Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@RG I think you might be right about Hook. Though I still think that Isaac (rather than Rumple) is the one calling the shots on most of the story, and we’re already getting the sense that he’s pretty averse to happy endings as a general principle for their lack of flashy drama (*cough* *cough* whosastandinforA&E *cough*) So I’m sure CS will be in hot water in the AU, though I’m sure Hook will still manage to come out white and fluffy in the end.
[adrotate group="5"]It seems like true love and happiness on the show only happen if you’re under 40.
With the notable exception of Tamara and Neal, and we know how well that goes. Of course, that relationship doesn’t fit into the normative category defined by “white, heterosexual, under 40.”Oy.
I find that it is hard for me as a viewer to make true judgement calls on what it means to have a Happy Ending in a world where glamour spells, curses, and prophesies exist. But I think that makes Once enjoyable for me because it is so unrealistic.
Ok, but does that mean that the relationships themselves are completely unrealistic, and therefore must be judged based on an entirely different metric? Considering how much metaphorical ink is currently being spilled in the fandom over whether this or that ship is seaworthy, or whether this or that villain deserves to die (including on this forum, but not limited to it), it seems that none – or very few – of us are approaching OUAT from a morally relativist position. And I don’t think it’s E&A’s intent to sort of say “look, this is a totally different world/universe/culture/ what have you, so it can’t be judged through our own cultural lenses” (which is the move in a lot of sci-fi or speculative fiction more broadly. And personally, I think that would have been an interesting move for OUAT). Instead they are pretty dogmatic about a lot of the characters – just not the ones we might have expected at first. So it seems only fair to analyze what the apparently “unintended” morality looks like.
So, a philosophical question with all this messy hero/villains switcheroo. I guess Rumple’s primary idea is to “re-rig” the game — if villains never get happy endings, then the statement “it’s time for the villains to get their happy endings” is actually a logical fallacy (since this is admittedly impossible ). The only way to do it is to change the whole armature of the story by inverting everyone’s morality meter. But arguably, from the previews and screen shots, we are dropped into a point of the story where there aren’t any happy endings yet. As such, they all still have to make decisions about which way to go. So how does this work? I can think of three scenarios:
1) either everyone is guided by their new morality meter, and decisions emerge accordingly (so, evil is not born, it’s made — the line between heroes and villains is truly determined by circumstances and the starting parameters)
2) or everyone progressively “slips back” into their old (canonical) identities (evil is born, villains will be villains, “once an addict always an addict,” there is no real redemption/change possible)
3) some former heroes find ways to climb out of their newly assigned villainy, but others don’t. Same with villains — some former villains find ways to be good, while other slip back (so the playing field is uneven, or it’s simply random luck)
If it’s scenario #1&3, then what are the ethics of correcting the AU as folks here have been theorizing about Henry? If to correct the AU is to go back to the story we know, then wouldn’t that, in fact, confirm Rumple’s point that the odds are, indeed, stacked against the villains? Wouldn’t it also annul any redemption that the (former) villains might have achieved in the AU? One might argue that it isn’t fair to endanger the good guys in the normal version for the sake of the villains because they’ve actually made their own decisions, but we actually don’t know that now, since Isaac’s rewrite is also an AU of sorts. From what I understand, the only acceptable role for the Author is to record, so anything other than resetting the story to before Isaac started meddling would be pretty morally murky.
If it’s scenario #2, then the show seems to have come to the opposite conclusion from where it started.
That sounds interesting. But then Isaac wouldn’t get his happy ending, since villains don’t get happy endings, even in the AU. Right? Or maybe I’m wrong.
That could be, but does Isaac know that? Honestly, though, I think Isaac’s in it for something else. He’s literally an author who gets to talk with his characters, and change their stories with their input. But I think what Isaac is interested in is external recognition, rather than being in the story he’s writing. Could be wrong of course, but those shots of “New York Ledger Best Seller” are suggestive of yet another layer to things.
In fact, I wonder if they’ll do it hyper-meta, and have the AU go sour as a result of external pressures on the writer. Or Isaac deciding that this AU also doesn’t make for a good story.
From the finale photos, Robin Hood is dressed as a prince (as opposed to a prince a thieves), and is about to marry Zelena. I wonder if Robin Hood is a rogue prince, like Prince James was. Also, based on the photos, I’m guessing Robin isn’t too happy about marrying Zelena. Maybe it’s an arranged marriage.
Sort of like Charming and Abigail in S1? I think that’s very plausible. Regular Robin is a kind of a classic “Chaotic Good” character, which makes me think that his inverse would be closer to the “Lawful Evil” end of the spectrum.
Who is a hero and who is a villain is decided by Isaac and the roles are all literally switched, except in cases where it would conflict with a villains happy ending. Ex: Belle is not evil even though she is a hero because she is apart of Rumps HE. So in this case, Hook, who believes he has changed, would probably be a…villain now because he was most recently on the side good? OR he would be a hero now because he originally a villain?
I’m inclined to think it’s Isaac’s decision. If Rumple is calling all the shots about who the villains and heroes are, then the “cast” makes only limited sense. Rumple doesn’t technically have much of a bone to pick with the Charmings. By contrast, Zelena is a different matter altogether, so why on Earth would she have an apparent happy ending with Robin? Speaking of which, what is Robin — a villain or a good guy?
It would be a very fast way of character development for a lot of characters, though at the same time it would be somewhat believable if they have several years of memories from when they were in the AU.
I think that’s plausible, and would tie in nicely with previously developed themes. What I’m curious about is whether the circumstances of the AU alter the physical circumstances of present-day SB? We have no reason to think that AU is any less real than the “real” story, since both are stories, right? So, once the AU is unmade, but the memories remain, what happens to Zelena’s pregnancy, Rumple’s heart condition, Hook’s hook, Regina’s infertility and so forth, if some of these just didn’t take place in one version, but did in the other?
Maybe we should keep all this in mind–the writing of Heroes and Villains is Rumple’s subjective lens.
It all hinges on how much control Rumple has of the story. Is he saying “In this story, I want to be a hero.” And then Isaac fills in the blanks? For example, is it Rumple’s idea to be a knight, or is that Isaac’s interpretation/creative license?
I am reminded of that moment in S1 when Rumple and Regina discuss the curse. I’m taking this out of here:
Rumple: You see, no matter how powerful, all curses can be broken.[…] Of course the curse has to be enacted first.
Regina: Tell me what I did wrong
Rumple: For that, there’s a price
Regina: What do you want?
Rumple: Simple. In this land, I want comfort. I want a good life.
(etc)
I could imagine a similar dialogue between Rumple and the Author, where Rumple essentially “seeds” the ideas, and Isaac takes it from there. The interpretation of being “comfortable” enacted through Regina’s curse is Mr. Gold, complete with pawnshop, fancy suits, and prime real estate. But these were obviously not Rumple’s exact specifications.
I don’t think Isaac’s vanity would let him simply take dictation. I think he fancies himself the creative type. So I suspect that Rumple might set the general parameters — for example making Hook a villain, because for Rumple Hook is a villain — so same rules apply in the AU. And then Isaac takes it from there and fills in the details.
What I suspect will happen in the finale — and actually what will bring about the demise of this AU — is some sort of inherent flaw in the very design of the story, such that while it all appears like a HEA for the villains at first, they remain fundamentally unchanged, and it all comes apart at the seams in the end. Perhaps, a literal Catch-22 scenario (so, a logical fallacy in the very premise) that then references the Isaac Heller/Joseph Heller name.
Anyway, that’s my theory.
@Slurpeez, you are probably right. And I agree about Emma. I guess what makes it convincing too is the track record of correctly guessed denouements in previous seasons. See though I feel that after the last episode Rumple’s death is now so obvious that it’s almost unlikely. I mean, talking about the low hanging fruit narrative wise. (I was on “team dead”! *groan; Lulz.* But am now having second thoughts…)
Henry discovers he has big shoes to fill as he steps up to save his family before the story’s final page is turned.
Yep, Henry is the author.
It’s a race to the finish, and everything culminates with a shocking twist that will leave the residents of Storybrooke reeling
Rumple dies. Emma becomes the next dark one.
Hmm, now I wonder… At this point would that actually be a shocking twist? I mean, this has been foreshadowed so much throughout this half of the arc. Rumple’s death had been essentially flagged with neon signs and the whole Dark One problem suggests that Emma would be the most likely candidate. Is this all actual foreshadowing or is it the magician trick of focusing the audience’s attention on one hand while the other is pulling a fast one? Are we maybe being blindsided here?
And the Author’s full name is Isaac Heller. Why? Because he like to raise hell…
Some men just want to watch the world burn…
Worth noting that the surname Heller might be a reference to Joseph Heller who wrote Catch-22. The title of the novel has since become an idiomatic expression that refers to a unsolvable logical paradox…
