- This topic has 60 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m trying to think about any counterexamples of the man saving the “villainous” woman
Charming stopping Snow from murdering Regina. Two villainous women saved, and one of them redeemed. Snow would not have come back to the light side from that murder.
[adrotate group="5"]Gaultheria's fanvids: http://youtube.com/sagethrasher
Charming stopping Snow from murdering Regina. Two villainous women saved, and one of them redeemed. Snow would not have come back to the light side from that murder.
Hmm, Snow is a little different — she’s miles from a femme fatale stereotype, which is I think what @sierraleone’s post was describing. Regina’s redeemed, yes, but again, not by virtue of a man, but by virtue of her own work.
AKA’s example of Will and Anastasia does work though.
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.
Honestly, I’m not so sure there is a major difference. The problem is a perception of a cliche is usually negative. We see “cliches” as being bad and a thing to avoid but that’s not wholly true. There’s an idea that only bad writers write in cliches and that in order to be a truly great writer you have to break the mold, step outside the stereotypes and find your voice inside the already formed archetype. I find this to be faulty. There’s a reason why cliches are cliches to begin with and, IMO, it speaks the universality of the cliche, the relatableness of it. Archetypes do the same thing. Why do cultures (pretty much any and every culture) have a Hero? Because we all need someone to look up to, to hold in esteem and attempt to emulate. Is the Heroes Story/Journey cliche in that it’s something that is constantly repeated? Sure, but that’s not a bad thing. It’s relatable and helps us mere mortals examine our own lives (which is largely the point of stories and myth).
The only real difference that I can point to with any confidence is that the archetype is the original. From it, every other iteration f said archetype springs. The bad thing with OUAT, at least in this current conversation, is their use of stereotypes/cliches that are wrong from modern sensibilities because of cultural shifts. Would the sexy librarian have made us all rub our heads in frustrations if this show was written in the late 70s/early 80s? Probably not as much because feminist critique was still getting a foot in the door. Adam and Eddy stick to what they grew up with and ignore cultural shifts that make stereotypes negative, or at least in need of serious critique and conversation. If they wrote Belle as a sexy librarian but actively tried to have a conversation with their audience via their text about the troubling nature of that stereotype, that’s one thing. But they don’t so it’s remains troubling.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Regina’s redeemed, yes, but again, not by virtue of a man, but by virtue of her own work.
I was thinking of Snow as the redeemed villain, from when she gave up part of her memory and set out on that path of vengeance against Regina.
AKA’s example of Will and Anastasia does work though.
I think the femme fatale description might be due to how characters behave when we’re first introduced to them. Ana was optimistic and cheerful when she was young, and Regina was kind and selfless, but we don’t think of them as fundamentally that way because we didn’t learn about that earlier part of their lives until later. Snow was cruel and motivated by wrath for a while, but we got to see an earlier good phase of her life before we saw the bad phase.
Gaultheria's fanvids: http://youtube.com/sagethrasher
Thanks, great comments.
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.I was wondering about that… Maybe Black Widow from Marvel Comics (and most recently the Avengers movies). I haven’t actually read/seen any of her origin stories, but it seems Hawkeye sees past her cold assassin/spy exterior and sees the possible good in her no one else does. I think some versions this is romantic, and other versions platonic. Also, depending on the version, Cat Woman.
I think the femme fatale description might be due to how characters behave when we’re first introduced to them. Ana was optimistic and cheerful when she was young, and Regina was kind and selfless, but we don’t think of them as fundamentally that way because we didn’t learn about that earlier part of their lives until later. Snow was cruel and motivated by wrath for a while, but we got to see an earlier good phase of her life before we saw the bad phase.
I think the first impressions count for a lot, and story tellers certainly know this also, and use it to either foreshadow events, and/or subvert our expectations for suspense/surprise.
You know, I had scribbled two pages of notes on criticisms of Rumpbelle before I though of how useless it was, because of how their whole relationship is set up narratively, as nailed by others. The writers want to have their cake and eat it too. This is killing the Rumpelle story/relationship. And Rumple’s path would have been entirely different had Neal not been killed off. Even if Rumple didn’t become 100% wholesome, even if he stayed amoral, or even kinda-bad, he would have been a sort of anti-hero type kept in check by his son and/or wife. And perhaps even extended family on occasion, as he got semi-incorporated into the do-gooder’s clan through the Neal-Henry-Emma connection.
The writers want to have their cake and eat it too.
Yup, that. We can go around in circles of who’s abusive, who’s not, who’s a victim and who’s not. We can even discuss if reality matters in a story like this or whether we should just “enjoy the ride.” The writers don’t care about such things. They want Rumple to be super dark because they find good!Rumple boring. They also want Rumple to be sympathetic because they know he’s a fan favorite and they hired Bobby Carlyle. They want Belle to be both encouraging and to belittle. They want to push the drama until they wring every last little bit of horror from it that they can. And then, almost inevitably, they’ll push the two back together with nary a thought of what came before, pat themselves on the back for a well written relationship and sit back, expecting the accolades from shippers to come in.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"And then, almost inevitably, they’ll push the two back together with nary a thought of what came before, pat themselves on the back for a well written relationship and sit back, expecting the accolades from shippers to come in.
And you know what, I will probably enjoy it in the moment as my emotions soar with the scene unfolding in front of me, with the sound-track, with the writing (if it is Jane Espenson 😉 ), and/or with the acting (mainly from Bobby Carlyle, but both). But there will probably be a very unpleasant after-taste, as I reflect and think-on, and feel-on, on what we are suppose to swallow, when viewed as a whole.
And then, almost inevitably, they’ll push the two back together with nary a thought of what came before, pat themselves on the back for a well written relationship and sit back, expecting the accolades from shippers to come in.
And you know what, I will probably enjoy it in the moment as my emotions soar with the scene unfolding in front of me, with the sound-track, with the writing (if it is Jane Espenson
), and/or with the acting (mainly from Bobby Carlyle, but both). But there will probably be a very unpleasant after-taste, as I reflect and think-on, and feel-on, on what we are suppose to swallow, when viewed as a whole.You won’t be the only one. I think most of the shipper fandom will eat it up because when we’re in the moment, logic falls by the wayside. A and E are….smartly manipulative. There’s a whole lot they don’t understand–culturally, socially, interapersonally, and narratively–but they do know how to make audiences sing their praises for brief respites.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"And you know what, I will probably enjoy it in the moment as my emotions soar with the scene unfolding in front of me, with the sound-track, with the writing (if it is Jane Espenson ), and/or with the acting (mainly from Bobby Carlyle, but both). But there will probably be a very unpleasant after-taste, as I reflect and think-on, and feel-on, on what we are suppose to swallow, when viewed as a whole.
Sadly, I will be right along with you and with the bitter after taste afterwards.
The topic ‘The Rumbelle Dilemma’ is closed to new replies.