Soul Mates and True Loves, Similarities, Differences, and what does it all mean.

[RumplesGirl]

There is always hope for finding what you think is your true-love or soul-mate

And why the either or? What is their difference? They’re making a distinction that I don’t think actually exists.

Of course Snowing are TL and Soul Mates. That’s never been in question, for me. The point though is that A and E are trying to draw a difference and make it seem like one is better than the other. You can have TL or you can have Soul Mate. Cora was Rumple’s soul mate; Belle is his true love. Jane has said that while Cora was Rumple’s soul mate, he has something deeper with Belle that is true love. But according to Eddy, your soul mate is the one person you’re supposed to be with. And again, look at what Adam is saying, he’s covering his bases: your true love and your soul mate are in flux (read between the lines: because we don’t yet know how our story may or may not play out in future seasons so we are going to give vague answers with the understanding that if we decide to change our minds no one can call us out on it.)

ETA this is something @Slurpeez wrote in our SF thread that I think sums up why some of us are having such difficulty with what A and E said

Wait, a sec. What about this quote from S1?

Prince Charming: True love must be fought for, because once you find it, it can never be replaced.

Oh, right I see, revisionist history going on. Yup. True love is the most powerful magic in all the realms and has been the bedrock of the entire story since S1. The first scene of the very first episode was Prince Charming awakening Snow White from a curse with True Love’s kiss. Yet, we didn’t even hear the term soulmate until season 3 with regards to the pixie dust, Regina and Robin Hood.

Now we have some cockamamy notion that “soulmate is the idea that there’s only one person for you.” So does that mean Snow White could have been just as happily married to Prince Thomas (Cinderella’s husband) as she could have been Prince Charming since Snowing is “merely” True Love as opposed to “soulmate” status? What about Rumbelle? And as someone else wrote above, what about Baelfire, Marian, Milha, and Daniel? Obviously, you can love more than one person in your lifetime. But if Robin and Regina are “soul mates” then according to Eddy’s bogus definition, Regina and Daniel somehow wouldn’t have worked out even if Cora hadn’t murdered him because there was “only one person for you” (in this case Robin Hood). BS! Daniel was the one who taught Regina what true love is in the first place! Form The Stable Boy:

Daniel: Who cares about magic? True love is the most powerful magic of all. It can overcome anything.

 

 

[Myril]

Whatever A&E had said, people would discuss it now. If they’d said, there is no difference, people would have objections , they now have, because they (mis-) understand the answer given as one qualifying one (soulmate) as higher, better than the other (true love), though nothing like that was said. Why do many assume, that what A&E said, is a judgment about the quality of one or the other, that soulmate is the better, higher concept? I mean, I have an idea why many jump to that conclusion, because there is a widespread idea of love being only true for one person ever in life, but A&E didn’t say that one expression or occurrence or form of love (soulmate) is better or more sincere or important or superior or whatever than the other (true love). Why do many want to create or expect a hierarchy of love?

It would be telling, if A&E had been indeed unprepared for that question, because it is not the first time the question was raised, and their PR people or assistance are doing a heck of a bad job if they missed it had been discussed more again recently on the web (if so, fire those folks, I’m free to hire)., but I don’t think that they were unprepared. They probably have discussed the question in the writersroom, but there is no ultimate answer to it, it’s work in progress. It is part of the show to reflect on such questions like what is love, how does it show, what does it mean, where does it take us. It is part of the show to explore different ideas, views, options, and not to give us some ready-made meal to gulp down unchewed (frozen dinner, also known as TV dinner, funny). We read into the show based on our own views and experiences, and it is not always the task of the writers, to give answers to all our questions. Some want it black and white, clear cut, definite, cast in stone, but fiction is IMO reflection and not definition. Furthermore: Why can’t it be accepted, that there could be a variety of form and intensity and expression of love, but none is less valuable than the other (if insisting on making a difference between soulmate and true love)? And relationships are in flux, some more, some less.

Love is definitely indefinite as concept, there are a number of ideas, views, believes. If you like you can read the classical text discussing love, Plato’s Symposium. Much of the concepts of love we’re talking here about, true love, soulmate, platonic love and more, go back to that text. Here an English version of it: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/symposium.html

Henry: In the same place? Don’t you see what this means? The curse is keeping them apart with the coma. Now they’re stuck without each other. We have to tell Miss Blanchard we found her Prince Charming.

Emma: Okay, kid. Telling someone their soulmate is in a coma is probably not helpful. Not having a happy ending is painful enough, but giving someone unrealistic hope is far worse.

Henry: But what if I’m right? We know who they are. Now they have to know.

(from Episode 1×03 Snow Falls)

The term soulmate was used before on the show, for Snow and Charming. Don’t remember any fastidious discussion back then. But alright, that was in the infant days of the fandom. And Emma might not have had a good idea, what she was talking about anyway, being a non-believer at that point. (I’m sure people will be able to come up with ideas, why this was something meant different and nothing comparable to Regina and Robin).

Why is there a need to define soulmate and differentiate it from true love, coming up with first Cora and Rumple and now Regina and Robin?

My guess: Rumple and Regina are by many of the fandom/audience perceived as bad guys, and Cora is probably seen as such by all. The Evil Queen is an icon of evil in the DisneyVerse, Rumplestiltskin is the evil imp of the fairy tales, and Cora had been the big bad of season 2 and beyond. Even though this show tries to give a more nuanced view on the bad guys, and it seems at least that one or two get a chance of redemption (not discussing here, if that makes sense or is written well), and even if accepting that things in (this fictional) life are more grey than simple black and white, to many people Rumple and Regina still are more on the dark side of things. Putting one of the iconic good couples standing for the idea of One True Love on the same level as the love the Evil Queen might find is an affront to our ideas of love, against our ethics. The Evil Queen, Regina, might be not pure evil anymore, might have a tragic story, might change and be redeemed at some point, but it feels still wrong that she ever could have the same love the good guys have. And that goes even more for Cora, she is evil, so she can’t feel true love, and not even anything close to it, Cora and Rumple where evil kindred spirits maybe but can’t be more.

For love is the good, the noble, be it the love to a child, a parent, a friend, a lover. The other thing, sometimes though confused with love, is just desire and lust. The evil guys might feel desire and lust, they want to possess, but love is not that, love is respect and sacrifice. At least that is a common idea.

It’s not about soulmate or true love, it is about the question, if the evil, the bad guys, even if somewhat redeemed, deserve love or are able to give love. And it is about if there is just one romantic love in a lifetime or if there is more possible.

The first time it came up it was about Rumple and Cora in comparison to RumBelle – and people didn’t want to buy into Cora and Rumple being true love of any kind, it was unimaginable, outrageous, it just couldn’t be. In an interview Eddy used the word soulmate, so not true love like RumBelle is thought to be, and while some embraced that as a compromise, as them being close, understanding each other, mates in spirit, evil Cora drawn to evil Dark One, but not true love, for others there was pretty much no difference between soulmate and true love, and to most it was still not acceptable. Adam backpaddled later, and said, they had not even been soulmates, they just used the term “shorthand” in interview (whatever, get some PR training, guys)

But then the pixie dust happened, and Tinkerbelle spoke of soulmate and not true love for Regina. People read soulmate as something different than true love, to get their heads around, how Daniel could have been true love (but was he?) and how now Regina could have another true love, because many believe, that there can be only one true love in a lifetime. So they needed a way to make both possible, that Regina had still a good reason to have gone as mad as she did, she lost her true love Daniel, but might nevertheless eventually find some sort of a happy ending with another guy, Robin, her soulmate. One true love, the other soulmate, could work.

Or not, because people still struggle with the definition of soulmate and true love. Keeping lust and love apart is (seemingly) easier, here it is about the subtle but important nuances of (noble) love.

It is interesting though, that many seem to accept RumBelle as true love without any kind of doubt. I know, it has been shown, that their kiss nearly broke the curse of the Dark One, so not much to discuss there, is it. But why could Rumple prevent it from having full effect? And is Rumple just some poor, misunderstood, cursed soul or is he evil or at least doing evil? Why should he deserve to experience true love? Is it because we associate Rumple with the Beast, and the love of Beauty and Beast is epic and in it’s disneyfied version another iconic true love couple? I know I am not alone with having a problem with Rumbelle as true love couple. It even gives me the creeps to read young women, girls write about it in praise. I can’t neither overlook the early written versions of the tale behind the Beauty and the Beast trope, nothing romantic in it, nor that in this show I see a couple with an unhealthy power imbalance and blind, undeserved trust. But if I look into commentaries on other sides, including here, on Twitter, Facebook, RumBelle is a fan favorite true love couple.

What is the difference to OutlawQueen, Regina and Robin, besides an age difference, and the woman being the one with the power? Aside that we got to see true love’s kiss working with RumBelle and not with OutlawQueen so far (though nothing says it wouldn’t work).

And maybe Daniel was no true love, as probably weren’t Milah or Cora to Rumple.

And Snowing? True love’s kiss, true love’s actions (David giving his heart, Snow sharing it) – they are the exceptional couple, true love, soulmate, karmic love… Oh, haven’t had that term on the show yet. That’s it, we could call it karmic love, Snowing, these two are meant to be with each other no matter in what form of existence, lasting over all karmic life cycles they might have lived and will live, while OutlawQueen are just soulmates in this lifetime.

If it is any comfort, the Greek philosophers had no unified, ultimate answer to the question of love either 😉 (And Plato was a better “troll” than A&E)

¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯

[obisgirl]

but A&E didn’t say that one expression or occurrence or form of love (soulmate) is better or more sincere or important or superior or whatever than the other (true love).

YESS!!  They did not say this guys.

I got the exact wording on the first page and they did not say one is more powerful than the other.

but I don’t think that they were unprepared. They probably have discussed the question in the writers room, but there is no ultimate answer to it, it’s work in progress. It is part of the show to reflect on such questions like what is love, how does it show, what does it mean, where does it take us. It is part of the show to explore different ideas, views, options, and not to give us some read-made meal to gulp down unchewed (frozen dinner, also known as TV dinner, funny).

🙂

We read into the show based on our own views and experiences, and it is not always the task of the writers, to give answers to all our questions. Some want it black and white, clear cut, definite, cast in stone, but fiction is IMO reflection and not definition. Furthermore: Why can’t it be accepted, that there could be a variety of form and intensity and expression of love, but none is less valuable than the other (if insisting on making a difference between soulmate and true love)? And relationships are in flux, some more, some less.

That’s my view too.  Yes, true love was the primary love since the beginning but it doesn’t mean it’s the only type of love there is out there.  Romantic true love didn’t break Regina’s curse in season one, it was Emma kissing Henry’s forehead and admitting that she loved him. If there can be a non-romantic true love, why can’t the idea of a soulmate exist as well?

[RumplesGirl]

If there can be a non-romantic true love, why can’t the idea of a soulmate exist as well?

No one is saying that it cant exist. Of course it exists. But they are trying to make an either/or distinction and that is…odd. If you have a soul mate do you not truly love them? If you truly love someone are you saying that you don’t consider them to be some sort of soul mate?

And again, in the past, they HAVE drawn distinctions that have placed one type (TL) above the rest. They did that very clearly with Rumbelle/DarkHeart after The Miller’s Daughter because Eddy said Cora/Rumple were soul mates and the fandom hat a fit. So they had to come out and say, “oh sure they’re soul mates, but what he has with Belle is something that is much deeper and more true because it’s true love.”

This is why I’m saying that they basically came with an answer without thinking it through and then quickly came up with “but it’s in flux!” because they honestly haven’t set down to define their terms. They may have tosses some ideas around in a room somewhere but nothing concrete.

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

[Ranisha Pitts]

I like how Guinan describes it to Wesley about the love he was feeling…

 
     

I agree with RG it seems like they are trying to imply or infer one is greater or better then the other.

I think it should be each love is different and unique and just as special.
Star Trek was a good show! And Guinan explain things very well.

"I will be kind but I will speak my mind."

[Ranisha Pitts]

What ever A&e says people will Talk about it because that what people do on forums, twitter, facebook, tumblr and fandoms they analyze and break apart everything to it most basic and minute compartments then write essays and metas about our perceptions and interpretations of events that are sometimes just as flux as the writers of this show.

In the end Eddy tried to answer something so broad and individualistic and flux in concept. That’s why Adam said its in flux because even he is like that may change tomorrow or tonight or when I get to twitter or start writing the next script.

Its just love, the only thing is true love on this show just has far more powerful magical properties infused with it.

ps: I still think A&E just thinking by the fly when answering that question.

"I will be kind but I will speak my mind."

[obisgirl]

obisgirl wrote:

If there can be a non-romantic true love, why can’t the idea of a soulmate exist as well?

No one is saying that it cant exist. Of course it exists. But they are trying to make an either/or distinction and that is…odd.

Okay, now I’m confused. Personally, this had been something I’ve been curious about since the concept of soulmates were introduced in the beginning of 3a, so it makes me happy to have some kind of definition for it now. Could it have been better? Oh yes.

But I’m not upset that we got it. It’s a miracle we got a definition altogether.

I don’t think it’s odd that there’s a distinction between the two, primarily because I think I was expecting that there is some kind if difference to begin with.

What would make me upset is if we never know the difference at all. And I think other people would feel the same way too.

[RumplesGirl]

Okay, now I’m confused. Personally, this had been something I’ve been curious about since the concept of soulmates were introduced in the beginning of 3a, so it makes me happy to have some kind of definition for it now. Could it have been better? Oh yes. But I’m not upset that we got it. It’s a miracle we got a definition altogether. I don’t think it’s odd that there’s a distinction between the two, primarily because I think I was expecting that there is some kind if difference to begin with. What would make me upset is if we never know the difference at all. And I think other people would feel the same way too.

I’ll just repeat the rest of my paragraph

If you have a soul mate do you not truly love them? If you truly love someone are you saying that you don’t consider them to be some sort of soul mate?

 

I’ve never denied that soul mates exist on this show. Snow and Charming are obviously soul mates but they’ve never been classified as such. They’ve always been given the definition of True Love and been held up as the epitome of romantic TL. Soul Mates got introduced with Regina and Robin and the idea was that you can have another soul mate

Regina’s words to Tink: “you think I can find another soul mate?” But Eddy’s definition is that your soul mate is the one person you’re supposed to be with, so then it’s saying that Daniel wasn’t her soul mate or maybe even not even her true love. Which then undermines the show since the basis of the 1st season (and arguably on) is that Regina and Daniel were TL/SM and that’s why she acts out against Snow.

Then look what Adam does: he counters Eddy be saying, “oh but this is all in flux.” They haven’t actually given you a definition because Adam rejects Eddy is saying out of future concerns and caution. On the one hand, they tell you what it is, then in the very next moment, they take it away by saying “but this is all subject to change.” They haven’t done you (or your TL meta, since I’m one of the few people who’s read it…) any services here. They’ve basically shown that while they might have a vague idea of differences between TL/SM they aren’t going to stick to any one thing in particular and that it is subject to change and a whim based on what is going on in the current arc or season.

 

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

[RumplesGirl]

I’m going to post some other quotes from some other forum posters here that might help explain why some of us are miffed

o about the whole soul-mate thing–here I don’t mind pointing out that if it were so important a concept. shouldn’t we’d have heard about it in more contexts than Corumple, perhaps even when Tinkerbell tried to talk Regina into meeting Robin she could have said “This is better than True Love–its your SOULMATE–guaranteed happy ending if you just go talk to him. True Love can come and go, but soulmates–you only get one and it is the most powerful connection! Also totally cool that you’re already married since its a political marriage but even if it weren’t, SOULMATES baby, it trumps a silly old, meaningless vow!” So tell me again why its a big deal for Rumple and Belle to get married?

agree that in popular culture, it’s pretty common to use the terms SM and TL interchangeably. That’s why I called it a false dichotomy to try and make a sharp distinction between the two labels. Nevertheless, SM doesn’t just refer to romance, but also to people who share a deep affinity for one another, such as best friends or even parents and their children.

So I agree with Slurpeez. It’s a false dichotomy but it’s one they keep making, and it always elevates one over the other, and each time in the past it was TL that got the elevation but in this SDCC case TL is reduced to: “oh it’s just someone you truly love” but the SM…ah that’s the ticket!!! (but that flies in the face of the show)

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

[obisgirl]

The closest thing I’ve found as far as Daniel and Regina as True Love is Mark Isham’s soundtrack for the second season, which is music from The Stable Boy and it is called Regina’s True Love. Elsewhere? I haven’t really found anything that conclusively puts Daniel as Regina’s True Love.

And yet, I think there’s also a distinction to be made between true love and truly loving someone. There could be overlap between the two but I don’t think one equals the other either. I think you can truly love someone but that said someone may not be your true love. (Regina is a good example of this. I have no doubt that she truly loved Daniel but when I researched Stable Queen as True Love, it was nearly impossible to find something concrete that labeled them as true love).

Also, you have to remember, Adam and Eddy write Once season to season. So it really should not be surprising that ideas and stories change. I don’t think Adam and Eddy had an idea to make Robin Hood Regina’s soulmate until they had writer’s summer camp when everyone came together to map out season three.

[Author]

Posts