Love and Romance on OUAT: What's the Message?

[obisgirl]

The idea who deserves love is really subjective.

I know, but I still wanted to throw it out there.

This is my own personal view so take it as such: no one “deserves” love outside of the love a parent has for a child. That always needs to be a given. But other than that, no. Love must be earned. And if it turns out that Regina and Rumple don’t get their happy endings because they have done HORRIBLE things to people and those people are not willing to love or forgive them, then that’s the breaks, kids. You are not owed loved just because you’ve ‘seen the light.”

I agree.

[Epona_610]

2) I also think the idea that you can overcome your past is complicated when it comes to the HOW. ONCE would have us believe that there is no work involved; your “issues” are swept aside simply by love. Whatever deity you might pray to, when you seek its forgiveness, you must first ASK for it. And if you are of a particular faith, you may have to work for it. Just because you’ve fallen in love, doesn’t mean your past is erased. It doesn’t mean that you don’t owe your victims recompense. It doesn’t mean you don’t have to stand before the universe and say, “I have erred.” Regina and Rumple have never apologized, for a start, to the town of Storybrooke. The every day peasants who’s lives were so rudely uprooted for 28 years. Some can say, “well they both saved SB too,” and that’s true. But they haven’t acknowledged that they’re the reason SB exists in the first place and they haven’t regretted or at least recognized that their actions HURT a great many people.

Agreed ^^. The idea of having the villains get their happy endings without even at the very least acknowledging that they were wrong and apologizing to those they’ve hurt sends kind of a lousy message. Love doesn’t erase past crimes, and in the real world, no matter how much and how sincerely someone has changed, I generally don’t think murderers should be able to escape justice.

(And on that note, regarding Will and Ana…I watched Wonderland while it was on, but only once since it’s not out on Blu-Ray or Netflix, so I don’t remember exactly–what were the worst things that Anastasia did? I remember what she did to Will himself of course, but other than that, I can’t recall her specific misdeeds or crimes. Does anyone else have a better memory?)

[RumplesGirl]

I remember what she did to Will himself of course, but other than that, I can’t recall her specific misdeeds or crimes. Does anyone else have a better memory?)

Ana’s crimes are more focused on Will, you’re right. As for “other” crimes, she was a lackadaisical queen–she didn’t seem to particularly care about her subjects and ruling her land well. She did take Rabbit’s wife and two children hostage and hold them.

"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"

[MatthewPaul]

(And on that note, regarding Will and Ana…I watched Wonderland while it was on, but only once since it’s not out on Blu-Ray or Netflix, so I don’t remember exactly–what were the worst things that Anastasia did? I remember what she did to Will himself of course, but other than that, I can’t recall her specific misdeeds or crimes. Does anyone else have a better memory?)

Kidnapping Cyrus would be the main one.

[Slurpeez]

See my problem with this, is that it’s wholly unrealistic. You can have all the belief, faith, and hope in the world and sometimes (very often) things simply don’t work out in the end. Sometimes you don’t get that happily ever after, sometimes your dreams do not come true.

Well, the show sort of wavers between whether it’s striving for realism or fantasy. Things just didn’t work out for Neal. Not to get on my soapbox, but hope for a good outcome and self-sacrifice were not a guarantee of his own second chance at family–not necessarily romance, but simply being a son and a father. Other characters like Rumple and Henry, to whom Neal was a key part of that happy ending, also miss out. Instead, we’re left with the explanation that “happy endings aren’t always what we think.” While people can and do learn to cope after the loss of a loved one, it’s certainly not as ideal as if that person had lived.

Now, I recognize we’re dealing with the medium of TV where everyone expect this to have a happily ever after message, but it’s not realistic. And if ONCE is going to realism (and in the first season, I think they were and with each passing season they’ve gotten further away from that) it’s not succeeding anymore. And not having it work out doesn’t have to mean loneliness or isolation or death. It could just be that you accept your fate and any consequences of your actions. Bobby Carlyle has gone on record a few times as saying that he doesn’t think Rumple should get his happy ending with Belle (and formerly with Bae) because of all the terrible things Rumple has done. As a shipper of Rumbelle, I disagree. But as a person who lives on Real! Planet Earth, he’s 100% right. Where’s the realism? Has ONCE lost it?

On the one hand, Robert Carlyle may be right in saying Rumple doesn’t deserve to get everything his heart desires. After all, he did successfully create and implement the darkest curse of all time. Rumple said that his son was his happy ending. He then chose to sacrifice himself to give his son a second chance at happiness, just not with him. Baelfire was the one to pay for the price for his father’s dark magic by having to grow up alone as an abandoned child and then died tragically. Maybe the price of his father’s dark magic was simply never getting to be with his son. The father and the son were briefly united, long enough for forgiveness to occur, but Neal traded his life for his father’s. That may not be fair to his son, who really wanted a family, but that is how it happened. So the message that hope is enough for a second chance is misleading at best, or just plain false at worst.

Some people claim the “realism” of death is being portrayed, that even overall good characters who made mistakes yet sincerely apologized, still don’t meet good ends. On the one hand, I agree that in real life, death is an unavoidable certainty and self-sacrificial people don’t always get to experience happiness. Hope is not always enough to get people what they want. Yet, this is not a show based entirely on realism, since fantasy allows other characters like Rumple, Charming, and Anastasia, who all technically died, to be resurrected. It’s not consistent or perhaps fair. Dead is not always dead. OUAT seems to have a big question mark whether it’s a show based on fantasy or on realism and sends a lot of conflicting messages.

But my problem with ONCE is that they focus on only one aspect–everything is acceptable because love. Well, no. There needs to be accountability and responsibility and a mea cupla. You cannot simply brush away bad deeds or negative aspects and say “loved saved this person” because love is not just a salvation force. Maybe there is forgiveness at the end, but first there must be a reckoning.

You may love someone, but without true contrition for past wrongs, it’s hard, if not impossible, to have a good relationship. Love does not have to blind someone to the truth, nor does loving someone automatically qualify someone as getting a clean slate. In real life, no one is guaranteed a second chance or happiness simply for thinking they deserve it. People make mistakes all the time. People aren’t perfect. In a sense, love alone is not enough. As you said, it also takes a sense of reckoning, of admitting one’s faults, of confessing one’s sins. It takes going to the person you’ve wronged, admitting your faults, and asking for forgiveness. It takes honesty to build trust, which is based on something real.  While love may be freely given, the amount of trust you have must be earned and must be based on honesty. On the flip side, for a person who has been hurt by love, it often can be a very difficult thing to forgive another who’s wronged you, though not impossible, when true repentance and trust can be rebuilt. While love is a powerful force, I think love must be tempered with true contrition before the foundations can be established.

The idea who deserves love is really subjective. This is my own personal view so take it as such: no one “deserves” love outside of the love a parent has for a child. That always needs to be a given. But other than that, no. Love must be earned. And if it turns out that Regina and Rumple don’t get their happy endings because they have done HORRIBLE things to people and those people are not willing to love or forgive them, then that’s the breaks, kids. You are not owed loved just because you’ve ‘seen the light.”

With the exception of infants, who are pretty much innocent when they’re born (insofar as they haven’t lived long enough to disappoint anyone yet), I agree that no one really “deserves” love. I suppose in that sense, real love is unconditional, otherwise hardly anyone would have it. Familial love, especially parental love, is therefore very often considered to be the strongest love there can be. Even the parents of murderers probably still love their children, no matter how painful or seemingly impossible that can be.

I think in real life, we all hope for a second chance, especially for those who either have hurt someone they loved and/or been hurt by someone they loved. Yet, even on shows like OUAT, while love and forgiveness occur, hope for that second chance is not always enough, nor is there always a guarantee of a happy ending– as with happened with Neal. On the show, as sometimes in real life, the good sometimes meet unjust ends, while those who’ve done really terrible things sometimes get rewarded. That may not be just, but there you have it. Maybe OUAT is more based on realism than I initially thought, since very often, people who strive to do good like Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. get shot by hateful people. Victims of the wicked perish, which is exactly what tales such as Game of Thrones try to highlight. Yet, on a show supposedly about happy endings, something seems amiss about the message that the good don’t come to good ends while those who’ve done wrong don’t have to face the consequences.

"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

[PriceofMagic]

The idea who deserves love is really subjective. This is my own personal view so take it as such: no one “deserves” love outside of the love a parent has for a child. That always needs to be a given. But other than that, no. Love must be earned

I agree about who “deserves” love is subjective. You could say Archie “deserves” love because he’s been good and kind and hasn’t hurt a fly. You can say Rumple “deserves” love because he had a really hard time of it in season 3. You can say Hook “deserves” love because he actually helped Emma and co in 3B without trying to double-cross them, etc etc. Everyone has their own ideas about why a certain character “deserves” love.

However, I kind of disagree on the notion that love must be earned. You can earn someone’s trust but you can’t earn their love. Love is something that has to be given freely. Just because Hook helped Emma doesn’t automatically mean he “earned” her love. She gave him her love of her own free will. Likewise with RumBelle, Belle chooses to love Rumple even when Rumple screws up. Rumple is constantly astounded that Belle chooses to give him her love because he often viewed himself as unlovable. Love is not a prize that can be won or earned, it is a gift that has to be given from one person to another.

All magic comes with a price!

Keeper of Felix

[RumplesGirl]

Well, the show sort of wavers between whether it’s striving for realism or fantasy.

Which is a problem because even shows that are based on the fantastical need to be grounded in something tangibly real.

OUAT seems to have a big question mark whether it’s a show based on fantasy or on realism and sends a lot of conflicting messages.

As of S2 and 3 I agree. S1, though, managed to make the EF real even though it was deeply fantastical while making SB seems fantastical while it was deeply real. Everything lately though is just “magic!”

suppose in that sense, real love is unconditional, otherwise no one would be deserving of love

I don’t believe in unconditional love outside of parent to child. That relationship should always be unconditional. But to other than that…no, love is conditional. I have the right to stop loving you if it turns out that your are, say, a murderous sociopath who skins women and wears said skin as a cloak.

Maybe OUAT is more based on realism than I initially thought, since very often, people who strive to do good like Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. get shot by hateful people.

But that’s a realistic death of good people because of the good they were doing. Those people were constantly in harms way while performing their acts of goodness. They do not die because *magic* or *fate*

Love is not a prize that can be won or earned, it is a gift that has to be given from one person to another.

Sure, but how do you choose to give your love? Because someone has earned your love normally through some sort of action or deed:

Gotten me out of a jam with the cops then told sad story about messed up family life to which I relate? Love.

Been kind to me despite being held prisoner and being forced to clean your castle? Love.

Gave up a ship to get back to this world and help me find my family? Love.

Kept my heart safe from my wicked green half-sister who wants to use it to travel through time? Love.

Saved me from some trolls who felt that you cheated in bargaining? Love.

"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"

[obisgirl]

I don’t believe in unconditional love outside of parent to child. That relationship should always be unconditional.

I realize you said earlier that you’re not in a relationship and have no desire to be at the moment, but speaking as someone who is in a relationship, from my experience, I think unconditional love is what makes a healthy loving relationship between two people. But I also recognize, there can be both conditional and unconditional love in a relationship.

I love my boyfriend very much (we’re going on almost 8 years now), but I do have my limits.  He has unconditional love for me and I for him. But I know for certain if he ever cheated on me, I would break up with him.  Because I simply would not tolerate that kind of behavior.  I’m not going to be someone’s second choice.

But to other than that…no, love is conditional. I have the right to stop loving you if it turns out that your are, say, a murderous sociopath who skins women and wears said skin as a cloak.

I agree with you.  Everyone has their limits and it’s different for everyone.  If I were Belle, I would run so far away from Rumple at this point.  I know Rumple would never purposely do harm to Belle now, but still, living with a person who has such an extreme addiction and will likely never change isn’t healthy either.

I think love can be both unconditional and conditional and but in most cases,  love has to be unconditional.  Because it’s generally, the most healthy kind of love.  Once you attach conditions to love, it get unhealthy very quickly and sometimes destructive.

[Slurpeez]

suppose in that sense, real love is unconditional, otherwise no one would be deserving of love

I don’t believe in unconditional love outside of parent to child. That relationship should always be unconditional. But to other than that…no, love is conditional.

I would make a distinction between unconditional love and unconditional relationships. A psychologist wrote about the distinction in an article entitiled Do You Believe in Unconditional Love? Love is something which is freely given, even when the beloved may not deserve it. Relationships, however, are a different thing entirely, what this writer calls “working partnerships.” As a married person, I agree with this perspective. I have unconditional love for my husband, and we made vows to be faithful to each other forever. Implicit in the marriage contract, however, is that both partners agree to be committed exclusively, otherwise the relationship suffers. The author of that article writes:

Love is very important. When you find someone through dating and relating who loves you for “who you are”, it is an amazing experience. Similarly, it is rewarding to love someone else “as they are” (or “warts and all” as my grandmother would say). I believe that such a bond is priceless and should be nurtured with great affection. Love is part of our emotions, attachment chemicals in the brain (for those inclined), and spirit (for those inclined).

Relationships, however, are an entirely different thing. Relationships are working partnerships. They involve thoughts, reasons, and decisions. They require two (or more) individuals in communication, commitment, and cooperative exchange.

As a result, love (feelings) and relationships (decisions) can have separate rules and expectations. Love, because it is a feeling, can be unconditional. Sometimes, no matter what a partner does, feelings toward them do not change. Relationships, however, are working partnerships. As such, they require conditions, boundaries, limits, and directions to run smoothly.

Therefore, a distinction must be made between “unconditional love”…and “unconditional relationships”.

But, Isn’t Love Enough?

Now that we have made the distinction between “unconditional love” and “unconditional relationships”, it is possible to love someone without limit, yet still have contingencies placed upon continuing a relationship with them. In other words, while you may continue to love a partner “no matter what”, you may not choose to be in a relationship with them under all conditions. This distinction is important to understand. But, it doesn’t hold for everyone…

There are some individuals that say, “no, love is enough”. These individuals decide, as long as they have love, nothing else is necessary. As a result, their relationships become “unconditional” as well. They do not set firm boundaries, contingencies, or limits with their “partner”. They make “relationship” decisions based on their feelings of love alone. Sometimes this works out… Other times, however, because no one is actively creating a working “partnership”, disaster can strike. Furthermore, because there is an expectation to “accept the partner for who he/she is” at all times, relationships may perpetuate under the worst of conditions.

On the other hand, the distinction between love and relationships is upheld with individuals that say “healthy relationships are necessary too”. These individuals love their partners unconditionally, but also set rules that maintain a relationship with them. They use influence, limits, and contingencies to ensure a balanced, equitable exchange in their romantic partnerships. Furthermore, while they may continue to “feel” love unconditionally, they also chose to end unhealthy partnerships when the conditions for them are no longer feasible.

"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

[obisgirl]

Thanks @slurpeez108 for posting that.

[Author]

Posts