Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The problem is, that with being the dark one, you not only have the power, but the darkness.
Yes, I agree. At the same time, now that I think of it, this is another example of OUAT showing one thing, and telling us another. Lets take S4 and the AU — I mean that entire sordid mess culminated in, presumably, Rumple’s ultimate fantasy, which… wait for it… wait for it… Involved a nice log cabin! A suit of (newish) armor! Light magic that smites the ogres! And a stay at home wife with a baby!
Ok, Rumple’s not going to win any progressive gender politics awards from me, but do they mean to tell me that this is what addiction to power looks like? That’s OUAT’s response GoT’s Lord Petyr “Littlefinger” Baelish?
[adrotate group="5"]Really interesting posts, y’all. I actually think there’s both the power aspect and the fear aspect that have an ambiguous and complicated relationship in Rumple’s character. In early seasons, we see Rumple seeking and clinging to power because of his fear — of losing Bae, to be sure, but I think it’s more insidious than that. S1-3 Rumple’s EF’s “prehistory” is very much about a man who is given very few options for any sort of control over his fate. This, in my opinion, has to do with class — being born a peasant, within what is presumably a feudal society with a rigid system and no upward mobility to speak of — Rumple has control over literally one thing: how he dies. That’s it. His life and the life of his son literally belong to whoever is lord of the estate on which Rumple’s village is located. At least, that’s what we’re given to understand with the Ogre Wars. Offered with the likely prospect of dying as part of the cannon fodder war effort, and leaving his son fatherless, he opts for the “cowardly” way out, but that “cowardice” is shown in context of Bae. This gets retconned in 5A as real cowardice, but that’s not how the story’s written early on. Anyway, Zoso exploits exactly this — it’s not that he’s exploiting Rumple’s fear in Desperate Souls. I don’t think Rumple is “Desperate” because he’s simply afraid. He’s desperate because the type of person he is has such a narrow horizon of possibility for exercising any sort of agency outside of the simple live/die dichotomy. And in EF, magic is really the only way around the rigid class structure. We see this later with Cora, we see this with Regina, we see this with Zelena. Magic is the weapon of the proletariat. 😉 And actually, except for Merlin and his Apprentice, and Emma, who is the product of “true love” very few magic users seem to be genuinely good (I’m of the Blue Fairy is shady as hell persuasion).
So I think that’s really Rumple’s origin, and everything else folds out of that. So, for one, I absolutely don’t buy that all of Rumple’s character is about “for the powerz and ze evilz” but there’s another, bigger question for me here which I don’t think folks have asked.
That’s the question of “so what”? Why is wanting power bad? Why does it feel so natural “Oh, of course, he wants power. Bad Rumple!” If power is about control over one’s life, as the early seasons of OUAT seem to suggest, why is this something to necessarily condemn?
I honestly have a huge problem with what I think is OUAT’s undercurrent classism, and that’s because the show has taken a classic fairytale trope — seeking power for its own sake is evil, only people who “fall into” power/magic/riches accidentally deserve them, and generally speaking, everyone should know their place. It gets refracted through gender of course: women’s way up the totem pole is through marriage or magic, but magic is never shown as a legitimate way to climb the social ladder. “Know your place” is a very important moral if you live in a feudal society, for sure. In that sense, I can see the social utility of this kind of trope, considering what sort of societies have given rise to these fairytales. But that OUAT would take it, and unreflectively reproduce it, is intellectually lazy and a missed opportunity.
But I don’t think they did this early on. What I dislike about the way Rumple is written post-reboot is the way in which these very complex social and psychological issues explored in the first 3 seasons, and the commentary on class and power, gets jettisoned in favor of a much flatter narrative along the “Rumple seeks power and hence is evil” lines. And actually, this would be almost OK, if it were where the show started in the first place, but we were shown something else. So the result of this, is that OUAT ended up doing something really awful: it “naturalized” Rumple’s evilness, but because we had this class commentary early on, it can be easily read as a subtle commentary about who’s “deserving” and who “isn’t.” Ie. peasants should mind their place because they are of “lower stock.” I’m not saying that this is what they’re consciously doing, but I think there’s a risk of that interpretation — it’s subtle, like OUAT’s racism is subtle.
This gif made me laugh/cry.
This is so brilliant.
To show that even Adam and Eddy had no idea, they took what should have been Emma’s solo storyline and gave it to Hook at the last second, showing that in order to give him some form of relevance besides love interest, they have to steal their original main character’s plots and give it to him. And they did it in such an icky way, I couldn’t help but wince from episodes nine through eleven. I still can’t wrap my head around the fact he felt no Dark One symptoms that entire time!
All THIS.
Though, as a possible counterpoint, I personally would have been Ok if Hook and Robin didn’t really have any significant part in moving the plot forward. In fact, if they were just a love interest, this could have been a really radical way of representing gender and romantic relationships in the media. Say, if Robin was mostly busy with his own thing — I don’t know, raising Roland, installing Port-o-potties in the woods for the merry men — and they would show Regina meeting up with him for simply down time, conversation, and emotional support. As a partner with whom she could talk through her challenges, but who also had his own, albeit not earth-shattering thing going, as opposed to just arm candy. Or Zelena’s baby daddy. This could have been fantastic, and if the writing were done well, it could really fit the show’s theme of family.
What’s so offensive about the way the writers handled both stories is that obviously the male counterpart couldn’t possible be a “passive” character. Or even play second fiddle. Nope. They had to take center stage, in the case of Hook by literally stealing Emma’s character development, and in the case of Robin, by not-so-subtly reasserting his “male prowess” as capable of impregnating Zelena. Seriously, the whole Zelana/Robin plot feels to me like Adam and Eddy (and the rest of the writing team) are jumping up and down going “Look! He’s a man! He’s not been emasculated by Regina the boss lady! It’s ok! He’s got all the parts that matter!”
Oy. And then there’s CS. It’s no secret I’ve no love lost for Hook, and I very much liked Neal. But I think beyond this, there’s another issue with CS, and that’s the structural mismatch that I think maybe progressively led to where we are now. It’s a combination of who Emma is as a character, who Hook is as a character, and who they are to each other that makes it just a train wreck, in my opinion.
I think there were two potential Emma pairings in OUAT that were actively awful. Everything else might have been preposterous (say, Emma/Archie), a bit fraught (Emma/Jefferson), or perfectly fine without being groundbreaking (Emma/Graham). Anyway, the only two horrible choices in my opinion were Emma and Hook, and Emma and Gold/Rumple. And they’re horrible for very similar reasons. I think if people think “Emma/Gold” is pretty darn icky, the same should be said of Emma/Hook.
Good screen chemistry a healthy pairing do not make.
oh you are certainly NOT the minority. however, people will see what they choose to see. they believe what they choose to believe. I look at facial expressions and body language as well as listen to the words.
Marty, I think we’ve all been cordially invited to take it to the Rumple thread. 😉 But I think you’re absolutely right, if you look at RC’s acting you get this whole layered, complex, very contradictory sense of Rumple. What he does with the script — how he’s choosing to interpret Rumple — is not even necessarily how the character is written. In the hands of a less talented actor, Rumple, especially how he’s written now, would be a tediously boring boilerplate bad guy to which you wouldn’t give a second thought, and wouldn’t remember five minutes after the show ends. His writing was fairly careful and nuanced in the earlier seasons. After that, I think most of the nuance is coming from Bobby’s acting, not from the way the character is written. My 2c, and I’ll stop with the Rumple analysis, since we have another place to do it.
Isn’t it Emma’s and Neal’s indepdent yet similar storylines in S1-S3a what made them so darn likeable and relateable?
Ok, I think this part of the discussion is absolutely relevant to SF. Emma and Neal, and the parallels between them, were very much the exceptions to the “don’t rise above your station” paradigm, but only partially. Emma is a born princess (as is Snow). She did, indeed, make something of herself, despite a difficult and disadvantaged childhood, but the show begins with a lonely Emma blowing out a lonely candle on a cupcake. It’s this whole narrative of “here’s a tough independent woman, but something’s missing from her life…” Then Henry is at the door, and is getting Emma to come to SB. This, actually, was great — the fact of needing a family, a home, a community (even a screwed up one) etc.
The trope of seeking power = evil returns with Emma learning magic. She’s sort of “stumbling” into her powers, she’s resisting it, and only willing to use it because it’s a question of defending her loved ones/innocent bystanders. Those powers are also not acquired — they are her birthright. Emma is arguably at no point rising above her station here. This is contrasted to Cora’s and Regina’s desire to learn magic. But especially Cora — Cora’s entire character is all about the fraught intersection of female sexuality, lack of upward mobility, and the desire for power.
Neal’s story was similar to Emma’s in that he too grew up a street urchin, also abandoned and case out of his home, and also made something of himself. He’s got an apt in New York and looks like he’s off to some sort of office job, so he’s clearly being depicted as financially secure. But again, there’s this sense of a missing home as well, hence what made the SF love story so heart-warming. But Neal, also, never sought power.
I think Mulan isn’t necessarily an exception, if you don’t know the cartoon. In OUAT, Mulan is “teleported” down in full warrior gear, like Athena exiting Zeus’s head, and there’s very limited information about whether or not she’s had to climb the totem pole to get there. She’s a warrior, and stays a warrior. She’s not trying to become a general. She’s not trying to start anything. She just is. In this sense, she’s a static character with no past and no progression — hence, again, “not trying to rise above her station.”
What I find so annoying with what was done to Emma after the reboot is that they retconned that initial sense of loneliness — the sense of missing a home, a family, her son, and yes, Neal, but only because he was part of this greater fabric of what constituted “home” which was all foreshadowed so explicitly in that first few episodes — to it becoming about your standard romance plot along the lines of the “Taming of the Shrew.” So Emma isn’t lonely because everyone needs a community, it’s because she has Walls™ around her soft and vulnerable ego, which our dashing rogue must break through in order to rescue the damsel from the fortress of her own making,
It is only one part of his character, but it seems like it has been the driving force behind his character since becoming the DO. Obviously there is so much more to Rumple that makes him so complex, and based on the writing recently, also very confusing and inconsistent. But that one trait has always remained the same I think.
I actually agree with you — Rumple’s search for power has been consistently presented as a symptom of his villainy. I just want to point out that on OUAT characters who consciously seek power (presumably beyond their station) tend to be cast as evil. This isn’t just Rumple — this is also Cora, Zelena, Regina, Isaac, Nimue etc
By contrast, characters who accidentally fall into or are born into power (Emma, Snow, Charming, Merlin) are not considered morally suspect. This is a classic fairytale trope, but one that OUAT reproduces non-reflexively.
The lack of reflexivity occasionally backfires when OUAT’s medieval universe encounters modern day sensibilities. So the idea that a desire for upward mobility always = overreaching and a sign of evil is kind of problematic
1. He is exactly as i have always thought he was.I agree with the partial responsibility argument, I’m simply pointing out that this type of critique (giving someone a weapon with the intent of getting that someone to use it to kill) is, abstractly, something that has contextual rather than universal morality (along the lines of what do you make of trained soldiers? Spies/political agents? Law enforcement?) it’s also an argument about the use and misuse of technology (taking hearts one might argue is a dark magic technology that’s there independently of Rumple). And I don’t think this is a place to debate political philosophy along the whole monopoly on violence argument so I’ll stop.
On the other points — As I said, I have 0 desire to get into a debate about Rumple’s “moral fiber,” or defending (or condemning) the character — this is unlikely to lead anowhere productive. I gave my interpretation of how I think Rumple’s been written, you gave yours, and neither of us is likely to find the other’s arguments convincing. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. 🙂
At the perspective of it is not alright to teach people how to do something specifically so that they will go out and murder people.
On an abstract level, that’s a can of worms argument, especially if you’re in the US. (Along the lines of “do you give someone a gun/ teach someone to shoot if they might kill… what if that saves someone else’s life?” and so forth). I’m not touching that with a 40 foot pole 😉 I’ll just say that I think that’s a slightly different type of moral slippery slope than some of Rumple’s more blatant misdeeds.
I should amend my tone — I probably came across as more defensive or Rumple than I meant to be. I don’t think Rumple, as he’s written now, is defensible. The intent of my post was more about Rumple’s characterization. I think @Bar Farer nailed what happened to Rumple’s writing. After 3B Rumple is retconned in such a way that what was once “cowardice” became cowardice, no scare quotes.@RG also has something about this in Rumple’s thread, I think. From my perspective, S1-3 Rumple’s character is about the struggle of circumstance of birth vs abstract morality. It was also about toxic masculinity. “Cowardice” in scare quotes because the ideal of EF at the time is to send children to war, and to use the peasants for canon fodder. One could interpret Milah’s story as being about the social penalties of having a husband who does not conform to the standards of “proper” masculinity. Rumple’s story was also about a father who would do anything for his son, morality be damned — and this backfires for him and for Neal terribly. But what was the alternative? He was placed in an absolutely impossible situation. The characterization was thoughtful, but I think A&E were very ambivalent about Rumple from the start, and I suspect that this ambivalence has something to do with subtle classism. (The same way that OUAT is subtly racist). Essentially, one of the “take away points” of Rumple’s development is that if you give the “peasants” some power, they’re likely to misuse it.
After 3B and the reboot, the quotation marks are removed, and the aspects of Rumple’s character that were before in “double speak” (which is to say, we had two lines of interpretation: Rumple’s society views him one way, but we, the audience, are shown a different story) are collapsed into one. Now, those features of Rumple that before were shown to be consequences of him reacting to his circumstances in a particular way are re-inscribed as inherent attributes of his character. I profoundly dislike this re-writing of Rumple because, among other things, it cements what was already present but a bit more subtle in Rumple S1-3: they first show us a story about someone from a very marginalized segment of society struggle against his circumstances, in ways that are often very problematic and have absolutely tragic consequences for others and for him. But 3b+ changes that, takes these same exact points, and says “that’s what people like this are like. Give them power, and they are corrupted to want more power.” It’s like the show starts with saying “People in a position of structural weakness sometimes do terrible things, but lets look at their circumstances. Maybe it’s more complicated.” and then it goes “Nope. They’re just bad people.” But at this point, I’ve written about this class thing so many times on here that I’m sounding like a broken record. :-/ Sorry for the rant!
And on a lighter note, is anyone here watching The Expanse?
I also very much think that Rumpel is at great fault for teaching Cora and Regina how to pull hearts, knowing the sort of people they would be. Rumpel can see the future. He taught Cora to pull hearts so she would murder the king, and Regina so that she would eventually do the curse.
“At great fault” from whose perspective? For whom? The morality of this show at this point is so off its rocker that I honestly can’t tell whose perspective you are currently speaking from. Regina and Cora might say that that skill was very useful for them throughout the years. Emma might agree (Violet’s heart). Snow might too (saving Charming).
We’ve already established that DO!Rumple is a Machiavellian type character. In the initial six months (or so) post curse, he’s vengeful and sort of drunk on his power. He’s someone who has been oppressed all his life. This isn’t about “cowardice.” Sorry, none of Rumple’s character is really about “cowardice.” It’s about class and privilege. It’s about the idea that “underclass” people are inherently dangerous, and if given power, will do bad things with it (RG, feel free to chase me off my soapbox). Until he became the DO, any “uprising” from someone like Rumple would simply have landed him dead. After the initial “revolutionary” violence, Rumple settled into pragmatic Machiavellanism, i.e. the ends justify the means. That’s the kind of villain he is, and on that, the show has been actually very consistent. Teaching Cora and Regina to take hearts fulfilled specific goals.
(what they called “epic wish fufillment”)
They did? Seriously? I thought this was a thing that fans came up. I’m so confused. Whose wish, what was its fulfillment, and what, for the love of everything that is holy, was epic about it? Is this a direct reference to CS? Seriously, this confuses me.
It’s hard to say that, because it’s funny – for us, it’s like you’re trying to write a book and you’re commented on [by viewers] every chapter.
What in the Blue Fairy is Horowitz going on about here? You know, it’s exactly statements like this by Kistowitz that have made me lose all respect for them over the years. I mean, can you hear that annoying buzzing noise? That’s the world’s smallest accordion playing a circus tune about the fact that this is what people who write, whether for a living or not, actually do on a regular basis. You know, run their writings by beta readers and get constructive criticism so that their actual audience isn’t falling into plot holes. Work with their writing group. Get critiqued in peer review. Get reviews on the internet for the things they’ve published, as they are writing the next thing. Writers don’t work in some kind of mythical bubble of perfect writerly genius, until the magnum opus emerges in all its shining glory and perfection. That seems like a very outdated, romanticized, and, frankly, privileged take on what a writer does. Speaking of wish fulfillment.
A&E are getting free feedback from fans. Some of it is constructive, some of it is not. It’s their jobs to decide how to tackle that feedback, but generally speaking, as much as one might like to hear only praise, it’s also useful to listen to the critique. Otherwise one never grows. Essentially they’re complaining about doing their jobs. Kistowitz,
His dodging of qualms is a problem unto itself, but his and Eddy’s use of double speak so means they get to play both sides.
Yes, that sounds exactly on point.
But what I loved more than the chuckle was what he had to say: “I worry that people might fail to write good books because they think these warnings are real rules. There are no real rules. Tell good stories and tell them well and don’t leave the reader feeling cheated at the end.”
Lol, that picture is possibly the best thing ever.
But isn’t that the problem with OUAT? That a portion of the audience is actually very vocally content with the kinds of stories the show is telling, as long as their ship sails into the sunset? And are actively and aggressively trying to silence dissent, criticism, or alternative interpretations along the lines of “this is misogyny/racism/sexism/classism” etc?
In other words, it sounds like part of the fandom is attempting to enforce their own very narrow experience of OUAT as the only normal and legitimate one. And Kistowitz are encouraging that part of the fandom, essentially giving them the authority to act as a thought police, thus outsourcing the labor of actually telling a good story to essentially a group that acts like trolls, and brow beats everyone else into agreement, silence, or “safe places” (or, really, minority enclaves) like this forum?
Is that a more or less fair assessment?
