- This topic has 25,813 replies, 124 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[adrotate group="5"]"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"
Happy Birth Anniversary, RG! I hope your facebook page is full of birthday notificationsĀ from people you haven’t talked to since high school Ā , as is tradition nowadays š
I wish I had a good meme prepared but its such short notice so take this really bad one that I found:
This pun is beneath even me. xD
"I could have the giant duck as my steed!" --Daniel Radcliffe
Keeper Of Tamara's Taser , Jafar's Staff, Kitsisās Glasses , Arielās Tail, Dopey's Hat , Peter Panās Shadow, Outfit, & Pied Cloak,Red Queen's Castle, White Rabbit's Power To World Hop, Zelena's BroomStick, & ALL MAGICHappy birthday, RG!
Bonus points for Lucifer! (And thanks)
This pun is beneath even me. xD
LOL. I liked it. And thanks!
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Happy Belated Birthday @RumplesGirl!
TheWatcher wrote: Its moments like these that i wonder if A&E do this stuff intentionallyā¦..
Iāve always been on board the āthey do nothing intentionallyā train butā¦this wedding dress coupled with the way theyāve been dressing Emma this season both with Hook (dark, buttoned up, ugly clothing, minimal make up, long sleeves) and without Hook (red Savior coats) makes me wonder if someone somewhere isnāt doing something intentionally.I’ve long been on the side of thinking this stuff is intentional. You all know how long I’ve been going on about how CS is really being written as a cautionary tale. I’m still open to that possibility, but part of me thinks A&E aren’t that clever, especially since I discovered that Damond Lindelof of Lost is probably behind the success of season one of Once. Nevertheless, as I’ve been writing for years, I think the acting choices, wardrobe choices, and the script itself all point to the idea that Hook has always been written as the wrong man for Emma. Despite their upcoming nuptials, which should be a happy occasion, the writers have continued to present the audience with some big red flags all season such as Hook’s lying about the shears of destiny and then nearly burning his own memories of a murder most foul. If it hadn’t been for Henry and Emma catching him in the act, I doubt Emma would have learned about either of those two incidents. Moreover, we’ve seen Emma continue to dismiss his actions as somehow being her fault, which is exactly what a codependent person would do. It’s almost like A&E looked up the symptoms of codependency at the end of season three and said to themselves, “let make Emma become codependent with Hook and pretend like it’s romantic.” I don’t see how a character could so successfully be portrayed as codependent if that isn’t what the writers, the actor, and the wardrobe/make-up departments weren’t aiming for. *sigh* I just dunno anymore.
"Thatās how you know youāve really got a home. When you leave it, thereās this feeling that you canāt shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
I remember during one of the specials a year or two ago (I think it was the one that aired prior to the Dark Swan season) there was a a part where they showed in the writers room and someone said something like “So what do you guys want to do with Emma and Hook this season” and someone else shouted “Kill them” and everyone laughed. That really makes me wonder if they are aware of bad this ship is but are just going with it. Can’t Ā lose those remaining viewers afterall.
"I could have the giant duck as my steed!" --Daniel Radcliffe
Keeper Of Tamara's Taser , Jafar's Staff, Kitsisās Glasses , Arielās Tail, Dopey's Hat , Peter Panās Shadow, Outfit, & Pied Cloak,Red Queen's Castle, White Rabbit's Power To World Hop, Zelena's BroomStick, & ALL MAGICI donāt see how a character could so successfully be portrayed as codependent if that isnāt what the writers, the actor, and the wardrobe/make-up departments werenāt aiming for. *sigh* I just dunno anymore.
To meĀ this brings up the topic of interpretative ambiguity in fiction more generally, especially in relation to whether the narrator’s actually reliable or not (Kurosawa’s Rashomon comes to mind).
So I’m deliberately overthinking this, but let’s actually go back to the original premise ofĀ OUAT, and see how this might be analyzed. The Author was a concept from the start, right? I’m going to credit Mr. Lindelof with that one, I think A&E are just not that clever. So, OUAT is complicatedĀ because its premise is completely meta. It’s a story about telling stories — and about how the narrators of storiesĀ are always unreliable, get it wrong, distort, and therefore our fairytales and myths are totally twisted versionsĀ of what “actually” happened. So this brings up the question of who is OUAT’s narrator, and is this narrator reliable (can he/she be trusted)? I’ve always thought that OUAT’s unspoken narrator is Henry: first as just narrator (Isaac being the Author in the first few seasons), and then as narrator AND Author.Ā Because he is both participant and Author, the story is told from 3Ā narrative positions: 1stĀ person limited (as Henry — though we see this less and less), 3rd person limited through head hopping (as the Author),Ā andĀ 3rd person omniscient (as the Author). If so, then theĀ ambiguity ofĀ CS could actually be a feature of the very nature of this sort of split personality storytelling. If the storytelling toggles between 3rd person limited, and 3rd person omniscient (which is sort of what the Author figure presupposes, but then it’s mixed in with Henry’s own 1st person limited), then there is no way the narrative is reliable by definition. In 3rd person limited,Ā eventsĀ take on the quality of the experience of each given character (say, Emma). InĀ 3rd person omniscient, they are described from a point outside the narrative (the one occupied by the audience for example): this isĀ where you would put the wardrobe choices, the make-up, and other aesthetic clues. In other words,Ā if we take OUAT’s premise seriously — that all stories are told by unreliable narrators, including theĀ one being told to us now — then CS is by definition not what it seems. Similarly, the tension between what the show “shows” (3rd person omniscient) and what it tells (3rd person limited) isĀ also not a bug but a feature.
Yeah, Ok I’m totally overthinking this…
Happy Belated Birthday @rumplesgirl!
Thank you m’dear!
Iāve long been on the side of thinking this stuff is intentional. You all know how long Iāve been going on about how CS is really being written as a cautionary tale.
In which Slurpeez and RG secretly switch bodies! LOL
No, I hear ya. I still think that they’re doing this unintentionally for the most part but it’s so weird because it basically means that the costumers are really bad at their jobs which is hard to imagine because they’ve always hit the mark in other spots.
Maybe I’ll have more to say after this week’s episode because according to the promo Emma is spending a good portion of time with someone(s) other than Hook and she’s doing it all in a winter version of her Savior Jacket. Contrast that with the fact that this past week she spent the entire episode with Hook and was dressed head to toe in black even though the entire Emma plot of the week was about her engagement and wedding. That’s not how you dress a bride-to-be in TV land and even if they didn’t go with florals and pinks, there are ways to dress someone excited to get married to her supposed true love and total black, long sleeved, buttoned up is not the way to do that.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Yeah, Ok Iām totally overthinking thisā¦
Yes, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t good. They’ve gone meta about story telling before; the entire Isaac plot was full of snide hints about A and E (and ABC). Like the idea that Isaac had a really mean boss who didn’t want him to write what Isaac wanted to write seemingly because it wasn’t what people wanted to “read.”
In other words,Ā if we take OUATās premise seriously ā that all stories are told by unreliable narrators, including theĀ one being told to us now ā then CS is by definition not what it seems. Similarly, the tension between what the show āshowsā (3rd person omniscient) and what it tells (3rd person limited) isĀ also not a bug but a feature.
Which is really clever and smart and likely completely beyond Adam and Eddy.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I suspect that it is intentional, but only in the sense that it is one long bait. They are intentionally keeping the text as pro-CS and the subtext as anti-CS. Many CS fans aren’t keen to dive into subtext, so favourable text is all they need to be happy. SF, SQ and anti-CS fans generally pay a lot more attention to subtext and meta, because the text isn’t kind to them. So they’re stringing them along with some ambiguous signals, hoping it’ll keep them interested and hopeful enough to continue watching. It’s an old trick that’s been used in queerbaiting since the dawn of time.
It’s highly unlikely however, that the subtext will ever become text. It would be so clever as to be stupid. CS fans have been strung along to a fever pitch, and some factions are highly aggressive. If anything bad happened to their beloved pairing, I seriously believe they’d hunt down the producers with pitchforks.
The topic ‘Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire’ is closed to new replies.