GOLD / BYRONIC HERO ???

[thetrickster]

I’m quite confused regarding Rumpelstiltskin’s cowardice.

I mean, as far as we know, he was a coward because he deserted from the Ogre War. All the attitudes he has that can be considered as the attitude of a coward are showed after the war. And even then, I can’t see the cowardice in them: he goes to Hook’s ship concerned about his wife -ok, he didn’t fight, but who would do so? courage and imprudence are really close terms-, he don’t doubt a lot about go to steal the dagger of the Dark One, -ok, he was afraid of using it but he don’t doubt in killing the Dark One-.

And then, he was cursed. His only coward act was leave Baelfire go. A really big mistake, but he was called coward much earlier than that.

So, my point is; yes, the after-curse Rumpelstiltskin/Mr.Gold is a twisted character, manipulative, dark, responsible of lots of unforgivable actions, and [insert adjetive here]. Having the power of the Dark One, he found himself with power to stop the evil around him, blablabla, but he was cursed, and the path to his fall started in the very moment in which he got the power. The power of the Dark One consumes him, changes him from being a lovely father to become a twisted trickster, the way in which that cursed personality is in conflict with his previous one -and it is, if not, he would never love, he would never continue the search of his son-… that is what makes him a Byronic Hero.

But what makes me feel confused is the idea of Rumpelstiltskin -the spinner- being a coward just because he ran away from the battlefield.
King Fredierick the Great wrote in his Military Testament -back in 1768- that “All that can be done with the soldier is to give him esprit de corps…and since the officers have sometimes to lead him into the greatest dangers (and he cannot be influenced by a sense of honor), he must be more afraid of his officers than of the dangers to which he is exposed.”

The spinner was certainly afraid of his officers -he even humiliated himself by kissing an officer’s boot- but as the officers didn’t kill him because of his desertion, not enough. Or yes, and then by running away he proved himself braver than what people thought afterwards.
Apart from this, he was influenced by a sense of honor, which can be noticed in Desperate Souls, when he pronounced a speech against Children Levy, and described the battlefield as the horrible place it is; the sacrifice of pleasants and children.
I remember something like “The sky is red with the blood of our people, with the blood of children…” Come on, these do not sound like a coward’s words, revolutions had been made with weaker rousing speechs.

Maybe it is just me, but I can’t understand why human Rumpelstiltskin was a coward ❓

[melliemd]

Because in this world, it was an honour to fight for your people, and it was supposed to be seen as an even greater honour to die for them. It feels sort of like a comparison to the Vietnam war – at that point, if you were a draft-dodger you were a coward. At least outside of a group of people who were also supportive of draft-dodging. Nowadays we have more choice, we have an opportunity to decide if fighting for our country is something worth it’s honour to us. For Rumpel? He was probably the only man in his village who refused to fight, so while all these other women were able to remember their husbands as brave soldiers who fought to protect them and their children, Milha is the only one who has a husband who did not give that sacrifice.

So Rumpel, for that reason, isn’t a coward by OUR standards, but by the standards of HIS world and time he most certainly was a coward. And deserting Bae made him a coward. AND telling Baelfire that Milha had died. Remember when he leaves the ship he asks “What do I tell my boy?” And Hook says something along the lines of “What any honourable man would, the truth.” But Rumpel doesn’t do that, because he’s afraid of what the truth means.

[thetrickster]

Our world doesn’t give lot of oportunities in that respect: there had been -and still are- situations similar to the one you describe. But one thing is what the nobility thinks in that respect and a different one the opinion of the peasantry. During our Middle Ages, commons could afford tithes, poverty, famine… but when coming across the levies and the droit de seigneur, then problems started: a desert was an hero, the one who could avoid his destiny. He was usually prosecuted -desertion was a crime, of course- and people helped him as the most honorable man. Lot of heroic stories and tales about the outlaws start with the desertion of the main character from an unfair war. Even from the Crusades, and deserting from the Crusades meant loose your soul without redemption.
I know, it is a fantastic world, and people wanted to fight for their king. But… People in that village were not recluited, they weren’t asked. If people understood fighting and dying for their king the most honorable thing… why were levies neccesary? There are all those little details what surprise me.

Don’t say his son that his mother was abducted to became the sexual toy of a crew “in need of companionship” -that was what he seemed to think- maybe was not the bravest thing ever, but I think it could be considered a white lie.

Deserting Baelfire makes him a coward, I agree. But I was thinking about the spinner, before the Dark One ^^

[beautyistruth]

@Elle wrote:

I have to disagree with the article. He is not a hero, an anti-hero, or a Byronic hero. He has done so much wrong and harm, and the few redeeming qualities he has are not enough. He may be arrogant, disrespectful, intelligent, suffering from a past mistake, and often moody, but he is also a murderer, manipulative, cruel, vengeful, bitter, destructive, and often does not learn from his mistakes.

^And you could have been describing Heathcliff, one of the most iconic Bryonic heroes, right there. Except that you’d probably have to expand the list of bad traits for Heathcliff to emotionally abusive husband, abusive caretaker, mean to children, and ambiguously suicidal 🙂

I apologizes for going into English-major-mode, but I can’t resist 😀 A character being Bryonic hero doesn’t require that they are good, justifiable, or heroic in any traditional sense. You’re not supposed to be able to excuse all of their actions. The term itself is specifically somewhat of a play on the term “hero”- it was coined to describe the growing literary phenomenon in the Romantic era of these awful male characters who have so many of the standard villain traits and in many ways, drive the plot as an antagonist, but are haunting in that they are written to be so alluring, passionate and tortured at the same time. As characters, they dipped into that Romantic era fascination with passions, emotion-driven characters, the macabre and the gothic aesthetic.

I find it interesting that that the author compared Rumple to Heathcliff because the latter is vindictive, cruel, angry and especially after Cathy dies, essentially the character who causes all the problems, all while being mesmerizing, tortured and somehow alluring to the reader.

Of course, these characters draw a huge range of reactions from the readers. Like with Heathcliff, some readers adore him, some are fascinated by him, some despise him as an individual. Actually I think it’s so fascinating that despite the time and place these characters keep drawing the same reactions. Critics of the era argued over whether the book was a masterpiece, or morally depraved, because Heathcliff (and Cathy, in this case) were such awful, yet magnetic individuals.

For what it’s worth, some literary scholars describe Dracula, Frollo from “Hunchback of Notre Dame” and the Phantom of the Opera as Bryonic heros as well. All men who are safer on the pages of literature than in real life, but oh-so-fun to read about. And then of course, there are the milder Bryonic heroes like Rochester and Eugene Onegin. Easier to love, perhaps, but still very difficult, at times questionable men.

List of traits, pulled off Wikipedia, for everybody’s reference. Not an all-inclusive list, but indicates the types of things that are common to these figures. I went through and noted some traits I thought particularly applied to our dear Rumple/Gold.

Arrogant
Cunning and able to adapt
Cynical
Disrespectful of rank and privilege
Emotionally conflicted, bipolar, or moody (Emilie de Ravin’s comment that Belle is partially drawn to his tortured soul)
Having a distaste for social institutions and norms
Having a troubled past or suffering from an unnamed crime (and from my research into this topic, the crime can be either a crime the hero himself committed, or a crime committed against him)
Intelligent and perceptive
Jaded, world-weary
Mysterious, magnetic and charismatic
Rebellious
Seductive and sexually attractive
Self-critical and introspective (This one is key. Rumple is so very self-critical. “I’m not a man.” “I’m still a monster,” “I’ve been a coward my whole life.” His tendency to constantly project his own failings and self-hatred when accusing others, whether it be with Charming, “You hurt her. You drove her to take that potion,” or Moe “You had her love and you shut her out” or Milah “How could you leave Bae?”)
Self-destructive
Socially and sexually dominant (Socially dominant, for sure. And as for sexually dominant… there are Rumbelle fics I wish I could unsee)
Sophisticated and educated (Gold certainly is, at least. )
Struggling with integrity (Yup. So much that.)
Treated as an exile, outcast, or outlaw
(Both before and after the Dark Curse)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byronic_hero

[gigi]

^agree 😉

[elle]

@beautyistruth

What makes Heathcliff a byronic hero is the fact that Cathy did not return his feelings the way he had wanted–she married Edgar for social staus and money, and in Heathcliff’s mind, rejected him. Which caused him to become the vengeful man that he is. Also, Heathcliff is not a murderer, though he has done much. Also, despite how horrible Heathcliff is, he never would have let Cathy go, never would have chosen power over her, not like Rumpelstiltskin did.

Rumpelstiltskin at first started with good intention until he began killing from left and right, and for no true reason. He killed a man for accidently injuring his son, he killed a maid because he was paranoid, killed his wife in a bitter, jealous rage, twice chose power over the people he loved, and has terrorized people simply because it amused him.

[beautyistruth]

No. What makes Heathcliff a Bryonic hero is that he fits that set of aforementioned traits, not how or why he became that way, evidenced by the fact that other figures that fit these archetypes have completely different story arcs that don’t involve unrequited love and might involve letting a woman go. Also, just wanted to point out that if murder preluded a character from fitting the archetype, that would knock off a large handful of the classic Bryonic heros: Dracula and the Phantom for a start.

Interesting that you mentioned he twice chose power… and then regretted it and literally tortured himself over it for years. Yet, he still struggles between power and love. That, to me, fits the aspect of self-destructiveness mentioned above.

Also, I think that we’ve pretty much moved beyond a discussion of his character to a debate over the meaning and application of the literary term itself. There’s virtually nothing about how you’ve characterized him that I disagree with. It’s just that, from my understanding of this trope, none of those misdeeds bar him from fitting into this literary type, which again, is not to say that those actions were good, or justified.

(In looking up various figures in this archetype, I’m beginning to see very strong parallels between Manfred and Rumple. Thoughts?

“In Byron’s poem, the hero, a superhuman character, is doomed by fate to destroy those he loves. In vain he undertakes to find Astarte, his ideal spirit who alone has the power to assuage the feeling of guilt with which he is obsessed.”)

[elle]

He does fit the definition of a Byronic Hero, but (I guess it is me) I just can’t bear to see hom as one. I’ve read my fair share of stories with a byronic hero–my favorite being Mr. Rochestor–but with those, they seemed to have a few redeeming qualities that I could forgive. In the end of Jane Eyre, Mr. Rochestor admits that he did wrong by Jane and that he would have sullied her if he had continued on with his actions.

Not once have I seen Rumpelstiltskin truly admit that–he admits he is a coward, he admits that he has a hard time choosing love over power, but he makes no effort to change. He just keeps using them same excuse and makes no effort to change his ways.

Rumpelstiltskin does have the traits of a Byronic Hero, but it does not fit him well. We are supposed to still pity and feel for them, and yet it is hard when we see the corruption he caused Regina, the separation he forced onto the Charming Family, how he chose power over love twice (even if he felt guilt), and for all the other acts he has done.

[Author]

Posts