OUAT and the portrayal of class

[nevermore]

Ok, I’ve posted on this before in other threads, but I thought I’d throw this out there as an actual discussion point. Is anyone else a little bit bothered at how being from a lower class gets systematically vilified on this show? Actually, way back when, my niece picked up on this (and yeah, she was 10 at the time!) — essentially, her point was that “poor” people tend to be villains on OUAT, and/or don’t tend to get happy endings.

And here we are in season 5, and AGAIN Arthur, who we learn is from humble birth, turns out to be a villain.

In other words, Arthur’s story is one of a lower class guy trying to come up “beyond his station” => and becoming a villain in the process. If that sounds familiar, that’s because that’s also, to some extent, Rumple, Cora, Zelena, Pan  and I’m sure others I’m missing. If you’re not born to royalty or higher class but want to achieve higher status on OUAT, you’re likely to turn bad. Unless you’re Charming, but Charming is increasingly portrayed as a slightly doltish sidekick to Snow, and Snow is, of course, legitimate royalty.

Not to mention that “fixing” the kingdom involves transforming wooden huts into a stone castle. Because clearly, if you live in the wooden hut, your life is broken and needs magic dust to fix it. But of course, that fix is only superficial — an illusion — because, like people, the appearance of royalty doesn’t make you any less of a peasant. I don’t know. I guess I’m increasingly frustrated with this message, and I think it’s pretty darn tone deaf and politically problematic. Apparently, on OUAT, it’s all about being the 1%.

[Keb]

You’re definitely on to something…but I’m not sure it’s quite that straightforward. The lower-class origin stories are used primarily to make otherwise unlovable characters more sympathetic. Rumple is, I think, a key example here–but giving Cora a poverty-stricken background, where she’s snubbed by royals like Eva, is about all there is to make her even slightly sympathetic. (I LOVE the character as a part of the ensemble but still don’t have much sympathy for her.) If being from a poor background is something that makes a character more likeable/sympathetic, I don’t think we’re seeing quite the dynamic of being punished for rising above one’s station. I think it’s something more complicated.

And we could look for a bit at the other side of the coin. There’s George, who is evil but presumably born into royalty; Eva, who was very unkind in her youth; Leopold, who may have been a great king and father but not a good husband to Regina; Gerda, who made some very questionable decisions as ruler of Arendelle; Xavier, who was out-and-out horrible; and the Jones brothers’ unnamed king who sent them to retrieve a horrific weapon. To the best of my knowledge, all these rulers were born into their positions and yet were villainous (or at the very least, hurt people that they should have loved and protected).

Regina and Rumple are possibly the most interesting comparisons for this. Regina was born to a prince, making her of royal lineage (heck, Xavier’s her grandpa), and while people questioned her legitimacy as ruler over Snow White’s, nobody ever questions the fact that she has the title of Queen. Right now she might be heroing, but she’s done some of the most horrific stuff in the show–yet she’s sympathetic. Awful things happen to her but not because of her station–mostly because her Mom is awful and she gives in to her darker side.

Meanwhile, Rumple starts from abject poverty, and gets himself a castle and plays chess with the lives of the royals around him…and awful things happen to him both before and after he gains power/money, most of them because he also gives into his darker side.

I don’t think the correlation is quite strong enough to support the claim that poor people have to stay in their place or be punished. Henry’s various parentage includes peasants and royals, and while he’s been through a lot, I don’t think we see him being punished for either side of the equation.

Keeper of Belle's Gold magic, sand dollar, cloaks, purple FTL outfit, spell scroll, library key, copy of Romeo and Juliet, and cry-muffling pillow, Rumple's doll, overcoat, and strength, and The Timeline. My spreadsheet: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6r8CySCCWd9R0RUNm4xR3RhMEU/view?usp=sharing

[Josephine]

Nobody thinks of the peasants.

I joked that the final season should be Grumpy and the dwarves leading a revolt against Snowing, Regina and the other “royals”. All the background characters and ” little peolple” starting a revolution because they’re sick and tired of curses, anmesia, magic,etc.

Viva la revelucion!

Keeper of Rumplestiltskin's and Neal's spears and war paint and crystal ball.

[Aglepta]

I definitely see where you are coming from and I agree the show has issues with class. A lot of it has to do with issues of class in the fairytales themselves though. Most are written in a world were the landed gentry rule and the humble poor subjects follow.  Even when you have a character that comes from humble beginnings like Cinderella and she becomes a Princess, the system doesn’t change, just that one character does. The show has demonstrated that the subjects and non-royalty are mostly expendable with a few exceptions. The evil queen murdered countless villagers for defying her, but the viewers aren’t meant to care too much so long as Snow and Charming get their happy ending and eventually the show even portrays Regina as reformed and we are meant to sympathize with Regina (BTW fans of Regina – this is not meant to be an attack against her I am just using one of the most obvious examples that comes to mind about how the non-royals are expendable. )

Just to play Devil’s advocate though, I can think of a number of exceptions where non-royals are Heroes and we are meant to care about them:

-Charming

– Neal/Baelfire – definitely a hero (although died rather unfairly – still firmly a Hero and Bae was a great character on the show)

– Robin Hood and his Merry Men (Okay Robin in the original story didn’t have humble beginnings but his Merry Men and Marion do!)

– Gepetto and Pinocchio: August had his issues but neither are villains

-Archie

-Graham 🙁

– The seven dwarfs

– Red and Granny

– Kristoff!

– Hansel and Grettal

-Belle(maybe? in the show her family looks pretty well-off, but in the Disney version less so)

And royal/born rich villains for kicks:

– Snow Queen

– King George

-Cruela

– Regina (until reformed)

– Ursula (eh? okay in the show not sooo much a villain, but she was still labeled one for a bit)

 

BTW I once read this brilliant essay about the curse of poverty and a defense of Milah http://screwballninja.tumblr.com/post/57657612406/milah-the-curse-of-poverty-essay-in-6-parts

I obviously don’t condone her actions or even remotely like Milah, but this was well written and a really interesting take on the issue of poverty and how Milah was portrayed on the show. I highly recommend giving it a read.

 

 

 

"To leave an enemy without an answer, say these words to him: Aglaria Pidhol garia Ananus Qepta" and blow in his direction; then he will not know which way he is headed and cannot answer you." - Swedish Trollproverb

[Aglepta]

and the Jones brothers’ unnamed king who sent them to retrieve a horrific weapon.

 

Oooh good call Keb! When I was making my list I completely forgot about him!

"To leave an enemy without an answer, say these words to him: Aglaria Pidhol garia Ananus Qepta" and blow in his direction; then he will not know which way he is headed and cannot answer you." - Swedish Trollproverb

[nevermore]

I see what you’re saying, you guys. I think I’m pointing more to the system — there are exceptions to it of course, but I’m not sure those invalidate the overarching tendencies. @Keb — yes, having humble beginnings makes the character more sympathetic, but it’s the narrative structure that bothers me. With Cora, Zelena and Rumple that narrative is especially stark: Rumple craves power because he has none, and he has none because he is a poor, lame spinner. Even his bravery is only in question BECAUSE he is poor, albeit indirectly. He simply has no other recourse, his and his son’s only value is only in being cannon fodder for the war. And as @Aglepta is pointing out, the intersection of gender and class, as with Milah, opens another whole can of worms. Cora and Zelena’s stories are very explicitly about being denied the trappings and good life of royalty. Pan is just an objectionable alcoholic gambler, but with a very similar sort of story. In fact, Pan reiterates a typical cultural trope that suggests that poor people are somehow “infantile.”

Ok, let me amend this. It’s not that they all necessarily turn evil. It’s that most of the core crew of “peasants”, with the exception of Charming, are likely to turn evil, end badly, or disappear off screen on “forgotten character island” because they ultimately don’t matter. And in the case of Neal and Graham, they did nothing to deserve the endings they got. I suppose we don’t know much about Robin Hood yet –  so the jury’s out. Hook, who is supposedly a reformed villain is, like Regina, from a solidly wealthy background.

There is some fluctuation in the peripheral, supporting cast — but we are told, again and again, that their stories don’t matter. Of our core crew, the only solidly positive and central character who comes from humble origins is Charming, and he’s always been an extension of Snow. In fact, when he’s striking out on his own — like with Arthur — we are shown his poor judgement. Snow even reprimands him: “You wanted to be a hero again.” To me it sounded like “know your place.” Similarly his moment of introspection “I don’t want to be known as the guy who kissed the princess” — well, tough luck, Charming. That’s all you’re good for, the audience is told. In the last few episodes Charming is portrayed in a way that’s increasingly unsympathetic and naive, just at the moment when he’s showing some initiative.

Here’s where I’m coming from, I guess. While my own kid is way too young to watch OUAT — or any TV for that matter — I keep imagining having that awkward conversation: “Pumpkin, despite what this show portrays, poor people aren’t expendable and/or evil. And if you’re in the 99%,  you can pursue lofty goals — it doesn’t mean you’re going to turn into a homicidal maniac in the process.” And I think if one is feeling the need to bracket a silly, entrainment show with such explanations, there is a problem.

 

[Keb]

Hm. Graham and Neal were murdered by Regina and Zelena respectively. In that respect, their deaths reflect on their murderers more than on their own stations–and again, their initial poverty serves to make them more sympathetic victims, making what Regina and Zelena did all the more horrible.

I’m still seeing a very mixed up bag here, not a clear trend.

Which is not to say that the background peasants are treated fairly–they’re not. There’s a strong case that the Charmings suck as rulers because they so often put their own emotions/needs ahead of those of the people they rule–and they’re supposed to be the good guys. Mayor Snow was a disaster, though.

Keeper of Belle's Gold magic, sand dollar, cloaks, purple FTL outfit, spell scroll, library key, copy of Romeo and Juliet, and cry-muffling pillow, Rumple's doll, overcoat, and strength, and The Timeline. My spreadsheet: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6r8CySCCWd9R0RUNm4xR3RhMEU/view?usp=sharing

[nevermore]

Hm. Graham and Neal were murdered by Regina and Zelena respectively. In that respect, their deaths reflect on their murderers more than on their own stations–and again, their initial poverty serves to make them more sympathetic victims, making what Regina and Zelena did all the more horrible.

Hmm. Zelena and Regina are still around, and Regina is well on her way to becoming a hero, despite her past. Zelena, while not redeemed yet, is likely on her way  — as befits her lower-born station, so far exclusively through motherhood. Meanwhile, Neal and Graham are largely forgotten. Dead is dead, right?

I’m still seeing a very mixed up bag here, not a clear trend.

I agree up to a point. I guess my argument is that there is a tendency towards classism on OUAT. Maybe it’s not a message that’s clear cut and set in stone, but I suspect it’s a sort of leaning. It’s a fall back trope. The fact that Arthur is low born doesn’t make him more sympathetic. Rather, it’s used to justify his desire to fix Camelot, and to be come the king to end all kings, essentially at the expense of everything else, including his marriage and his wife’s actual personality.

And my point is that, similarly to, say, an accusation of sexism, the counterclaim that a work of fiction isn’t sexist because some of its female characters are CEOs, or that it isn’t sexist because some of its male characters are stay at home dads doesn’t necessarily invalidate the overarching problem. Same could be said of representations of race and so forth (not for OUAT necessarily, I’m not opening that can of worms. Just talking in the abstract).

There’s a strong case that the Charmings suck as rulers because they so often put their own emotions/needs ahead of those of the people they rule–and they’re supposed to be the good guys.

LOL. Truer words and all that

[PriceofMagic]

Once has difficulty portraying sensitive issues in a sensitive way.

If you’re having mental health issues, you’re either a villain (Zelena, Snow Queen, Dark Swan), treated like crap by the other characters (Zelena, Dark Swan) or they reject you until you get better (Emma).

The show doesn’t recognise Female on male rape as a thing and just brushes it aside (Regina/Graham, Zelena/Robin) yet if it had been the other way around, you can guarantee someone would’ve gotten their comeuppance. Not mention the fact that Hook implied that Milah was going to be raped by a ship full of pirates as a sick joke yet is now being treated as a romantic lead (though his behaviour last episode shows cause for concern)

The show’s two “strong” female characters (Emma and Regina) are now defined by their romantic lives, they no longer exist as their own separate identities because they now have a man to come in and make them “better” than they were. Belle is barely given any screen time because she is not “strong” like Regina or Emma. She exists on the show to be a walking talking encyclopedia.

The two strongest relationships on the show have now been pushed aside and twisted just so the shiny new relationships look better despite there being issues that are not addressed.

The list goes on but Once’s portrayal of class, whilst eyebrow raising, is the least of its problems.

All magic comes with a price!

Keeper of Felix

[nevermore]

The list goes on but Once’s portrayal of class, whilst eyebrow raising, is the least of its problems.

I don’t know. I see what you’re saying, but I’m not sure OUAT’s class politics should be so easily dismissed because its gender politics are even worse (and I’ll be the first to agree with you that OUAT has epically failed on that front too). I know it’s a question of personal political commitments, but I wouldn’t want one genre of critique (say, from a feminist position) to invalidate or diminish all others. Maybe a stronger approach would be to find a ground of intersection between all our different quibbles — the overlap of the Venn diagram, if you will.

On the other hand, I’m also realizing that this conversation is probably not super constructive, and that in and of itself is sad. Ultimately, we, as the audience, can’t do anything about “alerting” OUAT to the implicit ideologies it seems to peddle. E&A got their share of criticisms exactly over the issues you are raising, many many times it seems, to exactly zero effect, safe for accusations of shipper irrationality.

Le sigh.

[Author]

Posts