- This topic has 60 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
She put herself under a sleeping curse because Rumple made a deal over 200 years ago about his second born child, which he thought at the time he would never have. He then thought he took care of the problem when he killed the person. I don’t know how that factors into any of this.
That was part of it but I thought it was also because she didn’t want him to wake her up until he truly could with true love’s kiss. She obviously didn’t want Hades to take her baby but also was unhappy with Rumple.
And Belle cheating on Rumple with Will eye roll
I mean, fair I guess. But she did banish Rumple. In Rumple’s case, he’s trying to win Belle back. It just seemed dirtier.
[adrotate group="5"]Cheating? I think its safe to say they werent together at that point.
Or they were on a break.
"I could have the giant duck as my steed!" --Daniel Radcliffe
Keeper Of Tamara's Taser , Jafar's Staff, Kitsis’s Glasses , Ariel’s Tail, Dopey's Hat , Peter Pan’s Shadow, Outfit, & Pied Cloak,Red Queen's Castle, White Rabbit's Power To World Hop, Zelena's BroomStick, & ALL MAGICI mean, fair I guess. But she did banish Rumple. In Rumple’s case, he’s trying to win Belle back. It just seemed dirtier.
Actually, I take this back you are right, this was absolutely despicable on Rumple’s part and he had no real intention of pursuing this as a legitimate relationship other than a power move. You are also right that it was even worse because he was trying to get Belle back. Belle at least was pursuing a actual relationship that has some iota of truth in it.
To people who saying Belle is being abusive, what does Belle *not* being abusive look like? While still protecting her from Rumple’s abuse, and protecting her safety, personal agency, and basic-dignity?
Wow, I went to bed early and look what happened. I am going to give one example but could give many more. Belle not being “abusive” could look like this 1. Text Rumple “Hey Rumple you are really scaring me, how about opening up the shop so we can talk” (non abusive) 2. Knocking on the shop door really loudly and saying “Rumple I know you are in there open up so we can talk” (non abusive) 3. Using a key I am sure she has and unlocking the shop door finding Rumple and saying Hey we need to talk (non abusive) 4. Asking Emma to unspell the door (if it is magically protected) and then finding Rumple and saying Hey we need to talk (non abusive) Running to the woman who KILLED his son and working with her to steal a wand to take her and their baby to a place that he will never find them because he locked the shop door while he was in there(ABUSIVE)
That might have made sense when things hadn’t gone down that far along this path. At this point she feels her (and her child’s) well-being are at stake. To the extend that she sent her child off.
A loving parent doesn’t send their kid away when in a custody dispute unless one of two things: 1) They are extremely worried about their child’s well-being, and/or 2) They are doing it to spite the other parent.
When you are that frightened you think the time for talking is over.
He forcible / unlawfully confined Belle.
One could call Belle an enabler, or their relationship unhealthily co-dependent, and maybe she needs to own her part/half in that. But that doesn’t mean she has to stay in the relationship and/or still take care of Rumple in some shape or form.
The thing is the show probably thinks most healthy relationships are boring and not good-story telling or something.
I had a lot more thoughts about this, and maybe I will share those thoughts once I figure out where I put them 🙂
This doesn’t accord with her ideology, for sure, but in practice, the more Belle is being portrayed as an irrational, hysterical shrew — as she is in this season — the more her more positive qualities (seeing the best in people and forgiving them) recede to the background or just come across as whimsy, rather than actual moral commitment
Her positive qualities, possibly only quality, is that she’s smart and that only occurs when the writers need someone to explain “the thing” and they can’t get a supporting actor to do it. She’s Google. The issue is also that that singular positive quality is becoming increasingly hit or miss. One of the biggest issues is that Belle has never really been a consistently written or fleshed out character. She’s a device through which the writers explore Rumple and his redemption, or lack thereof. I think this is why while everyone agrees that Rumple is basically a crappy person, everyone gets on edge about Belle and her “abusive” nature (or call it what you want). It’s because she’s never really felt like a solid character.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"It’s because she’s never really felt like a solid character.
Exactly. As a result, I think Belle has become a placeholder for a series of facile, progressively more and more irritating stereotypes: Belle the maid with the heart of gold (cough cough, no pun); Belle the damsel in distress; Belle the “smart because can spew out random facts” hot librarian; and now Belle the mobster’s hysterical trophy wife. At each turn, the writers have failed to engage with, or try to subvert any of these tired tropes — instead, they’ve just moved onto the next, even worse one.
To add insult to injury, the plot meant to hold these together is pretty preposterous too.
This doesn’t accord with her ideology, for sure, but in practice, the more Belle is being portrayed as an irrational, hysterical shrew — as she is in this season — the more her more positive qualities (seeing the best in people and forgiving them) recede to the background or just come across as whimsy, rather than actual moral commitment
Her positive qualities, possibly only quality, is that she’s smart and that only occurs when the writers need someone to explain “the thing” and they can’t get a supporting actor to do it. She’s Google. The issue is also that that singular positive quality is becoming increasingly hit or miss. One of the biggest issues is that Belle has never really been a consistently written or fleshed out character. She’s a device through which the writers explore Rumple and his redemption, or lack thereof. I think this is why while everyone agrees that Rumple is basically a crappy person, everyone gets on edge about Belle and her “abusive” nature (or call it what you want). It’s because she’s never really felt like a solid character.
This is exactly right. I could still write lots about Rumbelle, but I am going to leave that aside to talk about a meta/macro issue, that trickles down into a lot of culture and our fiction.
We have all these stories of women and girls trying to redeem “bad” boys. Because they are worth it, I guess. But never the way around. Heck, it is hard for men to even fall in love with them. Women are somehow not worth the effort, or are irredeemable (at least by a lover’s love, kids is a whole other story). Men that do fall in love with these women are dupes and weak and not going to be loved back. But boy do we love a story where the woman preservers against such difficulties.
It is even easy to demonstrate that with this show. Most of the major villains are female. So, all the villains, and all the couples in which one half was either a villain (or considered a bad person even by their own measure), from my imperfect memory:
Villains never known to be paired with lovers, IIRC: Snow Queen and Ursula
Villains with inadequate details: Pan, Maleficent
“Baddie” couples: Cruella and James, Zelena and Hades, (Killian and Mila?)
Male “Baddies” with female love interest:
– Rumple with Belle (6 seasons of trying to redeem him)
– Killian’s father and his 2nd wife (redeemed)
– Robin and Mariam (by Robin’s own statements, redeemed bad boy)
– Killian and Emma (redeemed)
– Arthur and Guinevere (fall out not shown on screen)
– Jekyl/Hyde and Mary (complicated – Jekyl had unrequited love and Mary died before any conclusion)
So of the 4 we know for certainly the status of, 3/4 guys redeemed, and based on effort on Rumple, 3.5/4
Female “Baddies” with male love interests:
– Milah and Rumple (was not redeemed before death. She is very much demonized by cultural standards.)
– Cora and Henry Senior (was not redeemed before death. He probably loved her, at least in the beginning)
– Regina and the Genie/Sidney (Genie had unrequited love. Regina is redeemed but because of her own efforts, not because of Genie)
– Tamara and Neal (not redeemed before death. Similar to Cora and Henry Senior, but less established)
– Cruella De Vil and the Author (not redeemed. At the time they had their relationship I wouldn’t have characterized the Author as bad. YMMV)
– Nimue and Merlin (not redeemed. The one time the usual gender roles were reversed, and the guy never gave up trying)
– (leaving out King Leopold and Regina, since not much of an illusion of love on either side, and it could be argue her first evil act was killing him).
– (leaving out Regina and Robin, because by that time, she was already redeemed, there wasn’t much heavy work for Robin to do on that front)
So, no female baddies had a good guy stick with them through thick and thin to try to help them work on their redemption. Maybe Henry Senior, off screen? And often the guys were duped. So, despite having more characters to work from, 0/6. I will give them 0.5/6 for Merlin’s effort. Still now where near the 3.5/4
I am not saying any of these specific relationships are problems in and of themselves, but how often they repeat themselves across our fictional universes compared to stories of women going to the ends of the earth to love and redeem bad boys…..
We have all these stories of women and girls trying to redeem “bad” boys. Because they are worth it, I guess. But never the way around. Heck, it is hard for men to even fall in love with them. Women are somehow not worth the effort, or are irredeemable (at least by a lover’s love, kids is a whole other story). Men that do fall in love with these women are dupes and weak and not going to be loved back. But boy do we love a story where the woman preservers against such difficulties.
That’s a great analysis, @sierraleone — I think you’re absolutely right. But I think this is also why Belle’s character is undergoing trope cycling. The narrative of the girl saving the bad boy usually has a self-limiting shelf-life. In fact, once the boy is “saved” by your garden variety dream pixie girl, there is nothing else to say. This is why they keep cycling Rumple — they really don’t know what do with him, and as a result, they have to cycle Belle too, each time through a new, even more appalling stereotype.
I’m trying to think about any counterexamples of the man saving the “villainous” woman and literally nothing comes to mind. I also think it’s very interesting that the standard turn of phrase that covers the female archetype you’re describing — the femme fatale — is already, linguistically, one where the resolution is predetermined to be tragic.
On a different note: @RG, how would you parse stereotype/trope from archetype? I think some of the problems with OUAT I’m trying to zero in on is that characters toggle between archetypes and cliches, but I can’t quite put my finger on what makes an archetype not a cliche.
’m trying to think about any counterexamples of the man saving the “villainous” woman and literally nothing comes to mind.
Will saving Anastasia in Wonderland, very old Rumbelle like which I probably why I loved that series.
The topic ‘The Rumbelle Dilemma’ is closed to new replies.