the early seasons. Hook is now the more sympathetic character in the CS relationship because he’s inadvertently got himself attached to a clingy, needy woman. It wouldn’t surprise me if Emma goes all Misery on him and breaks his ankles with a wooden mallet just so that he can’t leave her, physically, literally and metaphorically.
ALL OF THIS AND AMEN
[adrotate group="5"]And then to say that justifies Rumple behavior of cutting off Hook’s hand and then killing Milah when he realized she loved Hook and not him…..I mean come on.
You’re equating the need to apologize with justification of action. My point is simply that Rumple does not owe Hook an apology for Milah just because Hook happened to love her — which is what you said, I think. Your argument is asymmetrical: Rumple also happened to love her, and so did Bae — so by your logic, either Hook also owes them an apology for “taking her away from them”, or no one does. Rumple owes Milah an apology for sure, but not to Hook. Maybe another way of putting it is this: an apology is owed, but not owed to Hook.
And by the same token, Hook owes no apology to Rumple for Milah’s running away (Rumple’s love for Milah or Belle or whoever also entitles him to absolutely nothing). Milah’s her own person, and made her own decisions, however flawed and problematic. If he owes an apology to Rumple, it is for being an arrogant jackass about it. Hence the unspoken rule of ‘shall thee covet thy neighbor’s wife, at least have the decency to not gloat about it’. Similarly, if Hook and Rumple were to actually mend fences, Rumple would owe Hook an apology for chopping off his hand. But those two will never mend fences, so I think all this is moot anyway.
But I guess what I take issue with in your argument is this idea that somehow Hook’s love entitles him to something. It entitles him to nothing. And that’s just the problem, a lot of this show, the development of CS, and the discussions around it, seem to imply that just because Hook loves Emma (or Hook, more generally, wants [fill in blank]), he is somehow entitled to it. None of this was ever implied about Neal, no matter how he felt about Emma. Similarly, the show never implies that Rumple’s or Regina’s claims on what they might want somehow entitles them to the desired object. Quite the opposite. Villains don’t get happy endings — that’s an active theme in the show. And this has been systematically the case for even our redeemed villains. This is especially poignant with Regina, since her redemption arc is so compelling and convincing, and you want her to get a happy ending, but it eludes her, thereby reminding the audience that the past misdeeds still affect the universe’s karmic calculus, if you will. As it should be.
But never for Hook. Hook wants to be a hero — he gets to be a hero faster than you can say Pasta Salad. Hook wants the girl — he gets the girl, in spades. Hook wants to atone for his past misdeeds — he gets plenty of low ball opportunities to do so and accolades from everyone but Rumple, which makes me appreciate Rumple all the more, honestly. No one likes a Gary Stu. The only thing Hook doesn’t get is his supposed death wish.
The problem with Hook is that it is enough for him to be just perfectly adequate to be hailed as hero by the show. Like, he’s not actively killing people and seems to be doing some basically decent things that normal humans might do for each other in a normal community when someone is in trouble. I mean right, good on Hook for not being a despicable human being anymore — why is this enough to shift the karmic calculus so far in Hook’s favor, when it isn’t for Regina, for example? We can go down the rabbit hole of which villain was more villainous, but that’s not my point. My point is that for the other villains, desire for something opens a question. Do they deserve it? Will they get a chance to do it? Will they slide back? For Hook, that question is never open. He is never, truly at risk of losing his happy ending, the favor of the other characters, and his agency in the plot.
The Emma we knew in the early seasons would’ve taken Hook down several pegs instead of pandering after him and ignoring any of his misdeeds. Emma is no longer Emma.
Yes, this is exactly my sense too. To make CS work, the writers re-wrote Emma, and that’s what I find so problematic in this. The bunny boiler isn’t far off…
The moment Hook looks like he’s making progress, he takes two steps back. Does he get called out on this behaviour? Nope! Emma turns a blind eye. That the problem. The Emma we knew in the early seasons would’ve taken Hook down several pegs instead of pandering after him and ignoring any of his misdeeds. Emma is no longer Emma. Add in the bizarre costume choices and Emma looks ill, she’s lost that bright spark she had in the early seasons. Hook is now the more sympathetic character in the CS relationship because he’s inadvertently got himself attached to a clingy, needy woman.
This is pretty much spot on. Before anyone says we’re biased or embittered, need I remind you that Liam flat out said that Hook was too good for Emma because of how selfishly she treated Hook in S5a?
Liam: Emma, can we talk?
Emma: (Sighs) Is this like a protective big brother talk where you want to make sure I’m good enough for Killian?
Liam: No, because I already know you’re not good enough.
Emma: (Shocked) What?
Liam: Killian blames himself for ending up here, but he told me what happened. Sounds to me like it’s not his fault. It’s yours.
Emma: I think we both made mistakes.
Liam: Killian’s been fighting darkness his entire life, and you pushed him off the cliff.
Emma: I was trying to save his life.
Liam: (In a sharp tone) And it was a bloody selfish thing to do. He had a chance to die a hero, to move on, and you took it from him.
Emma: That’s not fair. I’m down here risking everything to save him.
Liam: And is that really what he needs… or what you need?
Emma: Were you this self-righteous when you were alive?
Liam: When it came to my brother, yes. If he defeats Hades today, he’ll forgive himself and he’ll have another chance to move on. When that happens, stop thinking about your own desires and let him go.Liam was, of course, sticking up for his little brother. At first, I thought it was strange that Liam would say Hook was too good for Emma seeing how Hook is a pirate, but Liam has a point. It was Emma’s fault that Hook became a dark one because of her own selfish insecurity. Only a few characters like Liam and Regina seem to get that neither Hook nor Emma bring out the best in each other.
Also, I don’t see how anyone who is or was a real fan of Emma could be unconcerned for her internalized victim blaming and codependency. (Please, see my list a couple of pages back for my complete assessment). Emma is so codependent with Hook that she chose to use the pixie dust to find him rather than wake up her parents — despite not knowing if there were another way to wake them up. Yes, Emma had Snow’s blessing, but what about Emma’s little brother? Should she have even risked making him grow up without their parents the way she had to?
"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
None of this was ever implied about Neal, no matter how he felt about Emma.
If anything it was the exact opposite with Neal. It was stated by characters that Neal and Emma may *never* get back together (I think they would have obviously through lots of pain and hard work and conversation and forgiveness) but if you want text from the show to demonstrate this basic difference then just look at the two conversations each man has with Emma in NVL.
Neal, in 3×10 “The New Neverland”
Neal: Listen, Henry’s back and he’s safe. We all are. Okay, look, I’ll make it easier for you. Tomorrow I’m gonna be hungry just around lunchtime and so I’m gonna come here. (He points to a table.) I’m gonna sit in that booth and you’re welcome to join me. And if not, I’ll quit bugging you.
Hook, in 3×7 “‘Dark Hollow”
So when I win your heart, Emma… and I will win it… it will not be because of any trickery. It will be because you want me.
Like honestly this is the most entitled dreck from Hook. She has no choice in the matter, it’s inevitable. It’s basically a done deal and he’s just waiting for “the fun to begin.” Yes, he says Emma will have to choose but in his entitled mind, the choice is already made and he’s won. When Emma responds that this isn’t a contest, his response is “isn’t it?”
So I 100% agree with what @PriceOfMagic is saying about how Hook makes Emma look/act, but I would add that I still dislike Hook because I see him as an embodiment of white male privilege that turns women into objects that exist for their story. Which is largely POM’s point.
So yes Hook has made progress. In fact, he’s more tolerable now than he’s ever been. However, like @nevermore said, he’s still being written from an entitled white male privilege standpoint (not surprising given half the writers in that room are the same). Whatever Hook gives up, he gets back. He abandoned his baby brother after killing their father? He gets his brother back, his brother’s forgiveness, and more or less a *shrug* about the whole parental murdering. He gives up his ship? He gets it back. He murders Charming’s father and lies to Emma about it? He gets Charming’s instant forgiveness and Emma takes the blame on herself for making the situation hard for him. And the rationale behind these last two–the ship and Charming/Emma–is that it’s his reward for his heroism and because he loves Emma so much.
@nevermore makes a really good point that Regina is the best contrast here. Regina loses Robin? He doesn’t come back and she’s constantly having to look her past sins in the face–like her literal evil half terrorizing the town she’s attempted to make good in."He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I’m now of the opinion that either this show is a modern critique of what happens to Katherine in Taming of the Shrew (call it “Taming of the Swan”), or this show has made no progress in how it portrays women since the time of Shakespeare (another white male). It’s probably the latter – tragically
"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’m now of the opinion that either this show is a modern critique of what happens to Katherine in Taming of the Shrew (call it “Taming of the Swan”), or this show has made no progress in how it portrays women since the time of Shakespeare (another white male). It’s probably the latter – tragically
LOL!! This right here has made my day.
Emma is not an actual person. Emma cannot be happy. She doesn’t have feelings. She is just written certain ways. This is about how character is written. That is what i don’t understand. It just seems like people are suggesting that we should care whether or not Emma, a fake person, is happy. That seems crazy to me and shouldn’t take precedents over how the writing of the show is commenting on life and how that is important. It is just having an entirely different discussion then a lot of people are having here.
It just seems like people are suggesting that we should care whether or not Emma, a fake person, is happy. That seems crazy to me and shouldn’t take precedents over how the writing of the show is commenting on life and how that is important.
This is the crux of it. The problem is not the fictional characters themselves, but what they REPRESENT. It’s a point that has been made in this discussion, and many times previously too. People, including myself, are disturbed about the messages being sent by this show.
To me, CS reflects and reinforces some socio-political attitudes which I find highly toxic, including (but not limited to):
– An attractive, straight white man who has feelings for a woman is entitled to her love.
– Romantic love takes precedence over other types of love.
– A good couple is a straight, white couple of a similar age and this is the epitome of romantic. The actual behaviour of the couple is secondary to how “cute” they look together.
So basically, the reason I am willing to devote time and energy to this topic, time and time again is because:
1) The behaviour of the characters and the relationship itself glorify socio-political attitudes which are toxic.
2) I believe that media reflects and reinforces social attitudes, and thus deserves criticism when promoting unhealthy messages.
It has nothing to do with picking on men in leather. Nor is it about being bitter that the fictional heroine is paired with someone with Colin O’Donohue’s face instead of MRJ’s face.
My question to non-CS fans who nevertheless feel the need to defend Emma, Hook and CS is this: Which part of the above argument do you disagree with? I am genuinely curious to know. Do you simply interpret their behaviour differently and not see it as any way unhealthy? Do you disagree that a show can have any effect on societal attitudes, detrimental or otherwise?
You say you care about Emma. Does she look happy to you? Because to me, she looks like death and acts like a pod person. Do you really want a woman you care about to be in a relationship where lack of trust is a big issue? A relationship which brings out her selfish side and a host of behaviours that make her seem codependent? Conversely, if Hook were a man you cared about, would you want him in a relationship where his partner disregards his dying wishes TWICE? Turns him into something he hates because SHE doesn’t want to lose him? Rifles through his possesions? These questions are not intended to be rhetorical. I am genuinely curious to know how you reconcile these behaviours into a picture that suggests a happy relationship – one that actually deserves to be glorified.
Emma is not an actual person. Emma cannot be happy. She doesn’t have feelings. She is just written certain ways. This is about how character is written. That is what i don’t understand. It just seems like people are suggesting that we should care whether or not Emma, a fake person, is happy. That seems crazy to me and shouldn’t take precedents over how the writing of the show is commenting on life and how that is important. It is just having an entirely different discussion then a lot of people are having here.
Yes, Emma is a fictional character, but that doesn’t mean we, the members of the audience, don’t feel for her. I don’t think it’s true to say that it’s crazy that we should care about a fake person’s happiness. It’s not crazy; it’s actually part of basic human nature. Neuroscience researchers at Emory University have proposed that the same neural mechanisms that enable us to emphasize with real people also make us emphasize with fictional characters. Specialized brain cells called “motor neurons” are the proposed biological substrate of empathy, and these same specialized neurons are what get activated when we watch others we care about, whether real or fictional, go through difficulty. It’s proposed that these motor neurons are what allow us to take a walk in someone else’s shoes. The fact that so many people feel strongly about their favorite characters has a lot to do with their ability to identify with said characters on some level, despite the often fantastical situation. Hence, many people worry about Emma, who is a self-insert character, because they actually cared about her once the way they would a friend. Yes, it’s a bit silly, but it’s basic human psychology and biology.
In the film Shadowlands, there is a line that underscores this point well: “we read to know we’re not alone.” I think the reason humanity enjoys fiction is precisely because we see ourselves in these characters. For me, character studies are just as important as the quality of the writing. In fact, I would say that the quality of the characterization is a reflection of the quality of the writing. A good writer has the ability to make fictional characters come alive and act in ways that one would expect in real life. For many of us, Emma was the character who was one of the most believable characters from seasons 1-3a because she reacted in ways that we ourselves might react if we discovered on our 28th birthday that fairytales were real and not merely children’s make-believe stories.
To what @sciencevsmagic wrote, the problem then arises not from the characters themselves but from how they’re represented. I think that goes back to the point I made about how poor characterization is a reflection of poor writing. Indeed, I think television and other media show the struggles of the individual against the social pressures she finds herself in. So, it’s a problem when a once-amazing chacter slowly starts to crumple under the social pressures she finds herself in instead of fighting back. It’s even more troublesome when the narrative itself seems to suggest that it’s somehow desireable for said person to give in and to conform to said social pressures (in this case restrictive social and gender norms) in order to be loved, accepted, etc. That is why it’s so unappealing for many of us, especially educated female audience members, to see what is happening to Emma. It’s because of what she represnted: a strong female character. She was someone many of us admired. We saw ourselves in her! Do you know how rare it is and was to have a show centered around a strong female savior who doesn’t take crap from people? Let’s just say it’s rare! That is what this show used to be about but not longer is. That is why it’s so painful to see what has happened to Emma. She isn’t just one character. She represents many of us young women who grew up in the third and fourth waves of the feminist movement.
What happened to her?! Emma used to be this amazing, feisty heroine in season one, but very slowly, she’s been turned into this listless person who can’t go to the bathroom without Hook’s help. She wouldn’t even save her own parents after she spent an entire lifetime searching for them! What kind of terrible and crappy message is that to give to little girls? “Put your ex-pirate boryfriend who murdered your grandpa and tried to cover it up before your family or you won’t get love,” is so horrible as to be disturbing. Is that the show’s message for little girls now?! Emma from season one never would have done that! This happened on a show that has been proclaimed as feminist! The writers maintain that this show is about strong women, but I think this show is a sad wake-up call that Western women really haven’t made that much progress in the past century as I’d assumed or hoped. Being a young woman myself, I find that really troublesome. Jane Eyre was a much more forward-thinking woman than ever Emma Swan turned out to be, and Jane Eyre was written over 170 years ago (by a woman who had to use a male pseudonym)!
Humans have this amazing ability to identify with fictional characters, but it turns out that writers, especially Hollywood writers, often exploit this for short-term monetary gains. There’s even an expression of writers “selling out to Hollywood,” and sadly, now we know how where expression came from! A&E, with a lot of help from their mentor Damon Lindelof, managed to script this beautiful narrative about real hope and family reunions in season one. However, they sold their birthright for a bowl of stew. Instead of being remembered as a groundbreaking television show in the future as it was on target to do in season one, this show will sadly be cast aside in a crumpled heap on the floor the way so many other tired-out old television shows are. Perhaps that is a really fitting end for a show that just seems to have lost its very heart and soul.
"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
The writers maintain that this show is about strong women, but I think this show is a sad wake-up call that Western women really haven’t made that much progress in the past century as I’d assumed or hoped.
Yup. And just to be somewhat fair this isn’t just an OUAT problem. This is a media/cultural problem. “Strong women” is a buzzword in TV, it’s something writers and producers use as a way to attract viewers. But the problem is that a lot of writers have no idea what a “strong woman” is. They think that a “strong woman” is 1) tough and willing to get physical if the scene requires it 2) tough talker, swagger, threatening ect. In other words, they take characteristics that are traditionally read as male and put them in a female body which is its own special brand of misogyny. This isn’t to say that woman can’t be 1 and 2 but that’s not how “strong women” are actually defined. It’s about agency! A woman could be tough and physical but at the end of the day if all her actions and thoughts are only to serve her boyfriend/fiancee/husband’s story and her character comes to a halt/devolves then she’s not a strong female character. It’s about having control over your story and not being the passive object in another–usually male romantic partner–story.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"
The topic ‘Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire’ is closed to new replies.