Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
1920s Fictional London (and apparently many of the story realms) do not exist in time; they are just lands of stories. What did you make of this development? what does it mean for the other lands we’ve seen? Do any lands change or move in time? Does this means that nothing is “real” in the lands without time?
Yeah, that’s confusing, and leads me to wonder how the Enchanted Forest specifically seems to exist in time, since its very existence comes from the imagination of several different authors who recorded these stories in Henry’s book. As Lily Sparks wrote:
OUAT then made a giant leap in the internal logic of this hot mess: The realms we’ve been criss-crossing for the last four seasons are story realms that exist outside of time. Which is a piping hot, straight-out-of-someone’s-[butt] explanation because everyone in the Enchanted Forest has been tracking time almost obsessively, with all this talk about how the Savior will break the curse 28 years from now, and Aurora was asleep for X number years and so forth. So, eyeroll, but sure.
The Enchanted Forest and A Land Without Magic both seem to run on concurrent time (e.g. when Aurora and Henry were able to communicate across time and space and sync up their meetings). The EF is a work of fiction come to life though, or so it would seem since there is an Author who records everything.
Those questions lead me back to what Jefferson said in S1 about this world simply being “a real world” rather than “THE real world.”
Emma Swan: This is it. This is the real world.
Jefferson: *A* real world. How arrogant are you to think yours is the only one? There are infinite more. You have to open your mind. They touch one another, pressing up in a long line of lands, each just as real as the last. All have their own rules. Some have magic, some don’t. And some need magic. Like this one. And that’s where you come in.So clearly, there are many different worlds. We know that. We already know Neverland exists outside of time. But now it seems so does Alice’s fictional London as well as Cruella’s fictional London. But how do we account for the Enchanted Forest accounting for time? People there seemed to know about years and such.
Also, I’m left wondering just how many Authors can exist at once? Jefferson said there are an infinite number of universes pressing up against one another. Is there just the one Author recording an infinite number of things about an infinite number of people from an infinite number of worlds? Or is there an Author for every different world? For example, Alice wrote her own story about her own adventures in Wonderland, which she then read to her daughter. Also, Glinda was the record keeper of Oz, making me think she is the Author of Oz, too.
Emma Swan: You’ve clearly glommed onto my kid Henry’s thing. They’re just stories! The Mad Hatter is in Alice in Wonderland, a book – a book I actually read.
Jefferson: Stories. Stories! What’s a story? When you were in high school, d’you learn about the Civil War?
Emma Swan: Yeah, of course.
Jefferson: How? D’you read about it, perchance, in a book? How’s that any less real than any other book?
Emma Swan: History books are based on history.
Jefferson: And storybooks are based on what? Imagination. Where does that come from? It has to come from somewhere.Is A Land Without Magic also a work of fiction come to life like the Enchanted Forest and its residents seem to be? Is there an Author for this world who records all of the mundane events of people from A Land Without Magic? Is that what historians are, storytellers and authors? Does everything that happen here come from someone else’s imagination? If so, is there just an infinite regress of Authors?
[adrotate group="5"]"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
Ok, let’s put all this together. In order to write stories (or record them, I suppose) you need to be appointed to the holy and sacred duty of “Author.” You must be given a Quill made from an Enchanted Tree. And you must have ink…specific ink. Without the ink, the Quill won’t work. And in order to properly record, you must be/have all these things.
All this talk of specific ink makes me think of squid ink. In S2, Rumple had used squid ink to write Emma’s name hundreds of times on a scroll, which Snow then blew on to open up the magical jail cell. Squid ink can also immobilize magical creatures like Peter Pan, so maybe the heroes will use it on Rumple. I think we’ll be seeing Ursula again.
And if a new Author can only be chosen after the previous one dies, how did the last stories in the Book–Emma in the wardrobe for instance–actually get into Henry’s book?
I always assumed that was part of the Blue Fairy’s final preparations. Maybe she went in search of the Sorcerer to amend the rules and appoint an interim author (in case the author is ever rendered incapable of fulfilling his duties).
"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
Just realized this photo is new:
Interesting to see August there.
Oh sneaky fairy and August are back. I hope it finally will be revealed just how much “a little fairy” told August back in S1 about Baelfire and the dark one dagger, and to what end. Where are they in that pic? At the convent? At Granny’s?
"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
Did anyone else find Regina’s ventriloquizing (heartriloquizing?) about the Rumple/Will comparison mildly distasteful?
Yes. The tone was especially harsh, though Rumple did threaten Robin, so I guess Rumple had it coming. Yet, the obvious plot hole I want to know is just how the heck Regina knew what Belle said in her marriage vow to Rumple. Last time I checked, Regina was not at the wedding.
I actually think this parallels some of the broader tendencies in the writing of conflicts in OUAT at the moment, where there’s this emphasis on really below the belt verbal cruelty. Emma’s whole thing “I don’t trust [Snowing] with Henry’s life” is in that general category too, it seems.
Yeah, Emma’s reaction is way harsh and disproportionate. She’s really becoming a callous character, and I dislike her portrayal now.
Also…Emma is behaving like a petulant child right now. I get that she’s angry; she has every right to be. But to say that she doesn’t trust Henry’s life to Snow and Charming?? Are you kidding me? They’d never hurt Henry. It’s actually the opposite of their Lily story–they protected their family first and foremost. If the writers want me to buy that Emma has grown as a character then she needs to develop a new coping mechanism.
She really is. I get that Emma is feeling betrayed by the people who love her most, but if she would just stop and let her rational self control her instead of her emotional self, she’d see more clearly. There is no way Snow and Charming would ever lay a hand on Henry, but Emma cannot seem to see that because Snow and Charming drove darkness into a baby. Emma has got to get a grip emotionally. Like any adult, she needs to see her parents with eyes of grace and realize her parents aren’t perfect. They’re people who generally strive for good but committed an act of sin. If Emma can extend grace to Regina for ruining her entire life and trying to have her killed as an infant, then I’m sure given enough time Emma could work through her feelings of hurt and betrayal. Sadly, I feel like Emma lashes out at those she feels have emotionally betrayed her (e.g. Lily, Neal, her parents). Yet, she extends grace and trust to those who’ve put her actual life in danger (e.g. Hook and Regina). Go figure.
"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
Pretty sure Regina is the one most likely to be pregnant, what with the obvious jump in time after she and Robin had sex in the crypt. I suppose Belle is possible, seeing how she and Rumple were on their honeymoon at the start of the season, but I doubt it now.
"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
I agree that neither Rumple nor Regina is morally in the clear. But that’s my point. Both Rumple and Regina have used Robin and Belle respectively to get leverage over the other. They’re both using dubious tactics in a bid to outmaneuver the other. The only truly innocent parties here are Belle and Robin, with Rumple and Regina being the ones who’re playing a dangerous game. And it’s uncertain what exactly Belle did or didn’t agree to when Regina approached her for help. That scene was intentionally cut short. We don’t know for certain if Regina said something to convince Belle to give up her heart willingly, or whether Regina magically put Belle into a trance and then stole her heart. Did Belle willingly surrender her heart to the woman who took away her memory and held her hostage for 30 odd years? Did Belle willingly trust Regina not to crush her heart?
"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
Uhm, so Lily appears to be going under the alias “Staria.” A reference to her star mark?
Most likely. I think Lily was marked by the Apprentice, and somehow selected as the candidate for the next sorceress. And, of course, stars make me think not just of the sorcerer, but of the Blue Fairy (whose name means Blue Star).
"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
Wait, so Rumple has Regina knocked out, handcuffed in her own vault, and threatens Regina with either going along with his plan to make Emma dark or killing Robin and its her being ‘prissy’?! Regina has every right in the world to be mad at Rumple.
Does Regina have every right to be mad at Rumple for blackmailing her with Robin? Absolutely! Does Regina have the right to use Belle as a pawn to take down Rumple? No, nobody has the right to harm another individual. Individual rights stop at the expense of harming an innocent person like Belle. But this issue will be hotly debated among Regina and Rumple fans for weeks and months to come, because the writers (deliberately is seems) cut the scene of Regina taking Belle’s heart. Until the writers confirm whether Belle offered up her heart willingly or not, there will be no clarity. I think the writers almost enjoy watching the fans bicker with one another, but then they refuse to take any responsibility themselves for their poor writing decisions.
"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
Emma killing Cruella doesn’t (and shouldn’t) count as a dark deed. If anything, what Emma did was actually a heroic deed: she acted to save a child (her child). I don’t see what Emma did as a crime, at all. She is a sheriff, whose duty it is it to protect the people of SB. She was upholding her responsibility, and sadly, sometimes the police have to use force when necessary. Emma had no way of knowing in advance that Cruella had been magically rendered incapable of killing anyone again. I really dislike the way the writers are trying to make Emma’s decision to act in defense of her own son tantamount to murder, because it’s not. A police-woman who acts to save a hostage by killing the would-be murderer (in this case Cruella), is not a villain, but a hero!
Emma harboring anger at her parents is understandable, but her only directing it at them while completely forgiving Regina for ruining her childhood is just plain wrong. Emma is misdirecting her hatred at her parents while showing compassion on villains who’ve never even apologized to her. What Snow and Charming did to baby Lily was plain wrong, but let’s not forget that Regina ordered her guards to kill Emma as a baby. Yes, Emma is mad at her parents, who’re praised as heroes. But their hypocrisy is not worse than mass murder in my eyes. I think Emma needs to reevaluate her moral standards of what is forgivable versus unforgivable. Emma trusts Regina, the woman who robbed Emma of her childhood and chance to be raised by her loving parents, but doesn’t trust her own parents, who love her and tried to protect her. That makes no sense to me whatsoever and seems like misplaced anger.
"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
