- This topic has 34 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This is a topic of conversation that keeps happening around the forum so instead of it being localized to one thread (What Snowing Did from 416) I thought we should put our thoughts together in a more general local.
Prior to the Author reveal, we’ve had many conversations about fate and free will on this site before. Most of us assumed that while there was an element of fate at play, most of the choices we’ve seen our characters make were because they…chose it, not because of an Authorial insert of manipulation. For example, there was no way that Rumple (the master manipulator prior to the Author reveal) could manipulate Neal and Emma meeting and conceiving Henry, without whom Emma could not have broken the Curse with TLK in 122. There was a bit of a consensus (generally speaking) that Neal was perhaps right that “fate, destiny, whatever you want to call it…” had a hand in ensuring Henry’s conception but that it still came down to certain choices the characters made: Emma choosing to steal that particular car, choosing to get a drink with Neal…ect ect ect.
However, with 416 officially done and having revealed that the Current Author manipulated story lines in order for a better story, we are left pondering how much free will our characters had and whether or not anyone is a hero or a villain, of if everything is Authorial manipulation.
First, let’s acknowledge that it is unlikely that the Current Author was the Author 300 years ago. Adam and Eddy have stated that time runs concurrently between the EF and our world and we know that there were authors prior to Fischler’s character (Plato, playwrights, and Walt Disney for example). We are also given to understand that those authors did their jobs well and did not attempt to do anything more than record. This matters because we have two regular characters who are older than the current Author and thus outside of his realm of influence for parts of their past–Hook and Rumple.
If the previous authors were all good little boys and girls, then what we’ve seen from Rumple and Hook (good, bad, and anything in between) stems from their own choices. The author did not write Rumple killing Milah, in other words, because it made a good story–Rumple chose to do that and the author simple recorded it, if in fact it is recorded somewhere.
The issues comes with the past 30 years or so of EF history, starting with the Regina/Snow stuff. We know that Cora spooked Snow’s horse so that Regina would be forced to save Snow and met Leopold. But how much of all of this is Authorial manipulation? Do we have a clear understanding of when the Author 1) became the Author and 2) when he began to manipulate the stories to suit his own desire of a good story?
Let’s say that it was even past the Cora business. Some of the nastiest and most heroic moments in the show have happened in the small time period before the DC was cast for the first time. For example:
1)Snowing stealing Mal’s baby. BAD thing. But how much of it was Authorial manipulation in order to cast dispersions on the so called heroes?
2) Regina ordering the execution of an entire village. BAD thing. But did the Author write Regina’s reaction to be so extreme because “better story!” and it makes her look like a true villain?
3) Belle returning to Rumple and kissing him for the first time. GOOD thing (until Rumple freaked out). But did the Author write Regina showing up at just the right time to “convince” Belle to go back?
All of these these things are open to Authorial manipulation if the Author wasn’t put into the book until early in Snow’s pregnancy and thus after the wedding of Snowing and the apple incident and Bandit Snow.
If the underlying moral and philosophical thesis of this show has always been “evil (and good) aren’t born, they are made” how do we rationalize what we now know about the Author and his own writing of the story? Are we to understand that “made” doesn’t mean “made by the heroes and villains themselves” but rather “made by the Author?” They still aren’t born good or bad, but rather made that way based on the whims of the writer? And how do we rationalize the villains and the heroes doing both good and bad even AFTER the Author was put into the book?
Thoughts? Suggestions?
[adrotate group="5"]"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"So I wrote this meta a long time ago and it had been sitting my draft box and I published it recently.
It might add for some interesting discussion relating to this thread.
Something else to think about, what the current Author did, interfering in Snow’s story? Was that the first offense, or was it just the first time he was caught red-handed? Was there a previous offense? Is there a three strikes, you shouldn’t have done that and then he was banished?
Something else to think about, what the current Author did, interfering in Snow’s story? Was that the first offense, or was it just the first time he was caught red-handed? Was there a previous offense? Is there a three strikes, you shouldn’t have done that and then he was banished?
That’s a good question too. It seems like it was less about what the Author did to Snowing and more about what he did to the Apprentice.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"If the underlying moral and philosophical thesis of this show has always been “evil (and good) aren’t born, they are made” how do we rationalize what we now know about the Author and his own writing of the story? Are we to understand that “made” doesn’t mean “made by the heroes and villains themselves” but rather “made by the Author?” They still aren’t born good or bad, but rather made that way based on the whims of the writer? And how do we rationalize the villains and the heroes doing both good and bad even AFTER the Author was put into the book? Thoughts? Suggestions?
That’s a really interesting question, on both ends. So the first aspect — if villains and heroes are literally made by the author, where does free will come into play? The analogy I kept thinking back to is a chess board, where the pieces are sentient. This is a trope in a lot of films and stories (from Star Wars to Harry Potter, for example). I think the question is always whether the game “plays itself,” or whether someone is manipulating/ordering the pieces about. And where the player stands in relation to the playing board (is the player outside/above the board, or is he/she inside the game, taking on the place of a piece, as in the first HP)? Clearly, the stakes would be different. The other question we might ask is whether the player is playing solo (or against him/herself), or is there an opponent?
To bring this back to the Author, this metaphor isn’t perfect, but I think it points to the different “levels” or maybe scales of manipulation that might be happening, as well as the stakes/risks that one runs.
On a slightly different note, if the goal of the author is to tell a “better story,” but, also, presumably, to keep their power to tell the story, then we cannot, by definition, have a happy ending for anyone, heroes or villains, because then the story would end. For that matter, there can’t be unhappy endings either. The story has to keep going, and our characters are then stuck in a perpetual limbo/cycles of repetition. Some folks on this forum have pointed out that villains are characterized by the inability to recognize their happy ending — whether that’s the case or not, this is what powers the story and allows it to go forward, so something that the Author would, minimally, encourage it seems.
Then we get into the really hoary stuff. Is Neal dead because CS makes for a better story? Is Rumple revived and apparently evil because it makes for a better story? Does a tormented Regina who can’t be with Robin make for a better story? etc => In other words, are we to take this as Authorial design, or authorial design (Author vs show writers)?
And finally, I keep asking whose story. Who is the Author writing/telling this story to? Who is his presumed audience? Obviously for previous authors it was something very general, like “humanity”… So who is this one writing for that he suddenly felt the need to change the rules and write a better story?
That’s a really interesting question, on both ends. So the first aspect — if villains and heroes are literally made by the author, where does free will come into play? The analogy I kept thinking back to is a chess board, where the pieces are sentient. This is a trope in a lot of films and stories (from Start Wars to Harry Potter, for example). I think the question is always whether the game “plays itself,” or whether someone is manipulating/ordering the pieces about. And where the player stands in relation to the playing board (is the player outside/above the board, or is he/she inside the game, taking on the place of a piece, as in the first HP)? Clearly, the stakes would be different. The other question we might ask is whether the player is playing solo (or against him/herself), or is there an opponent?
That’s a really good way to look at it. If we take the first HP movie for example, Ron, Hermione and Harry have free will: they can move as they please, but there are consequences. When Ron falls from his horse after his sacrifice, Hermione almost “breaks rank” and goes to help in until Harry reminds her that they are still playing the game and must win. Hermione could have gone to Ron if she wanted; the only thing stopping her were the consequences of her actions. However, the other players–the pawns and queen and knights, ect–are “sentient” in that they will move when ordered, but if you do order them around they have no agency on their own. They are just literal pieces that do not make choices on their own. Ron/Hermione/Harry manipulate the literal pieces for their own benefit, and to some extent Ron is overseeing everything since he’s the Wizard Chess-guy, but if Hermione and Harry chose not to listen to Ron’s suggestions, there are serious consequences.
To bring his back to ONCE–certain characters might be literal pieces…or rather, perhaps, not characters but objects or plot devices. They do not have any agency themselves but if you tell them to do a thing, then they will do the thing. The Author is a bit like Ron–he can tell you want to do, or make a helpful suggestion as to what you should do, but you always have the ability to say no. Snow and Charming listened to the Author and went down a different path, but they could have said no. They could have chosen to not listen to him–the Author did not WRITE them going down a different path. Once he they listened to his suggestion then it played out as he wanted and intended knowing certain characteristics of Snowing. But from the start it was a suggestion and the couple following the suggestion.
Then we get into the really hoary stuff. Is Neal dead because CS makes for a better story? Is Rumple revived and apparently evil because it makes for a better story? Does a tormented Regina who can’t be with Robin make for a better story? etc => In other words, are we to take this as Authorial design, or authorial design (Author vs show writers)?
Well, lol. I’m not touching that first question with a ten foot pole (and neither will anyone else! *MOD GLARE*) but it does go back to something @MatthewPaul brought up which is that on some level the Author and they way they’ve depicted him in Fischler is very much a stand in for Adam and Eddy themselves. If they want the story to keep going, like you just pointed out the Author does, then there are no happy endings or unhappy endings yet. You have to keep the story going by inserting new plots, new challenges, new twists. The Author doesn’t want the book to be over, so he manipulates it to keep it going. Adam and Eddy do the same thing. Too early for Regina’s happy ending…so insert Marian.
And finally, I keep asking whose story. Who is the Author writing/telling this story to? Who is his presumed audience? Obviously for previous authors it was something very general, like “humanity”… So who is this one writing for that he suddenly felt the need to change the rules and write a better story?
That’s a brilliant question and not one I have the answer to. Is it selfish amusement. I talk a lot of Shiny Toy Syndrome and how A and E are just boys with toys, but isn’t that what the Author is to? I think he’s telling the story to himself, and to borrow from FanFic world, he has a lot of plot bunnies.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"The Author doesn’t want the book to be over, so he manipulates it to keep it going. Adam and Eddy do the same thing. Too early for Regina’s happy ending…so insert Marian.
I think this is an important point. It seems to me that no Storybrooke stories have been written. The only changes in the book are tied to the Enchanted Forest. (page 23, Princess Leia & Prince Charles). This seems to me like this Author has a sphere of influence, which might be a clue to when this particular story started. It also might point to why the Author gave the book to Mary Margaret, who gave it to Henry, who ultimately found the key to let him out.
Is there a timeline of what stories are actually in the storybook and which aren’t? It seems like Regina is the Big Bad in Henry’s book. The audience has seen Regina’s backstory, but is any of that in the book? That would make her a sympathetic character and not so clearly the Evil Queen.
So does this mean this Author decided to ‘cast’ Regina as the villain? Does that mean he’s tied to the Mills family in any way?
Is there a timeline of what stories are actually in the storybook and which aren’t? It seems like Regina is the Big Bad in Henry’s book. The audience has seen Regina’s backstory, but is any of that in the book? That would make her a sympathetic character and not so clearly the Evil Queen.
That’s tricky. It doesn’t seem like Regina/Daniel/Cora drama is in the book–and nor is Cora’s back story–but we do know that there is a picture of Young! Snow looking at Cora’s flowers, a scene from “The Stable Boy” before Snow reveals Regina’s love for Daniel to Cora. So…is the heart ripping in the book? But, on the other hand, Bae is in the book–Nealfire showed his story to Tamara so does that include Rumple taking on the DO curse? Regina does seem like she’s the Big Bad in the book, but not the reason behind the Big Bad. Did the Author think that Regina’s motivations weren’t a good enough story? That seems antithetical since evil for the sake of evil is the easy and unnaunced story.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"The Author doesn’t want the book to be over, so he manipulates it to keep it going. Adam and Eddy do the same thing. Too early for Regina’s happy ending…so insert Marian.
I think this is an important point. It seems to me that no Storybrooke stories have been written. The only changes in the book are tied to the Enchanted Forest. (page 23, Princess Leia & Prince Charles).
I agree. Plus, if the Author was trapped in the book the entire time in Storybrooke, then he wouldn’t be able to write or manipulate stuff anyway.
I agree. Plus, if the Author was trapped in the book the entire time in Storybrooke, then he wouldn’t be able to write or manipulate stuff anyway.
True. But is there a new author? There are things in the book that are post-Author-sucking. Emma’s birth and being put in the wardrobe, for one. So was that *recorded* or was that *manipulated*?
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Well, lol. I’m not touching that first question with a ten foot pole (and neither will anyone else! *MOD GLARE*) but it does go back to something @MatthewPaul brought up which is that on some level the Author and they way they’ve depicted him in Fischler is very much a stand in for Adam and Eddy themselves.
😀 Sorry, this wasn’t meant to start a nautical battle! 😉 Let me generalize the question. Love, as we usually think of it in our culture, is one of those emotions where free will seems powerless. You can choose to act on a feeling or not, but you usually can’t choose to feel. But the corollary of that is that you also can’t force someone to fall in love — to bend them to your will in that way. In this, love is “autonomous” from the subject. Which brings up Authorial authority in relation to romances in the show. And I will leave that thought open-ended…
I think he’s telling the story to himself, and to borrow from FanFic world, he has a lot of plot bunnies.
Oh dear, this makes me immediately think of Monty Python’s Killer Bunny.
Anyway, to make a slightly more high brow reference, philosopher Walter Benjamin has this quote (in the context of writing about book collectors): “Of all the ways of acquiring books, writing them oneself is regarded as the most praiseworthy method.” The idea is similar to the saying that if you can’t seem to find the story you’d want to read, you need to write it. Which makes me think that you’re right that he’s writing for himself. And presumably, if before that the stories were self-telling, in a sense, and Author(s) were in fact Archivists or maybe Translators, then this one is the first “genuine” author of the bunch (arguably. Depending on whether you think of art/creativity as generating something “new”)
The topic ‘Fate, Free Will, And The Author’ is closed to new replies.