Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Welcome to the forums, Stef!
Yup, this show as unfortunately a highly addictive impact. Mostly immediately effective and hard to overcome 😆[adrotate group="5"]¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
@RumplesGirl wrote:
Also, Myril: I’m sorry if you felt like we (or I) jumped on you for questioning Rumbelle. This is the sad reality of shows like this, when you ship, you ship hard and if it happens to be your OTP (as Rumbelle is for me) you tend to come down hard. Sorry for that. These boards are supposed to be fun places for open and honest discussion and sometimes things get heated.
If anything I felt somewhat misunderstood. Never felt like anyone was coming down hard on me here. I like a good argument, and in a good argument it can get tough at times. As long as it isn’t going personally and offensive I am fine with it.
When you say, people can have only one true love, but when you lose that person, then you are capable of falling in love again, then I do wonder though, if that love then is a kind of slightly minor, second love. The one true love chance is gone, isn’t it? So there is only one person in my life I can ever truly love, everybody else unfortunately has to be satisfied with just been loved even if they would deserve my true love as well? Keeping focus here on romantic relationships. The love between child and parent for example can be true love, would be the last to argue against that, but it is a different kind of love then what is talked about when terms like soul mate and one true love are used. I am having a hard time to wrap my mind around that logic, only one true love in life but if lost can love someone else, I find it contradictory.
There is this tale sometimes referred to, a tale that Plato let Aristophanes tell in The Symposium, that humans originally had four arms, four legs and a single head made of two faces. When the gods of the Olympus felt threaten by the humans, because these humans were strong, Zeus came up with the idea to split them in half. From then on humans had only 2 arms, 2 legs, one face, but they were forever longing for their other half, their soul mate. Have the impression that is very much how many see what a soul mate it, it is our other half, the only person we feel whole again with, the one person we’re meant to be with. I have a different view.
I know, Snow and Charming look like the perfect example for this idea of one true love, they had to meet, they were meant for each other, that is what makes the relationship so great and special. You can see it that way. But I think their relationship is not so great and special because of destiny, because of that they were so lucky to find the one person meant for them. To me their love is special because they work for it, the fight for it, because they believe in the power of their love, they believe in each other. That is what makes their love so strong, the way how they live it.
I don’t think that it would take anything away if there would be the possibility of another true love out there, even when you haven’t lost the person you experience it with right now. As I see it we grow with every love we give, it’s nothing we have to worry about to be running out of when we share it with more than one person, the opposite. True love doesn’t come easy, it’s nothing you can find around any corner, it’s something you have to work on and build, it takes effort, that is why for so many it seems impossible to have more than one true love, but it is not impossible.
I’m not saying there was true love between Rumple and Cora. I started thinking more along the lines what SpinningGold wrote, soul mate and true love are not the same, there are different kind of soul mates. But then I was beginning to wonder and ponder other possibilities. What if there was something that could have become true love under different circumstances. That questions if there is just one true love. That questions if truly loving someone always means turning into a good person (depending on what defines good). It questions if true love is something that simply is or something that develops, has to be build and nurtured. And exactly because true love is such a major motif in the show found it worth to explore the thought.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
@Keb wrote:
Well, I think by that rule they meant that dwarves are asexual beings. Being asexual does not mean you don’t love in other ways–and obviously, the dwarves do have brotherly love for one another, and great love for Snow White, too.
Grumpy got sprinkled by fairy dust, which made him different, and gave him a special connection to Nova (who accidentally did the sprinkling). His situation is entirely unique.
However, we have another layer! All the dwarves have Storybrooke identities now–and presumably these were normal human identities. It is possible then that they -could- love now. (But, sorry, Whale, fairies don’t date any more than nuns do.)
Seeing the dwarfs, and fairies (what about giants?) as asexual beings could offer an interesting perspective which rarely ever is explored in any stories about romantic love especially. Admittely wouldn’t have thought of it myself if not by coincidence just read a discussion on another side, a discussion struggling with defining what loves means, what attraction, what romantic love is. Question there was raised, how much a relationship which one would call love, romantic love, does have a physical side, or has to have to be called a romantic relationship (love, true love between non relatives – knowing that this forum is not rated I am cautious with terms here at the moment, so sorry if it sounds more complicate). Know it’s hard to imagine for most that for some people it’s not much about kissing, what doesn’t make their relationships platonic though (besides that this term is widely misunderstood anyway).
Ah, well one can hope, but guess that would be a tad too profound for a family show for Sunday prime time.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
THR: How does she move her way up the ladder?
McGowan: Rumple plays a big part in that. He shows her how to get ahead. You have to watch the episode to see. It’s not Hollywood; it’s Once Upon a Time, so it’s a little more layered(emphasis added)
I love Rose McGowan just for saying things like that. 😎¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
I am not merely judging by real world standards (there is plenty of ficion out there questioning the one and only love concept as well), that is not what I said. I said in OUaT Fairy Tales, and should add in the way they have been mostly perceived, have to face a world without magic, without the wondrous ways happy endings seem to be guaranteed (at least for some). In OUaT fairy tales have to face our world where one has to work hard for happiness and happy endings might not happen, or should have said a world alike our real world, because very sure I know that is not a documentary of our world. It’s fiction, of course.
The fantastic element in fiction is not there to deny our reality but to play with it, to offer different and eventually new ways of seeing life. Beyond all fantastic elements, fantasy has at its core human behavior, human psyche.
So far I haven’t perceived OUaT as stating, there is just one true love in life, they leave it open for interpretation. I am glad they do, because it makes in my opinion a way more interesting story telling and offers characters to identify with, their search, their struggles, them finding answers to questions we all have without claiming it’s the only ever possible answer. I am not denying that for individuals it might be possible that there is just one true love they ever will find and have in their lives, but I question the concept to be true in general for everybody, be it in fiction or in real life, as a rule of nature, fate, destiny, whatever.
Lana said on that panel in 2012, one has only one true love in Fairy Tale Lands – and that was something she assumed to explain to herself, make it accessible for herself why Regina reacted so full of hate to young Snow. It’s an interpretation.
Red192 – Kitsis&Horowitz talked about it in the podcast after episode 2×08 “Skin Deep” (podcast chapter 11, at about minute 15:00). It was an answer to a question via twitter, if there is only one true love. Their answer was: it’s a great question, and “a theme that we’re probably going to explore at some point on the show. Wether or not somebody can have true love I think depends on the circumstances.” (Eddy Kitsis) They explicitly talked then about Regina, and Eddy said: “I would hate to live in a world without the hope that you could fall in love again if you lost someone you loved already.” Adam Horowitz added that they like to explore the nature of love on the show and not just the romantic kind.
And because I have the feeling I have to make that very, very clear: It’s the concept of ONE true love I am questioning, not the idea of true love. Subtle big difference.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
@Midnight Dreary wrote:
@myril wrote:
For cryin out loud … I don’t question that Belle is Rumple’s true love. I question the concept of just ONE true love ever possible in someone’s life, and thus what the nature of the relationship between Rumple and Cora might have been at some point in their shared history.
Adam and Eddie have already confirmed that each character can only have one true love. Only one.
Where, when did they state that? Source please. I really would like to know.
If so: Then they better kill Ruby this Sunday, because things look really grim for her then. And no hope there for Regina ever, poor Evil Queen, but she can still try to find true love to her adopted son. Oh, right, Peter was maybe not Red’s true love just her first love, big difference. And same for Regina. Whatever each prefers to believe in.
Sorry when I am getting cynic here, but I honestly believe that the concept of only one true love in life is creating more problems than doing any good. And for story telling it creates plenty of plot holes, one later has desperately to fanwank away. (And I have over 20 years of experience of explaining the unexplainable to make stories in my fav shows work against all reason and within their own logic. so try me) 😈
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Think Milah was in a way overstating and in a way she wasn’t when she told Rumple that she never loved him.
Milah believed herself that she was in love with Rumple back before he went to the Ogre wars. She was not crazy about him going into that war. It didn’t seem to matter to her, that Rumple was called to be the son of a coward. Although possible at this point Rumple only thought people would judge him as that despite that they barely cared; think he was teased but it was not that much of an issue for others, he was more him struggling with the shadow of his father. Milah didn’t see any need that Rumple had to prove himself, but she supported him when he insisted to go to war. All she wanted was a good and safe family life. Impossible to tell by what we saw if she believed it was her one and only true love (if she at all believed in such a thing) or if she loved him as the best and nicest guy she could get in her village. She might have been not even able to tell by herself the difference at that time.
Being married to someone who struggled with being the son of a coward and sometimes might have been teased by people because of that, and being married to someone who irrefutable injured himself to avoid battle (no matter what more or less good reasons Rumple had for himself) is a huge difference of experience. While before it was more of a tease, a neighborly but not despiteful kind of joke, it now turned into a very real thing. Her husband was not the son of a coward anymore, he was a coward now himself. Pregnant and then with new born son Milah had to deal with despise and probably hate by other people because of that. Yup, her reaction was unexpected harsh when Rumple returned, but it spoke of frustration of the feeling that her, their dream of a good and safe family life seemed destroyed. Milah was without hope and without hope love has a hard time to survive, no matter how strong it was before. (after some musing by now understand better why she was reacting the way she reacted)
When Milah met Hook a few years later she experienced something that she never had experienced before, making her question herself, if she ever loved Rumple.
I find it interesting that the idea of one true love often seems to come with the assumption, that people know that this is their one true love, that what they feel at a given point in time for a particular person is the thing. How can anyone be so sure? I mean, is there something like some voice coming from the off announcing; that is your true love, dearie? It is possible that you truly believe to be in love with someone, but later you realize it was not that kind of love, it was not all true love, maybe not love at all (good for you if it never happened so far to you, but it happens).
Just read about a study about the impact of believe in “romantic destiny”, in that people are meant for each other or not, that there is something like a soul mate (in the sense of a person meant to be with you). Might surprise but the result of this study was, that people believing in the concept of one true soul are the ones giving up more likely on a partnership the moment difficulties arise. If anyone is interested, here a text about the study. Would have thought it’s the other way around, not? Or not. Problem is maybe more what we understand true love is then true love itself (if that makes sense to anyone)
Point is: with expectations high disappointment can be higher.
In short: Milah didn’t lie to Rumple, neither when she said to him she loved him nor later when told him she never loved him. It was just that she saw things very differently between these moments. She wasn’t superficial, not necessarily, she got a different view on life, on her life with Rumple.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
