- This topic has 25,813 replies, 124 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Emma is not an actual person. Emma cannot be happy. She doesn’t have feelings. She is just written certain ways.
I think we all know that. @Slurpeez gave a much more detailed and thought out response on the psychological and biological mechanisms of empathy than I could, but the point is that, yes we can take a step back and recall that she’s a fictional character, but humans have been using fiction to hack their brain and emotions probably since we developed symbolic language, so I wouldn’t necessarily dismiss the legitimacy of people getting genuinely invested in the well being (or lack thereof) of a fictional character (this is, originally, sort of the meta-point of OUAT, no? That fictional characters feel just as real to us as living ones.)
Also, it’s not just writing. In written fiction, the author controls the narrative and the reader’s experience of their characters a lot more directly than with film, I think. You’re not stuck in 3rd person limited, for one — you could manipulate voice to create all sorts of effects, including letting the reader inhabit your character’s interior emotional world. You can’t do that in the same way in film. So a character’s internal state is conveyed differently: here you also have the actor’s interpretation of the script, verbal and non-verbal cues, you have all these other aesthetic choices — montage, lighting, costumes etc — that make up the sensory language of film, and are used to make the character come across in a certain way. I think what makes Emma’s portrayal interesting to analyze is the seeming discrepancies between these different layers — the written script and all the other stuff that frames it.
[adrotate group="5"]I think we all know that. @Slurpeez gave a much more detailed and thought out response on the psychological and biological mechanisms of empathy than I could, but the point is that, yes we can take a step back and recall that she’s a fictional character, but humans have been using fiction to hack their brain and emotions probably since we developed symbolic language, so I wouldn’t necessarily dismiss the legitimacy of people getting genuinely invested in the well being (or lack thereof) of a fictional character (this is, originally, sort of the meta-point of OUAT, no? That fictional characters feel just as real to us as living ones.)
True, although I think I kind of get what @hjbau is trying to say. But again, this begs the question: if people deeply care about Emma, if they see themselves in her, then why in heaven’s name do they think her current relationship is good for her? Is this seriously what they’d want for themselves? For people they care for? If Emma was their sister or friend, would they honest to goodness look at her and think she’s happy? As @Slurpeez said, I can’t help but watch OUAT and think, “No wonder society has problems with gender equity and healthy relationships!”
This is a media/cultural problem.
My hunch is that it’s also a Hollywood problem (so, very specifically high powered US movie industry. Other cinemas have different sensibilities). But you are absolutely right that the trope of the strong female character is first and foremost a product. It’s definitely a marketing category, and not just in TV but in most of our entertainment industry.
if people deeply care about Emma, if they see themselves in her, then why in heaven’s name do they think her current relationship is good for her?
I think maybe the trick here is that people might like Emma, but not necessarily identify with her. I don’t know, but I’m going to guess than demographic, what might matter here is gender identity.
By no means do I watch Emma now and think she looks miserable. Has her priorities shifted a bit, yup. But that happens to anyone who falls in love. Emma is not the same person as she once was. But she has never doubted her love for Hook, and she is very happy whenever she is around him (for the most part) and she’s miserable when he is away in the UW or off in Neverland (of course it would be nice to see them or any other characters just relaxing and watching netflix once in awhile). I just don’t understand how you can look at their relationship and say she isn’t happy. Do they have some issues? Sure, of course they do. So does every couple. But as an Emma fan, it makes me want to root for them, and to fix their issues bc you can see they both really love each other.
Darkonedearie do you ship swanfire? Or you enjoyed the sake of debate for the sake of debate?
"I will be kind but I will speak my mind."
Darkonedearie do you ship swanfire? Or you enjoyed the sake of debate for the sake of debate?
I ship Emma Swan. I love her. I liked her with Neal and I like her with Hook. Whatever makes her happy! I think people on here are overly harsh toward Hook.
Emma is not the same person as she once was. But she has never doubted her love for Hook, and she is very happy whenever she is around him (for the most part) and she’s miserable when he is away in the UW or off in Neverland (of course it would be nice to see them or any other characters just relaxing and watching netflix once in awhile).
So Emma’s miserable when Hook is out of her sight and happy when she can see him? That is not an encouraging sign.
1. That’s like saying Emma can never be happy without Hook there. Does she feel sad when he goes to the bathroom because he’s left her side, or does she accompany him to the bathroom because the only way for her to be happy is with Hook physically present?
2. That’s also quite controlling behaviour on Emma’s part because she can’t give Hook his own space. Emma has had major issues with control since the Dark Swan arc.
3. This is how I imagine CS will progress.
Emma, please, don’t do this.
Now you’ll never leave me.All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixDarkonedearie do you ship swanfire? Or you enjoyed the sake of debate for the sake of debate?
I ship Emma Swan. I love her. I liked her with Neal and I like her with Hook. Whatever makes her happy! I think people on here are overly harsh toward Hook.
Which is fair and fine and perfectly valid. But it goes back to something others have highlighted: we’re essentially having two different conversations. You want Emma to be happy and because Emma, the character in universe, says she’s happy then you’re content. That’s valid. I don’t dispute that. But like 90% of the conversations we end up having about cs or hook have less to do with the character themselves and more to do with how those characters or ships scan culturally, socially, through a feminist lens. Do I think Emma is happy? Sure because the writers make her say she is. Emma’s a vessel. She can feel however the writers want her to feel. But is this happiness problematic and symptomatic of disturbing trends in media, Hollywood, culture and gender Dynamics? Yup.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"So Emma’s miserable when Hook is out of her sight and happy when she can see him? That is not an encouraging sign.
Huh? So you’re not supposed to miss your significant other when they are away? And you aren’t supposed to be happy when you see them? What on earth are you smoking? I get that Emma seems to prioritize Hook over everybody else now, but the statement you just said makes absolutely zero sense. She doesn’t depend on Hook for her happiness. But he certainly helps with it. And when he’s missing, that’s a part of her happiness missing.
She can feel however the writers want her to feel. But is this happiness problematic and symptomatic of disturbing trends in media, Hollywood, culture and gender Dynamics? Yup.
I just think you’re reaching a bit. I see nothing wrong with a strong female woman falling in love with a guy who has a bad past but Emma, being the good person she is, turns his life around. I mean, Hook would still be bad Hook if he never met Emma. That in and of itself is great story! Love can change people’s lives around! And sure, Hook used to act like he was going to “get her” and that she will “want” to be with him someday. But again, that Hook does not exist anymore. She turned him around and that’s the story. And yes, while she depends too much on him, and their lies and deceit are somewhat of a concern, it’s not out of the ordinary for relationships that have issues like that and I just don’t feel like ouat is sending a bad message by having her be together with Hook. If Hook was still the same guy back in season 2, then yes, that would be problematic. But I just think some of you guys are picking too hard on the relationship as it pertains to the overall message the show is portraying. Her relationship with Neal was very different and perhaps came with less problems. But the struggle Emma and Hook have had to go through could be construed as more realistic. No relationship is perfect, especially if you end up loving a guy with a troubled past. But she has managed to turn him around (although he did a lot of his progress on his own), integrate him into storybrooke and her family, and has gotten her blessing from everyone close to her. Considering this is the same guy who has left Emma for death and she has done the same (ehem beanstalk), the fact that they are now engaged is a crazy story and one that I think you condemn too much instead of praise the show’s message that anybody can change if they have the right motivation.
just think you’re reaching a bit. I see nothing wrong with a strong female woman falling in love with a guy who has a bad past but Emma, being the good person she is, turns his life around
Then you haven’t read what I’ve said about what a strong female is. It has nothing to do with falling in love with a bad guy or otherwise. But what you’re saying is that a strong female is someone who turns a bad guy into a good guy which is in effect turning that strong female into just an object or vessel for a man’s redemption. That is not the definition of a strong female and it’s a very specific kind of misogyny.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"
The topic ‘Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire’ is closed to new replies.