Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
At the end of 3A the man Rumplestiltskin sacrifices himself to stop Peter Pan, his own father. Was there ever any idea why he had to do it that way? I mean, why didn’t he simply kill just Pan? And what happened that moment when they disappeared? Did Pan just vanish but Rumple, or his essence preserved by the powers of the Dark One was taken in a bodyless form into the vault in the EF? Or did Rumple eventually kinda absorbed the existence of his father into his life energy? I am wondering partially because I was musing about possible deeper levels of Rumple having absorbed his own son for a while. Besides that I am wondering, what effect it had on the human to have been dematerialized into some form and what that might mean for the balance of powers inside Rumple now, how much human is there and how much Dark One? Not to mention the experience he never had since he had became the Dark One but now made with Zelena: to be the slave of someone else’s will. Considering that Rumple in a way became the Dark One in the first place to be not anymore at the mercy and whims of others, that should have some impact on him.
But sometimes I have he feeling my urge to look for more profound images or meaning because old mythology, fairy tales and folklore are mixed with modern images, and because of years of fantasy and science fiction consumption and discussions, makes me look for something, that isn’t there. It’s entertainment, fun, or so.
As I see it though, Belle didn’t marry the man she met and thinks to know. I know, she said she loves even his dark sides (whatever), but even Belle should have limits.
[adrotate group="5"]¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
*treading carefully* …. well just to ask this question, is it wrong to assume that a character is straight until proven otherwise?
No, it’s not wrong, but it is limiting possibilities. Saying, until stated otherwise by a character, a character can very well be queer, is simply a way to ask to stay open for more than one idea. edit: Or one can say as well, yes, it is wrong to simply assume a character is hetero, like RG put it. I am just a tad more diplomatic in this case (and have maybe a different understanding of right and wrong).
People very rarely have to come out as hetero. When you meet someone new and and they tell in the first small talk something like, that they went with their partner last night to the theater and it was a great show, most people will picture as partner someone of the opposite sex. We don’t give it much thought, we don’t question it, unless it is in some way pointed out, mentioned, made visible. Hetero people seldom have to explain, why they’re hetero. Fans seldom have to explain, why we wish for any hetero romantic couple on a TV show, maybe who we want to pair up, but not that on a show telling stories about love should be at least a hetero couple and not just only singles loving their parents, kids, and maybe their pets. Hetero is defined as “the normal”. And as the norm, so it has not to be declared, defined, explained. Thus the term heteronormativity.
In discussions it happens many times, that people argue, that it was not shown or stated, that the character is gay, and because of this lack of expressed otherness the character has to be what is defined as “normal”, that means hetero. But why should that be, as long as it is not explicitly stated?
Ask yourself, how many people have told you, or have you asked, if they are hetero? I bet with you, that a few of the people you know and have so far not questioned and assumed to be hetero are queer, although they might never tell you (because of society). It can be quite interesting to ask people, if they are hetero, some feel offended, but some wonder why I ask them that, and it can start productive discussions about how we are used to see things in society.
@RumplesGirl You did well. And thanks for the intervention No long essay this time from me, little sleep, not enough coffee and it is too warm 😉¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Everyone honestly interested in learning why queer people identify with Elsa, why it might be important to have a queer couple and not just one brokenhearted queer warrior on the show is invited to come to the thread, where we discuss “Out in Storybrooke”
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
@WickedRegal. Please read the thread, it has been by now explained more than once, why queer people identify with Elsa. No she is not automatically a lesbian because she was not shown in the movie with a love interest – but that doesn’t make her hetero either. And if you can’t take this discussion serious then please stay out of this thread. Thanks
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
We have different perspectives.
Emma is of the genes of Snow and Charming, they are her biological parent, their flesh and blood, but that is it. I know, for foster children, adopted children it can be a very strong and important moment with great impact to meet their biological parents, and they might be able to instantly build good rapport to them. But genes, flesh and blood make people only related on the biological level. I know, there is the saying, blood is thicker than water, and a lot of people seem to belief more in nature than nurture, but I am not one of them. Nature and nurture are equally important in the sense, that our genes give us the set we play with, but how we do it, that is nurture. I have a bond to my parents and siblings not because they are blood related to me, but because they raised me and I grew up with them. I know them in intimate ways and they me that not many other people do, that is the bond we have.
The bond Emma and Henry have is because if their shared experience and belief in each other.
Emma was the biological result of Snow and Charming meeting, but they had to give her up, not their choice, but it is what happened. That means, Emma grew up without them, for 28 years she knew nothing about them besides that there must have been two people and that they left her alone, and they had no influence on her besides being the absent parents. Emma has just begun to have a relationship with them, and half of that time she spend not remembering them again (New York).
Emma as a person with self-awareness, views, dreams, quirks, skills is a result of 28 years of life, not just of the romance of her parents.
I criticize, that the writers send Emma into the past of her parents to make a connection that should be build in the now, and barely has been build. A sentimental journey. I find that image skewed. I know, a lot of people say, that learning, knowing about your roots, where you are coming from tells you who you are and where you will be going, I did so myself, but I see it differently by now. I am not saying, the past should be ignored, but we are in the here, what we decide and do now, that is what defines us.
That sentimental journey had impact, I don’t deny that. It means there is now more more or less shared experience for Emma to build on, and building a relation with the parents she knew nothing about for 28 years is well adding to her view on herself. But the journey was not a journey of Emma to herself, it was about building relationship to her parents, her family, an aspect of herself. But one can say, that is just a matter of perspective.
But I wouldn’t say, Emma was running away from who she was, she was running away from who she was expected to be and who she could eventually become. Change can be a scary thing, even if it is to the better.
Maybe we can agree it was just a part of her big journey to herself or a better self? She might have learned to love herself a little more, accept that there is more to her than she felt she could handle so far, but I am very sure, she is not done with her journey.
And we won’t agree on Hook either. Yes, he was there, he was the writers choice of a chaperone or guardian of you like on this sentimental trip, of course he was not just her love puppy following her trail. Agree, it was important for her to be not alone on this journey. I question, why it was Hook, why the male lover, the romance. And I know they build it up for all of the season, he was made the logical companion, that is not my point. What the show lacks, and especially when it comes to Emma, is women empowering women.
Worse maybe even. So that Emma and Snow will build a positive relationship (again) it looks at the moment that it takes the joint efforts of Hook, Charming, Henry, a bit of Neal and probably even little Snowflake Neil (to keep them apart decided to use different spelling). This show was more progressive at the beginning of season 2, sending Emma and Snow on a shared trip in present EF. Sometimes it seems to me, like different from many in the audience the writers have chosen to forget about the first half of season 2, or that their memory about it is very selective. Remember that beautiful scene in season 2 at the end of episode 3, in the nursery? Well, I do. As I remember Snow saving her daughter from an Ogre with bow and arrow, them fighting together the zombies Cora send after them, and then Cora herself, not to mention mother and daughter teaming up with warrior Mulan and courageous princess Aurora. Where did that experience go? Is it worth so little that we now needed this sentimental journey to build new rapport? So that Emma now can embrace that part of herself, the family, relying on others and letting others in part? This trip was redundant, and it wasn’t, because they have butchered what they had build up in season 2A since 2B, so, right they had to do it again. Indeed, if I remember it correctly they have spoken of rebooting the show in season 3.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Jelsa is popular on the web, but you are aware that the Jack Frost version all this shipping is based on is not a Disney character but an animated character by DreamWorks Animation/Paramount Pictures based on a book series by William Joyce? And no, these books are far from being public domain, they just have been published. Of course though there could be a Jack Frost, he is a folklore character as the spirit, personification of winter, but that would have to be some very different character to avoid any copyrights issues. So, not the Jelsa you might be hoping for.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Just a little advice: avoid using the words lesbian and “anti-man” in one sentence, or in context at all. Being not attracted to men is not being “anti-man”. Neither means distrusting men to be all against men, neither does being against or furious at men make it anymore likely to be lesbian/bisexual than hetero. I know you didn’t mean any offense, but it can be misunderstood. In the wild wild world of the internet (Twitter, Tumblr) you might get some harsh reactions to such a statement.
But yeah, Gothel could be queer. As long as nothing different is explicitly stated by a character, it’s always possible. We’re just used to assume someone is heterosexual as long as nothing is stated, but that doesn’t mean they are. It doesn’t matter though that Gothel is unfriendly or dismissive of men or everyone.
That there is no romance with a man in the picture for Elsa in Frozen is one reason why people see a possibilty for Elsa being lesbian, but more important is that Elsa is a character being born different, and handling being different is her story in the movie. Merida from Brave was as well discussed as being lesbian, because she had no interest to marry, she was gender non-conform, rebelling against traditional princess gender roles, but as I observed it so far, the idea is even stronger for many with Elsa, because Elsa is born different, has a power isolating her, causing hostile reactions and fear. And when she decides to free herself of the fear and be herself, she quite visibly turns from a restrained girl into a confident, enjoying herself and her powers, young woman. Elsa is in situation LGBTQI can identify with.
But fact is, there is nothing making it more likely that Elsa is lesbian/bisexual than hetero, all that there is is an opportunity because there is as of yet no man as romance in the picture. Thus why I wrote, there is an open door. For a character like Snow White the door is in the Disney world closed concerning this, at least for now and the near future. Snow has in Disney world her prince Charming (not just OUaT).
I think it would be interesting if Snow held the homophobic view (maybe this could at least lead back to the dark spot storyline that went nowhere) especially with the birth of Neal because she wouldn’t want her baby to be around “that sort of thing”. Also young Eva had that line about a baby that was “pure”. Snow could’ve been raised to believe that homosexuality was “impure”.
It’s not plausible to me. Snow might have been a spoiled brat as kid/teenager, and so was her mother Eva, but I can’t see that kind of distaste and hostility that homophobia is. Seeing the gentle nature of Snow’s father, his openness, after all he wanted to marry a miller’s daughter (and didn’t feel obliged to do so, that Cora was pregnant came up later), highly doubt in his house something like homophobia would have had any lasting place. Whatever Eva might have meant with this odd remark of a baby that was “pure”, even if she had some upbringing including intolerant views, it seems that either her husband or some other influence changed her attitudes a lot over time. We later meet a very gentle, mature, openminded Eva as Snow’s mother.
Recently read again an interview that Ginnifer Goodwin gave in the first season (it is in the character analysis thread), and she does talk about that she played Snow and Mary Margaret with some lesser noticed edges in the traditional Snow White perception, like that Snow was somewhat vain (well, as vain as any woman was thought to be though at that time). That fits with the spoiled brat and being somewhat superficial at times, still not suggesting to me any likeliness of homophobia though.
At least the baby would be a somewhat plausible trigger for reactions. That is maybe the biggest issue I have with this whole scenario. As nice as it would be to give Anna a chance to stand by her sister in particular her choice of who she loves, why should anyone in Storybrooke care who Elsa falls in love with? It might work at best as secondary or tertiary plot, some side-note to the main story. Unless it is someone the main characters care about and they perceive it as threat. They might care about Red, but that much that it becomes an important part of the story? Not saying that Elsa being queer has to be an important part, for sure not the main plot, it can be a sidenote, but still should be visible and outspoken. But if you want to make Anna standing by her a point, then that demands some importance. Otherwise would prefer it being not an issue at all, but simply bring in for Elsa a woman to fall in love with as part of regaining her control over her powers.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Somehow now picture a scene in winter with schoolkids, maybe even Henry hanging out on the school yard, discussing to name the snowman they just build Olaf. And Elsa with a smile of good memory on her face watching and bringing him to life …
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
