[Myril]

Sorry, me bad, hit the wrong button and was a little to fast to press another another one. OOOOOppppsss … 😳 If anyone wonders, what HappyEnding is refering to. (note to myself: never write and edit things again when cuddling in bed with laptop)

Now, let’s see if I can get it back … (ah, thanks browser history)

@HappyEndings wrote:

@RumplesGirl wrote:

H and K ship Swanfire. It’s canon. 🙂

The Emma and Neal scene is going to kill me.

ok, I thought a canon was a pair of people that are just friends to of the same sex so I must be wrong on a cannon thing where do you people come up with this stuff cannon, shipping instead of relationship?

In the world of fandoms canon is everything that happens on the show (or movie, book, game, whatever the fandom is about) , meaning person, relationship, events that have been shown or mentioned in the show. So that H and K ship Swanfire doesn’t make it actually canon, more that the two had been in a relationship and that they obviously still have feelings for each other, as it is shown in the episodes. Rumbelle is another example of a relationship in OUaT which is canon, and of course Snow and Prince Charming. Not canon is (so far) for example Red and Dr. Whale, Regina and Hook or Mulan and Aurora.

Ship is short for relationship and shipping means to favor a fictional relationship of characters, be it canon or not.

Most of these terms evolved in fan faction writing. It’s not specifically internet lingo, uhm, language.

[Myril]

Welcome! 😀

¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯

[Myril]

as usual: don’t take me all serious, seriously. 😈

Hook: I killed Rumplestiltskin. I’m sated. Replete. My life’s purpose met.
(To err is human, mate)

Greg: Do we have a deal?
(sounds like Rumple. Aspiring new Dark One?)

Regina: Kill them all. No mercy.
(congratulations, you reached the next level in the game and now have the power of tyrant and mass murderer)

Regina: Jail cell? I don’t think so.
(right, a padded cell would probably be better fitting)

Rumple: Well, it seems you’ ve taken to power quite well, gives your cheeks a nice rosy color.
(always the charming evil) 😳

Rumple: They’re her people, dearie. You’re gonna have to be content with their fear. They’ll never love you.
(don’t be so negative, you know, positive thinking is the way)

Rumple: Well in that outfit finding her should be easy.
(right, wearing the flavor of the month is not so good for blending in unless you’re on some Hollywood party, in New York, on a fashion week, it’s carnival or Halloween)

Rumple. It took your mother months to learn that. You? Well, perhaps, in a week you’ll be able to, uh, change your hair? Highlights? Maybe.
(men, no idea how hard it is to make hair look good, that is sometimes the toughest task) 👿

Regina: About as regal as a potato.
(Hey, couch potato is an honorable title!) :ugeek:

Rumple: Careful, dearie. A queen striding amongst peasants might not like what she hears.
(who says she has to listen when striding)

Regina: This is my chance to go back and start over, for me to be the hero.
(*snorts* does anyone have some handkerchief for me? Need to clean up the spilled coffee. Alright, we all want to be heroes)

Henry: Like a self-destruct button?
(just have to find the key card to activate it)

Regina: I don’t have any other choice. As long as there are other people in our lives, you can never fully be mine. You loved me once. With them gone, you’ll love me again. And you can see me for what I truly am … a hero.
(in the face of all logic …) 😯

Henry: Not if you kill everyone. You’re a villain.
(boy, just your point of view. and maybe of most people. pfff,who wants to be a hero, the villains are the cool guys anyway)

Carnival barker: Step right up and sink an arrow into her heart!
Regina: That’s not right
Carnival Barker: Well it’s fixed, actually. You… you can’t hit the Queen in the heart, because she ain’t got one.
(right through the heart)

Peasant man: Kill the Evil Queen!
(rabble-rouser)

Regina: You don’t know her.
Peasant man: Thank my lucky stars for that.
(you don’t know how lucky you are)

Hook: And I say, let’s you and I make an alliance and we’ll skip the unpleasant betrayal business.
(only the unpleasant one, of course)

Tamara: Look, Emma, you don’t have to worry. You can trust me.
(never trust someone who tells you to trust them, or so. not if they’re engaged with your ex)

Emma: What? Don’t “Emma” me!
(never would dare to)

MM: But your “superpower” has been known to be unreliable, Emma. Especially when you’re emotional.
(mothers are so supportive, aren’t they ;))

Henry: So… we’re back in business?
(pick the right playmate)

Regina: I hired you a year ago, despite your drunkness. And you! You … I had you flogged last spring for lateness!
(she certainly was employer of the year) 😆

Hook: You ever wonder if this constant pursuit for revenge is the reason we have no one who cares for us? I mean, when all this is over, and I know the Crocodile is dead, for good and all, I’ll have nothing to look forward to. My life will be empty. Revenge may sate your being, but misunderstand me, my dear, it’s an end, not a beginning.
(a pirate is getting philosophical, he’s getting old. or that is his new pick-up line)

Regina: Now follow me closely.
(what is your Twitter name?)

Hook: Precarious. You couldn’t have just hid the trigger in the back of your wardrobe?
(you have no idea how much more dangerous the back of the wardrobe would be, this is the simple hiding place)

Regina: You’re the distraction.
(we suspected already Hook’s just a plot device :P)

Hook: Maleficent. Love you in earth tones.
(hm, more ash grey, but earth brown sure sounds more flattering)

Regina: Wilma. My family works in the mills.
(not the stone pit)

Snow: Someone from another forest taught me. It’s a long story.
(it sure is, and maybe we’ll hear it in some upcoming season? In other word some hundreds or more of sleepless nights, tons of coffees, scrolling through thousands of more or less good fanfics and endless fanwanking and plenty of speculation later) 🙄

Snow: It taught me that there can be this genuine, selfless connection between people, even strangers.
(Beware of Greeks baring gifts. But nothing against Greeks, mostly nice people in real, just saying)

Emma: Operation Tiger
(shouldn’t it be Tigger?)

Emma: I need a why? You never need a why.
(He is the kid, you are the parent, that’s why)

Henry: I want something like the town, something that hides in plain sight. Something like a praying mantis.
(sneaky. praying mantis have no good reputation, have they)

Henry: I thought by now we’d be having adventures. Over there, you know? Riding horses, shooting bow and arrows. This is cool too.
(the bliss of being a child)

Henry: That’s awesome! We could get, like, a castle… you, me and Neal.
(this boy has some imagination ;))

Henry: Operation Praying Mantis is on.
(roger that)

Henry: So once we find proof that Tamara’s evil, I guess the wedding’s off?
(things could be so easy)

Henry: I mean, once he’s single, it could happen. Thrown together, moon light, wine …
(he should become advice columnist)

Emma: Do I look like a jealous ex?
(no, of course not. By the way, how does a jealous ex look?)

Regina: Morning already?
Snow: We have one every day.
(these pesky perky early birds… I would hate her too ;))

Snow: Regina wants to hurt people. I think she’s in constant pain and is always looking to figure out whom to blame for it.
(Snow the psychologist)

Snow: She wanted revenge more than she wanted love. And I can’t imagine living that way. I want to be guided by love.
(Snow the Pollyanna)

Hook: Startling aren’t I. Some people say “striking”.
(humble, Captain)

Hook: Well, you should know by now the one thing I excel at is surviving.
(and getting tied up)

David: You know, when we get back, Leroy, we’re going to need your help restoring the palace.
MM: It’s in pretty bad shape
Leroy: Cosmetic or a total teardown?
MM: Burn down.
(important detail)

Leroy: Nobody steals from a dwarf.
(Rule number one)

Rumple: Sorry, dearie, do I know you? I already have a maid. Promising girl, actually.
(now we know why Regina locked Belle up, she wanted her job)

Rumple: I said you could call. Didn’t say I’d answer.
(always read the fine print)

Rumple: Have the peasants no soap then?
(soap is for softies)

Regina: The Queen is dead. Long live The Evil Queen!
(three cheers! and free beer.)

Regina: So little bitty Owen does grown-up magic of his own now.
(they grow up so fast, ya know)

Greg: It’s not magic. Actually this is something much better… science.
(sooo much better)

Regina: Yes. I was … the Queen.
Greg: But now here you’re nothing
Regina: And what are you`?
Greg: I’m … I’m just a man… a man on a mission.
(… a mission impossible… oops, wrong show)

¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯

[Myril]

@TheGoldenKey wrote:

Regarding Peter Pan’s shadow. It wasn’t just the Disney version that had the shadow, it’s been in the musical play for years and theatre productions since its concept back in 1904.

In The Little White Bird, Peter Pan was original a spirit caught between two worlds, life and death. He wasn’t able to let go of his life. Same with other lost boys, none ready to let go and go into the light so to speak.

So it’s interesting, that his shadow looks almost wraith like, a hollow being with soulless eyes.

Indeed, reminds of the Wraith, doesn’t it. Being between life and death, sleep, dream, dream worlds … Netherworld, Neverland …

“Our life is twofold. Sleep has its own world,
A boundary between the things misnamed.
Death and existence: Sleep has its own world,
And a wide realm of wild reality.”
(Lord Byron, The Dream, 1816)

Well, my mind is right now somewhere between all these worlds, in some twilight zone, so getting weird ideas 😉

Lots to ponder. Amazed how one tiny scene can open up so many cans of worms. 😀
PS excuse the spelling errors, half asleep

Don’t mind, I am only half awake. 😆

¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯

[Myril]

I was pretty sure that Snow was talking about Robin Hood. Red might have taught her a lot about tracking and had some skills with a longbow too (she was carrying a longbow when they were following the tracks of the wolf in the snow, just saying because handling a crossbow like Granny has is something quite different, crossbow is easier, takes less strength, easier to aim), but I doubt that the writers could resist making this connection between Hood and Snow. Even less after they just introduced him past week. 😆

Edit: Don’t think that Red is from another forest, or that Snow would think of her that way.

¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯

[Myril]

Already brought it up in the promo topic, but throw it into the discussion here too. What if Wendy’s London is not our historical London but the London of another storybook world, the world of the Darlings, Oliver Twist, Mary Poppins? Of course that nevertheless raises the question of time, but not of time travel, “only” of time being different in different (storybook) worlds. We already have the headache, how the stories came into our world and became our known fairy tales if they happened not hundred of years ago but only a few decades ago, so just a tiny bit adding to support these headaches.

It’s just that I remember to have heard K&H said in some interview, that there was no time travel. Unfortunately don’t remember exactly in which interview they said it, it was in connection with talking about the Jefferson’s hat (if I find it again, will let you know).

¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯

[Myril]

What if it’s not the historical London of our world? Frankenstein’s world seemed to be a lot like our world (historical) besides being a world in black and white. So what if the London where the Darlings lived is a London in another storybook world? Could be the world of Mary Poppins (who obviously was capable of some magic) and Oliver Twist, other storybook characters.

The Blue Fairy didn’t say, that the bean would lead directly to the world without magic. Maybe nitpicking, but it leaves options. She said, she can send them to a world without magic (the only way to get Rumple as Bae’s father back). Then when she gave Bae the bean, she told him, to follow it “wherever it take you.” We know the hat worked only between magical worlds, we don’t know if the beans work differently, so far we only assumed.

Bit of fanwanking, and makes me feel not comfortable, but it would make some sense, if Wendy’s London is not our world’s London.

¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯

[Myril]

@thelonebamf wrote:

@myril wrote:

(…) found this interesting information on a general great blog called Tales of Faerie, here a direct link to the info.

You have just changed my life for the next few days with that link. Thank you! <3

You’re welcome. 🙂

@Keb wrote:

We do have to be careful with “the original” and historical evidence when it comes to fairytales.

Beauty and the Beast is acknowledged as a fairy tale to deviate from alleged typical fairy tale pattern of not just damsel-in-distress but princess-in-distress rescued by hero (aka knight, prince). Although another fairy tale not fitting into that alleged princess pattern immediately coming to my mind is Snow White and Rose Red (quite sure commoners, peasants), and if you look at Cinderella it’s not all clear either, or depending on version, if she is of noble birth (duke, earl) or just upper social class (like rich merchant).

Most of our ideas of knights, princes, princesses, nobility is very much influenced by fairy tales and fictional legends like the stories of Arthur and his knights, so much that even historians and archaeologists have problems to break from the idealized images we have of medieval society. Chivalry is a concept probably more rooting in fiction than in reality, starting with classical sagas (hero stories) to medieval literature and their revival and glorification by romanticism (what brings us back to what we discussed a little earlier, images of heroes and showing female heroes and different kind of heroism). We should thank particular Minnesang for the high ideal of true love.

Right, it’s a fictional world, so the writers can create whatever hierarchy, forms of nobility and society they like to, maybe take inspiration from existing, historical societies, but certainly adapt it to their needs. Only question in any fictional world is, if it is believable and consistent and working for the narrative. But frankly, I have my doubts, that the writers of OUaT so far have given it much thought, they took what the fairy tales provided, more or less. Might be not so important detail.

On the other hand, paying attention to such details can give ground for interesting stories, even if never becoming the focus of a story. I’ve noticed I am not the only one sometimes wondering, why citizens of Storybrooke don’t seem to question the whole royalty thing now that they have their fairy tale memories and the memories of people of our world. After all they have the memories of people, who live in a liberal democracy, one of the first modern democracies. Would all the commoners, peasants be happy to return to a more unequal society eventually if returning to the Enchanted Forest? Returning to their old world doesn’t has to mean though to return to the same kind of society, but it could be a question. Part of Cora’s background story was an issue of inequality set by birth. David was born and raised as peasant, and I think that had a bit of influence on his character and views.

Don’t expect society critical master works from a Sunday evening easy entertainment show, but being aware of it might help good writing. 😉

As for sure being consistent (inside your own creation, fictional universe) helps.

Now, Belle. I’m still not sure what Belle is meant to be in the universe of OUaT, princess, nobles, gentry or the daughter of a (rich) merchant. Is it any important for the story of Rumple and Belle? Probably not, but it’s important for her story – and I don’t want to see Belle’s story just as an extension of Rumple’s.

But even when it’s about Rumbelle. I know this is far from the classical Beauty and the Beast tale anyway, Rumple is no cursed prince. He was a poor peasant before he became the Dark One. And remembering the episode “The Miller’s daughter” looked like he never managed to get real respect from nobility, they might have feared him but despised him as being not one of them. Something that he shared with Cora, what maybe helps to explain their interest in each other. So I find it interesting, what Belle is as well looking at her relationship with Rumple.

¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯

[Myril]

In Lacey Belle says to Robin Hood, she made a deal to serve Rumple in exchange for him protecting her kingdom and her family from the ogres. So princess or did she exaggerate? She said “my kingdom” hesitantly.

I’m by now bit unsure, what Belle is or was. Before thought it possible, that Belle’s father was simply the mayor, leader of a self-governed town (boroughs), a rich merchant not nobility – what would be more consistent with the original version of Beauty and the Beast. Or more precise, with the short version commonly known. Read that in the first publish version by Villeneuve there was a bit of a different background story, where she was actually the daughter of a king and a (disguised) fairy, planted for her own safety as baby into the family of the merchant. No kidding – found this interesting information on a general great blog called Tales of Faerie, here a direct link to the info.

Anyway. As other noted, the use of Sir indicates, if alike British titles, that Belle’s father would be a baronet or knight, so gentry or what is sometimes called untitled nobility (occasionally born not as noble but as commoner, bestowed with the honor of baronet or knight for extraordinary services). Somehow I like the idea of him being a merchant and not nobility more.

@thelonebamf wrote:

Ah, like I’ve said I’m no expert. Is there a title given to the children of a Knight who has inherited the Knighthood?

You mean something alike princess for the daughter of a King? Nope, no particular title for the children. Belle would have been addressed simple as Lady Belle.

¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯

[Myril]

@thelonebamf wrote:

Hearing people bring up Stockholm Syndrome in regards to Beauty and the Beast is a pet peeve of mine as well. I guess it’s just people trying to be edgy while applying real world issues to fairy tale characters to make statements about feminism etc.

What I’ve seen as commentaries has little to do with making statements about feminism or other “isms”. Think more it is quite simple that some people find a relationship gross between a man, who is doing so much evil, and could be called a monster, and a woman, who (at first at least) is forced to go and stay with him, because that is what this man demands as price for his help to protect her family and kingdom against ogres. More, Belle is developing sympathy for Rumple after a while, insisting that there is something good in him, despite that Rumple again and again is using people, torturing, killing, doing whatever he thinks he has a right to do and serves his purpose. Some people are looking for something to explain, why Belle despite knowing, having witnessed what Rumple is capable of and is still doing so, insists to see something good in him and keeps hoping for a change to the good, it seems to them disillusional. Explaining it as Stockholm Syndrom kinda helps to deal with the story.

You make some interesting points, why Stockolm Syndrom might not apply to Belle in this show. But a few thoughts concerning kindness and abuse: Abuse can take different forms. Doesn’t look to me like Rumple allowed much contact to other people at first, so factually he was isolating Belle. Isolation is abuse. It is a mean to keep someone under control. It takes away chances to talk to other people, learn about events from the view of others besides yourself and your captivator / abuser. The captivator controls who you have contact with, what you get to see and hear, and how. Rumple locks Belle up over night, at least looked like that, and she can’t decide for herself to come and go until he gives her back the right to decide, that is cruel. Her life, and the life of her family and the people in her kingdom (still don’t like that they did that, why make her a princess) is under constant threat, Rumple can take it away any time. Belle has value for Rumple, had before he started to have feelings for her, his kindness is not an act of pure kindness, it serves him. And not only can the kidnapped, the hostage develop a bonding but so can the captivator over time, the longer the more likely it happens, something sometimes overlooked.

The coping mechanism, what is called in the Wikipedia article identifying with the captivator (not the best term for the processes going on, but leave it at that) is not about dealing with fear for life, or to defend against the captivator, it is to overcome the loss of control or the feeling of loss of control in the situation.

The most astounding thing in cases of abuses and kidnappings is, that occasionally even when having the chance to leave, the abused/captivated person doesn’t leave, because they don’t want to, see even anyone trying to free them as a threat (Stockholm syndrom). They have established by then a relationship to their captivators making them believe, that they have a good enough reason for what they are doing, that they are in control together with the captivator, that they have to stay even to help them to achieve their goals or at least to protect them from being taken down. That doesn’t mean, that they have to fully believe in the same values or put themselves on their captivators levels. But it does mean they make the well-being and the motivation of the captivator their concern, eventually even to the degree to lose regards for their own well-being.

Not saying, the Bell-Rumple story is a typical case of what is called Stockholm Syndrom, but I can see why some people see elements of it in this relationship.

As I see it though the real issue in the whole discussion has been not so much the Beauty but the Beast, not Belle but Rumple. Let’s say, it makes look Rumple more sympathetic than some think any evil guy should look. A lot of people have problems with how Regina is portrayed as well, not always the same people, but often. It’s a general thing about OUaT, a growing uneasiness with how evil is treated and portrayed on the show. Through the relationships, with Belle in case of Rumple/Gold, Henry in case of Regina, the way the relationships appear, it seems like it doesn’t matter what the bad guys do, there is someone always loving them. Okay, there is the threat that this person will turn away, but it looks like the evil guys had not to do much to win the heart of the person, they only have now to struggle to keep it.

Bad guys don’t have normal relationships, and particular not with good people. Klischee, but something many expect. Black-and-white is so much easier to deal with than all the shades of grey. From this point of view it is far easier to accept a relationship between Rumple and Cora than the relationship between Rumple and Belle. There must be something wrong about it, Belle has to be mentally not all sane, otherwise she as a good person would leave that bad guy in an instant. It just can’t be right. It’s a lovely side that Belle sees something good in him, somewhere buried, and has hopes for him to change, but at least she should stay away from him as long as he hasn’t changed, draw a line, and be clear to everybody how much she despises his evil doings. Staying with him seems to diminish the evilness of what Rumple has done and is doing in general (not actually true but it can look like it). (And not my view, just describing how it can be perceived and is by some.)

The way Belle reacted to Hook was a pivotal moment in the discussion. She declares Hook has a rotten heart, denying him what she is so willing to give Rumple again and again – benefit of the doubt. There had been some calling it Stockholm Syndrom before, but from what I observed on forums that was a point for more people to finally get grossed out by the story line, the relationship. And it does raise questions, doesn’t it?

And more people seem now to find it questionable after seeing Lacey. If Lacey is a person somewhat attracted to violence, what does that might tell about Belle and the whole relationship of Rumbelle? Possible Lacey is the opposite, or maybe she is the worst version of Belle. It might be something Regina specifically set up to punish Gold, or it is based on traits which exist in Belle as well, but didn’t show or only in a very different way. Whatever, after this episode there are some more question about the character of Rumbelle.

I know a lot of critics would like to see young girls today engrossed in stories with active female heroes, but I think it’s a fallacy to think that the only way a female can be heroic is to pick up a sword and go fight a monster. Beauty wins the day not by fighting, but by learning and wielding empathy. It may be a bit much to say that these are tools commonly associated with the female gender, but I think they are tools that are more accessible to anyone than enchanted weaponry or magic. 🙂 To be honest, these are skills that children of either gender could stand to learn.

The thing is not, if women can use other tools, as you call it, to be heroic (and agree that heroism shouldn’t be reduced to physical fights), it is that women too can use tools, which have been seen as pretty much men-only way to be heroic, aka weapons and fighting skills, physical violence. It was denied to women to take up the sword and fight, that is why we make such a big deal about women kicking butt on movie and TV screen, be it as the bad, evil woman or as good hero. There is a reason why some make a difference between heroine and female hero. Heroism was connected to masculine ideals, our images of what men typically are and do.

I don’t share your impression, that the Beauty and the Beast gets more criticism than other fairy tales, it gets its share. If there is something special about this tale, then that it is more disputed, if the tale is eventually even a somewhat feminist tale. It is though only common believe, that most other fairy tales feature a damselle-in-distress as female lead, it is not fact.

It doesn’t matter in my opinion, that fairy tales (and folk tales) have been around hundred of years in one or other versions, it doesn’t matter what the cultural and society background was then (unless for looking at changes and to understand how world was understood and seen then), what is in question is how we read and retell them today with our cultures and societies as background.

Not going deeper into these discussions now here, female heroes as well as feminist views on fairy tales, it would go beyond the scope of this topic (not to mention this post is already lengthy)

¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯

[Author]

Posts