Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
RumplesGirl wrote: Think about John Locke and his “Second Treatise” and the idea of the social contract. There Locke spells out that government gets its right to rule from the goverened and that it cannot infringe on the natural rights of its citizens. (If someone has a better explanation, give it cause The Enlightenment is about 1600 years AFTER my area of expertise). I would say being eaten takes away my natural right to live.
The idea of a social contract is pretty much as you describe. A government agrees to protect the human rights of its citizens while those citizens abide by the country’s laws. So every citizen has certain rights (e.g. the Bill of Rights), that same citizen cannot go around infringing on the rights of others (e.g. it is illegal to kill another citizen unless in self defense). So, citizens give up certain liberties (like not having to pay taxes), but in exchange are guaranteed to have certain rights protected. If, however, the government fails to protect the agreed upon rights, or if its laws infringe upon those rights already established in the written constitution, then the people have the right to dissolve that government (leave the social contract) in favor of a new one.
Thanks. I thought I knew what I was talking about. Good to know I haven’t totally forgotten “modern” European history, try as I might.
This is what I love about good drama – it makes us ask important questions. And I love any conversation where Locke comes up! Of course, we have to decide whether we are talking about what is “right” (i.e. legal) by the laws of the Enchanted Forest , which is essentially a feudal society about 1000 years before the Enlightenment or what modern reason tells us is correct. After all, modern reason based upon the Enlightenment would tell us that Snow and Charming have no more authority to rule the kingdom than does Regina – nobody voted for any of them. Or, to quote Monty Python, “You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!”
[adrotate group="5"]Likes:
Emma facing moral conflict in deciding how far to go to save Henry and ultimately agreeing with Regina taking the Lost Boy’s heart, over Snow’s objection. I think we may see some more conflict there. I also loved Regina’s comment, “You didn’t. I did. That’s why I’m here.”
I think we saw a little of the same theme with Henry when they goaded him into the sword fight. He finally got a real sword, which has been his dream (isn’t it every little boy’s dream?) but he was upset and apologetic when he cut the other boy – until Pan and the others began cheering him. I also liked the drawing of the house which showed he still hasn’t lost hope, despite Pan’s temptations.
I also liked the Hook flashback. Even though I like Colin O’Donoghue’s performance, I’ve never ben a big fan of Hook. I think it was partly the way the character was written and the fact that we never saw a sympathetic backstory for him (until now) like we did for Rumple and Regina. After this episode, I’m starting to understand him and like the character a little more.
Overall, I just liked the theme that so many characters were shown taking a step toward darkness (Emma, Henry, and Hook) and the suggestions of how they will struggle to avoid going too dark. Emma has Snow, Henry has the knowledge that his family is now coming for him and Hook has saved Charming. Well, that ending suggests we will see just how honorable Hook will become. I had been worried that they were going to do a trite, romantic triangle cliche’ with Neal, Emma, and Hook but now I think they are going to make it much less of a cliche and more of a moral test for Hook. I think that makes it much more interesting and prevents me from listing the triangle as my dislike for this episode.
No major dislikes for me.
Swanning-off asked, ” What is the symbolism of Pegasus…” and described the relation of Bellerophon to Pegasus.
There may be another, distant connection to the Neverland themes of belief and dreams. Edward Young’s poem, Night Thoughts
deals with thoughts about death and immortality but in the beginning it speaks of sleep:
”
Tired Nature’s sweet restorer, balmy Sleep!
He, like the world, his ready visit pays
Where Fortune smiles; the wretched he forsakes;
Swift on his downy pinion flies from woe,
And lights on lids unsullied with a tear.”
and later on cites the story of Bellerophon and Pegasus in praise of belief over skepticism:
“He whose blind thought futurity denies,
Unconscious bears, Bellerophon, like thee,
His own indictment; he condemns himself.
Who reads his bosom reads immortal life,
Or nature there, imposing on her sons,
Has written fables; man was made a lie.”
Thanks for the screenshot, Phee. I’m travelling and can’t create screenshots. It really helps to be able to see the house-shaped group of stars at the lower left.
Thanks for posting the screwballninja quote, RG! It was fascinating. While I enjoy the complex villains on the show, I never understood how fans could identify so strongly with the villains that they develop the “blame the victim” attitude toward some of the other characters. After reading the essay, I think I have better insight into that.
PriceofMagic wrote: First impressions are important and Neal didn’t make a good first impression
Not to mention that his first off screen introduction was Emma telling Snow that Henry’s father was a story better left untold because of what happened. We were conditioned to think Neal wasn’t going to be good, and then they let us in on the fact that was Bae, an incredibly kind and brave boy.
I agree that’s a big part of it. I think the characters’ back stories are important too. I became a big Rumple fan after seeing “Desperate Souls” and found Storybrooke Regina much more appealing than Enchanted Forest Regina before “The Stable Boy.” They are such good examples of Adam and Eddy’s repeated comment that “Evil isn’t born, it’s made.” Seeing how they suffered made us more sympathetic to them.
I suspect I haven’t been as partial to Hook as to Regina and Rumple because we haven’t yet seen as much sympathetic back story for him.
I wonder if some of those who don’t like Henry would have reacted differently to the character if we had seen Henry’s suffering as he tried to understand whether or not he really was crazy during the years before we met him in the pilot. I ran across a fan fiction story at
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/9119020/1/Growing-Up-in-Storybrooke
that offers one author’s take on that.
Why do villains get the love? Gee that’s a toughie. Maybe because society has conditioned us to love the heroes already? Nah that can’t be it.
Well sure. But this is my own personal thesis on the subject: with the villains, for us, it’s a move from sympathy to empathy. I can feel sorry for Snow and Charming but it’s like I understand Rumple. Which is bizarre given that I’m not an immortal dark one, right?
Good points, RG and storyteller. I’ve pondered the same question myself. My two favorite characters are Rumple and Regina. In reading about them, I often hear other fans say “I’ve always loved the villains.” I’m an exception – in general, I DON’T identify with the villains in most other stories. Normally, I find it easier to get emotionally invested in the ideal character types like Snow and Charming; I’m not bored by the “good guys”. Even in such wonderful performances as Humphrey Bogart in The Petrified Forest or James Cagney in Angels With Dirty Faces, I have difficulty having as much sympathy for their tortured, villainous characters as some do even though I love these movies and the amazing performances the actors bring to these characters. But Once is different. Here, the writers have managed to evoke in me much more sympathy for Rumple and Regina than for the other, “nicer” characters through the drama of their stories (although I love ALL the characters.) For me personally, it may be a reversal of what RG described – I feel empathy for Snow, Charming, and Henry while I feel sympathy for Rumple and Regina, but it is a powerful sympathy. It is probably more powerful than the empathy I feel with the “good” characters.
Perhaps this wonderful construction of Rumple and Regina is the reason that some fans get so caught up in them that, as someone pointed out earlier (sorry I can’t recall who), they react with anger when a victim has the audacity to say something rude to Regina after Regina has tried to kill them! (It reminds me of a satirical comment someone once made that in World War II, the US should have apologized to Hirohito for any damage we inflicted on his planes at Pearl Harbor.) I don’t think any of us actually consider rudeness an excessive response to murder, but we are so caught up in the character of Regina or Rumple that when someone says something hurtful to them, we feel the pain of that remark, even if it was justified.
As I may have mentioned earlier, the scene where Neal abandoned Rumple is a perfect example of this for me. I empathize with Neal and understand why he did it – he thought he was doing what he had to do to protect Henry (whether it was logically the best choice is a different question; it was the only choice Neal’s emotional experiences could drive him to. We’ve seen Neal is willing to risk his own life for Rumple but he’s not willing to risk Henry’s life.) At the same time I understand Neal’s action, my heart broke for Rumple because I knew that Rumple was sincere in his resolve to save Henry (Of course, I now fear that resolve has begun to weaken).
The writers did the same thing with Regina when the other characters didn’t invite her to dinner at the end of “Queen of Hearts”. I felt so sad for Regina in that scene, even though I knew it was unreasonable to expect one act of help at the well to make Snow extend an invitation to someone who has murdered most of her family and tried to kill her repeatedly. Despite that knowledge, the good writing and Lana’s amazing performance in that scene made my heart break for Regina, just as it did for Rumple in last week’s episode. That ability to balance opposing emotions is why I like this show so much.
I love that they made Pan the Pied Piper as well. It fits so perfectly!! Would love to know where his pan pipe came from. The story of the god Pan’s flute does involve a nymph, which I guess could maybe be replace by a (Blue) Fairy if they wanted to twist it up somehow…
(Also, he once had a musical showdown with Apollo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_(mythology)#Pan_and_music )
Yes, I can’t help but wonder if they’ll bring in more references to the god Pan than just the Pan flute (which has traditionally been associated with Peter Pan). After all, we’ve already seen King Midas on Once and he is also in Ovid’s account of the musical showdown between Pan and Apollo. And the way Midas gets his ears changed into donkey ears at the end of the tale reminds me of the chapter in Pinocchio in which the boys on Pleasure Island get changed into donkeys. I realize they probably won’t do that since we’ve already established other stories for Midas and Pinocchio, but it’s always a good Once skill to look for similarities.
I do have to agree with Jeremy in the initial reactions, however. I think Henry being able to hear the pipes by the end of the episode was a bit to quick of a turn around. I understand it was because of Peter’s speech just before that, reminding him that his father was dead. In that moment, Henry felt lost and he could hear the pipes. I just hope this isn’t a permanent thing. After all, he is supposed to be the Truest Believer… you would think he wouldn’t give up hope on his family finding him so quickly.
I’m guessing it’s not an all-at-once conversion, but just a sign of one step along the road Pan wants him to follow. I assumed it was brought about by the momentary sadness of Henry’s “dream” about his dad. I think we’ll see a lot more events like this in the coming episodes as Pan tries to gradually win over Henry. Phee’s comment about Pan faking it the first time might be true too, but I think either way we’re going to see a lot more small steps like this before Henry falls too far under Pan’s spell.
I think this discussion has diverged into two different interpretations of the original statement: a dramatic parallel vs a moral parallel. The original post said:
1) When Neal abandoned his father and immobilized him with the squid ink did anyone else think of how Emma abandoned Hook on the beanstalk and how that came back to bite her.
Neal must sooner rather than later come to realization that he is his father’s son. The more he denies it the bigger the rift he has got to drop the anger or I fear Henry will fall into the family trap.
It seemed to me that storyteller was was pointing out a dramatic parallel in which Neal’s actions make us recall Rumple’s actions, not necessarily a moral parallel which says Neal’s actions are morally equivalent to his father’s actions (correct me if I’m wrong, storyteller). But it seems to me that much of the discussion has become about moral parallels between the actions of Neal and Rumple, i.e. was Neal justified in abandoning Rumple?
Personally, I agree with kfchimera that Neal was justified, but that didn’t make me feel any less pain for poor Rumple. This show does an amazing job of creating complex, sympathetic villains and we must remember that we know more of their inner struggles than do most of the other characters. As a viewer, I was fully convinced that Rumple intended to sacrifice himself for Henry when Neal decided to paralyze him but I also understood Neal’s actions which were based upon what he has seen of his father. I was fully convinced that Neal originally intended to trust his father. That’s what made the scene so powerful. And in the best tradition of tragedy, it now appears Neal’s actions may cause his father to relapse into the very behavior that Neal feared. That’s why I said in a previous post that “…it wouldn’t be a very good story” if Neal had stayed with Rumple. And let’s not forget the theme which has been stressed that Neverland makes people revert to their past.I do think they are drawing more and more dramatic parallels between Neal and Rumple and showing us how, now that he has a son to protect, Neal might start to take more and more desperate action to protect him. I think using Roland as bait was another example of Neal’s desperation. I know he had experience with the shadow, so he had ample reasons to believe that he could protect Roland, but putting a child at risk, even minimal risk, has clearly upset enough fans that we can say the writers got their point across – Neal is slipping toward using more Rumple-like ways to reunite himself with Henry. Again, that’s not to say he is doing things as bad as Rumple has done, just to show us there is a tendency leading that way. Now if Pan’s manipulations turn Henry against Neal, as I think they will, we’ll have three generations who have to reconcile.
Finally, I love the reference to Joseph Campbell, storyteller! I think Eddy and Adam must have a copy of The Hero with a Thousand Faces on their desks. After all, George Lucas said he did and they are big Star Wars fans.
I agree with storyteller that these are all great parallels and they were certainly intended as such by the writers. But I also like the observation by kfchimera that some differences were added to the parallels – we weren’t served leftovers, but rather another serving of the same dish prepared with different seasonings. Most important is the observation that trust has to be earned. Emma would have been a fool to trust Hook at the beanstalk, but he is now earning her trust. Neal was willing to trust his dad until he learned he had lied about the prophecy. I loved Jeremy’s observation in the podcast that “The shadow took my dagger” sounds a lot like “The dog ate my homework”! Of course, from a purely practical standpoint, I think Neal should have considered that fighting Pan without Rumple’s help was a bigger threat to Henry than was his dad. But then, as Henry once observed, “…that wouldn’t be a very good story.”
