[andreth stark]

i think so. it is sort of pointed out during Whale’s story; all of them kew about Frankenstein. So, what makes the other stories different?

[andreth stark]

That is a good point. But i think it relates more Emma-Rumpel than Henry-Bae.
Mainly because of that last escene, in which their respective sons are talking each other after breaking Emma’s and Mr. Gold hearts.
It seems to me like; both had made the same mistakes with their children, both of them being more afraid of their own inner demons than of their children shake, and both of them paying a high price for it.

[andreth stark]

Mmmm… Blue Faery told the charmings that there was space in the wardrobe just for one person, because she knew Pinoccio would take the second place. And BF also knew about Bae…
What if BF told Pinoccio about him but before the curse? And not only aboout Bae, also abut the dagger, for if i remember well August telling Mr. Gold that “a little faery” had told him aboit the dagger.
That makes me think that BF spke to him before being Mother Superior. And, as August didn’t loose his memories…

[andreth stark]

100% agree

[andreth stark]

@medchen wrote:

Andreth Stark –
If the thought of a puppet masters will helps, why not just think of destiny as the big Boss puppet masters will? Who’s to say thats not really what it is? Idealy, the puppet dont know it’s being led by strings. So therefor it calls the strange coinsidences destiny.

It helps! 😛 But i prefer not to do so, because that is as to say “Because the writers want it happens in that way”. Of course, if some Big Puppet Master appears, i’ll be the most pleased one ^^

[andreth stark]

Mmmm… i think we’re talking of two different things here. I mean, your reasons actually make sense… from a storytelling point of view, that is to say: symbolims, metaphors… it is pretty nice in fact. Closes the circle.

However, when coming to that sort of story, you loose the feeling of “I want to be there. I want that to be real and,hey! for all i know it could be real! Why not? everything makes sense, everything could happen!”, since they invite more to watch them from a contemplative perspective, to enjoy the view more than to be an active part of them.

I can enjoy the first, rounded sort of stories, of course, as i can enjoy and admire a picture by Andrea del Sarto. But if i have to choose, i prefer the stories that make me being sort of absorbed in them.

[andreth stark]

@playarita wrote:

The only thing I wanted to point out was that if destiny as it pertains to the red thread of fate/destiny is a natural law in their world then wouldn’t a scenario like this draw us deeper into that world. One thing I am not understanding is that with literary belief is that the world a story is set in has its own set of rules, its own natural order, its own physics, its own society etc. So for me the Bae/Emma scenario works because it works under the natural order of FTL. At doesn’t it though? Hasn’t the story been showing impossible circumstances where people are drawn together because of fate/destiny (Snow White and Prince Charming, Nova and Grumpy etc). Many of the love stories within the show are operating well outside of what this world would deem possible because of own beliefs, our own limitations etc… but that doesn’t remove the the possibility of these seemingly impossible events happening in their world.

I understand what you are saying but I always thought that to mean more in the circumstances where within something happens in that world, or specific era of time where anachronisms occur that ruins one’s immersion. For instance writing a regency era fiction and mentioning articles of clothing that would not have existed, or peppered with slang/speech too modern etc. Or within an alternate universe of a familiar world (let’s say our own) where something occurs that until that point would have been impossible: like in a world that still uses steam yet to discover electricity including certain technologies such as items that rely on electricity etc.

I don’t see fate or destiny in the examples you give. There is always an ulterior reason; charming and SW know each other so well that they can anticipate the other’s next movement and act consequently. Nova and Dreamy were separated not by destiny but for Blue Faery’s will. Yes, True Love happens. But those persons fell in love with someone met by chance, then love happens and then they fight for their love. I think the show settles it by showing Rumpelstiltskin as the Master of Puppets who sets the pieces in motion from the beginning. Even him becoming the Dark One was a manipulation by the former Dark One. Pinoccio coming to our world wasnot destiny but Gepetto’s request. Emma being the saviour was part of the curse, The Dark One’s creation.

Why Emma and Bae? one is tempted to say “because Henry was needed to be their son. Because there is some other Masteof Puppets and that fits his/her agenda”. And THAT thought is what makes me retain some faith in the story; we don’t know what actually happened there.
Destiny is not enough.

[andreth stark]

Maybe this is a crazy guess, but green -besides being PeterPan’s colour- symbolizes hope. And we have been told that there is a war to come. (War is symbolized by red -Emma, the saviour, wears a red scarf- )
So, -as i said, crazy idea- maybe Bae is some sort of hope in the war to come? Or to his father “redemption”? Or to something we don’t know yet? Or not Bae but what takes place in that apartment -the “family reunion”-?

[andreth stark]

I’ve never believe in faith or destiny. And despite that, or maybe because of that, I’ve always loved fantasy and fairy tales. Then, you argue, how is that possible? Isn’t it a sort of contradiction?

The answer is not, certainly not. There are thousands of reasons that make me enjoy the genre. Maybe the most important of all is the wonderlust. Maybe just the triad of “Recovery-Escape-Consolation” Tolkien spoke about in it’s “On faery tale” lecture.
According to him, the last element of the triad, “Consolation”, is the fact that faerytales, and fantasy in general, deal with hope and eucatastrophe, that is to say, “when everything points out to a dramatic, bad ending, something saves the day, and the ending turns into a happy one”.

As I understand it, THAT is what OUaT is about: hope. It is a good theme, since paraphrasing Tolkien again, no man can know the future. One can foretell, deduce, or speculate…. But it is not knowing. And loosing hope implies knowing future, for how can you know that the ending is going to be a bad one? (by the way, a good wink to this idea appears during the conversation Mr. Gold and Henry had in Bae’s doorway, where Rumpelstiltskin is the “grown man” who doesn’t have any hope of a good ending, while Henry is the “innocent view” to whom at the end, everything fits.)

However, in that same lecture, he said, on regards of literary belief:
“Children” (and I add; all of us, no matter our age) “are capable, of course, of literary belief, when the story-maker’s art is good enough to produce it. That state of mind has been called “willing suspension of disbelief.” But this does not seem to me a good description of what happens. What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful “sub-creator.” He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is “true”: it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside. If you are obliged, by kindliness or circumstance, to stay, then disbelief must be suspended (or stifled), otherwise listening and looking would become intolerable. But this suspension of disbelief is a substitute for the genuine thing, a subterfuge we use when condescending to games or make-believe, or when trying (more or less willingly) to find what virtue we can in the work of an art that has for us failed.”

In this respect, when the writers make things happen with a “magic” or “destiny” or “have faith” explanation, they fail as storymakers. They drive us out of the Secondary World, and it is a painful travelling, since we leave there characters and stories we love as old friends, “secondary world’s” friend we can not look at in the same way anymore.

And the path back to that world is also painful, since you must skip too many potholes to arrive, and even arriving, it will never be the same than before.

So yes, I understand what Malchore said, I even agree with him. But I also understand that maybe the lacking piece of the puzzle is waiting for us behind the next corner of the path.
After all, I live in the real, primary world, where there is no magic…. So I would never claim to know what is going to happen in the next episode.

[andreth stark]

I have the feeling that all the last week spoilers are confusing us… We have read that Rumpelstiltskin made a vow that changes everything, blablabla…Maybe i’m wrong, since English isnot my native tongue and maybe i understood it wrong, but that last escene with the seer he says “then i just have to kill him”, that is to not a sort of vow, just a “why are you making a big deal of that? I know how to take care of myself, i’m the dark one!”

BUT, he swears to his newborn son not to leave him. (And this is the par i’m not sure i’ve understood well)
With all this I mean that maybe what changes things is that Mr.gold looking for his son is not only the act of a man who regrets leaving his son, but the fulfilment of a previus vow -something, in a magic-fantastic world, stronger even than feelings- and the last escene is just a “may be IF Henry turns out to be a threat in any sense, he could be in a danger” to which we are putting to much attention because of the sopilers.

As I said, maybe i understood it wrong, but, i don’t know, it is quite tricky.

[Author]

Posts