shadowkat | OUAT: tonight's episode...which, ahem, was definitely surprising

OUAT: tonight's episode...which, ahem, was definitely surprising

Okay, that was....surprising and rather interesting. And I'll say this much..it certainly explains a great deal about Rumplestilskin.

In case you haven't guessed? This is the episode in which we find out amongst other things...what happened between Rumple and Peter Pan when Rumple was a kid. As a bonus we also get to meet Rumple's father - finally.

1. Hee. Peter Pan is Rumplestilskin's Father. He's been in the story for a while now. Clever. Possibly a wee bit too clever.

Considering the speculation a while back that he was Pan's captive and Pan was either his son or something similar, this is rather amusing. Also I have a feeling this turn of events is going to piss a few people off royally. ( I admittedly figured out that Rumple's father was Peter Pan when he was first introduced as a con man, who always had a trick up his sleeve and the old ladies told Rumple to leave without his father. Also once I figured it out - I realized it totally fit the pattern of the series. After all what villain could possibly be worse than Rumple but his own father. Just as the only villain worse than Regina, was her own mother. Regina's mother was the Queen of Hearts while Rumple's is Peter Pan, the worst villain ever and the one that Rumple is most afraid of. A common theme in this series is the terrifying parent or the parent who rejects the child utterly. That said? I'll admit this is a bit too..what's word I'm looking for here? Neat? Convenient? Easy? It feels like lazy writing...or one of the five things you are told not to do in creative writing courses but do in fanfic, because it's so much fun and comforting to do it? Which may be way I'm enjoying the twist - because professional writers never do this, albeit for some very good reasons.

Once you get past your annoyance or joy with the twist - there are a few cool metaphors. I can see why the writers did it. I'd have been tempted to do it - just for the metaphorical goodness.)

Rumple like Regina attempts to trap his father, but like Cora, the father outwits him. I'm guessing the old candle trick that was used to save Rumple's life at Cora's demise, may be used to save either Charming or Henry at Pan's demise? OR something similar.

Will state - Peter Pan being Rumplestilskin's father explains a lot. As does the fact that he was raised by two spinsters (literally and metaphorically speaking). Explains why he's so good at spinning. Also his lack of a mother - explains why he seemed to take on the more feminine role in his relationship with his father. He did the domestic stuff, and was always tracking his dad down in pubs. It also explains why he went after power. Why he hobbled himself - so that he would not abandon his son - yet ironically, his hobbling echoes his father's actions. Its an opportunistic and self-preserving act, not a heroic one.

Now contrast Rumplestilskin/Peter Pan/Neal Cassidy's acts with Henry's. Henry sacrifices his life to save magic. He willing gives his heart to another to save lives, to be a hero, without fear for himself. While Rumple/Pan/Neal (grandfather, great-grandfather, and father) all do the opposite - Rumple puts himself above his son and others, as does Pan and to a degree Neal (who puts himself above Emma - in both his choice to have her take the blame for his thievery, coaxed by Pinnochio, and in his choice to marry Tamara and not choose Emma and Henry or even seek Emma out.) Will state this...the nastiness seems to weaken with each generation.

The father/Peter Pan is a piece of work. And the writer's twist on the Robin Williams' film Hook is in some respects clever. The father goes to Neverland and becomes Peter Pan, as opposed to the father is Peter Pan and returns to Neverland. Nice reversal there. Should have figured this out five episodes earlier. It seems so obvious now.

Also he used the name that his son gave the doll that he'd made for his son - demonstrating that he regretted abandoning his son as cruelly as he did. He's actually worse than Rumple, Cora and Regina combined.

It, however, does not excuse anything that Rumple has done. We make our own choices in life.
We don't get to blame our nasty parents or relatives for our own choices.

2. Henry's choices are interesting. He has romanticized heroism and sacrifice. Up until now, he's never been the hero, just the damsel or in the way - and he desperately wants to be the hero - so he buys into Pan's con job. Pan manipulates people by telling them what they want to hear.

Pan, like with everyone else, plays on Henry's weaknesses - his faith, his blind belief, and his desire to sacrifice himself for the greater good. To be someone. To be important.
As a result Henry pulls out his own heart and hands it over to Pan.

I'd say Henry is a bit dumb, but consider how young he is. He's only 11. Pan is the adult.
And far older. Possibly 800 years old by now.

Did like this exchange:

Pan: You have to give me your heart.
Henry: Sure, wait, you mean my belief right?
Pan: No, your actual heart.
Henry: What will happen to me?
(Well Henry you die...this is not that hard to understand.)

Dumb as Henry's choice appears - it's interesting because it is the exact opposite of Pan's and Rumple's choices. Henry's choice echoes his mother's side of the family - Snow/Charming/Emma and to a degree Regina. Yet, this need to be self-sacrificing, to die for others - is shown here to not be a much better choice than the desire to preserve one's life over others.

Look at Charming and Snow - who want to be martyrs and stay in Neverland. OR Charming's decision not to tell Snow he was dying. Foreshadowing perhaps for Henry's similar choice.
Or Regina's choice to die for Storybrook, which Emma forestalls, finding another way. Just as Emma finds another way of resolving Charming's dilemma. (Although Rumplestilskin being trapped in Pandora's box may put a damper on that.)

3. Pan and Rumple. Pan played on Rumple's weakness - his desire to be reunited with his father, but inability to do so. He wanted to forgive his father - he wanted to believe his father loved him. And he wants to believe he hasn't become his father. (HE hasn't - he actually searched for his son.)

Rumple's father turning into Pan, explains in some respects Rumple's suggestion to Bae - that he can turn him 14 again. (From Rumple's pov that's a nice thing.)

Both father and son are self-absorbed, opportunistic, cowards. We knew his father was a coward, we didn't know he was an opportunist and a nasty one at that.

He also came back into Rumple's life to steal his grandson. Odd that. He got lonely and went after his son's son for companionship and used his son's inability to trust (something he caused) against him. And when Baelfire leaves the Enchanted Forest and ends up in Neverland - Pan is rather nasty to him.

Then Pan lets his grandson leave - so that he could get the heart of his great-grandson, in order to continue to live. (The parents feeding off the children to extend their own lifespan...nice metaphor there.)

Pan is the ultimate con artist. Everything about him is artifice, a trick. Nothing is real.
It's all smoke and mirrors. And the shadow - is part of the island and the reason he became Peter Pan. Because as the Shadow tells Pan - this place only children can visit in their dreams. By coming here and becoming Peter Pan, you made it real, you broke the rules, and you stayed here. It's no longer just a place of dreams.

The search for eternal youth is a destructive one.

Rather than let his son foil his plans or trap him in PAndora's box, he cleverly switches the boxes and traps his son. Rumple has been out of his depth since he came to Neverland, in part because he's fighting his own father. Rumple is now trapped inside the very box he intended to entrap his father.

Also nice twist on Pandora's box - instead of letting loose magic and horror like in the Greek myths, it entraps things.

4. Emma cleverly figures out a way to save her father and get everyone back to Storybrook with Neal and Rumplestilskin's help. Rumple states he'll do it - but he wants something big in return. To wit - his son responds, eh, no. You'll do it for free because it is the right thing to do! And Rumple caves immediately. (This is the opposite of Rumple vs. Pan. Rumple is a bit of a pussycat towards the people he loves, I'm not sure his father is capable of love any more than Regina's mother was - although at least Cora had an excuse, she'd removed her heart.)

5. Is it just me or are these writers obsessed with heart metaphor?

6. Wendy came back to save Baelfire from Peter Pan, but apparently waited too long. So got stuck there herself. (Another example of how self-sacrifice or saving someone doesn't always work out the way you intended.) As a result she aids Pan in destroying Neal's son.

7. Interesting that Rumple didn't tell anyone who Peter Pan really is. That information could have come in handy.

8. The shadow metaphor is another interesting metaphor in this series...both Rumple and Pan rip off their shadows. Does this weaken them in the same way that Cora ripping her heart out did? Doesn't appear to. Rumple is no different, neither is Pan.

9. Was admittedly surprised that they had Henry give Pan his heart. So is Henry dead? No doubt it. I can't imagine them killing him off permanently. I'm guessing this is a temporary set-back, sort of similar to Rumple being in Pandora's box. Although at this point, I can't figure out how they are going to defeat Peter Pan. The guy is always five steps ahead of them and a wee bit too clever. He has to have a weakness...

Overall, not a bad episode. Rather enjoyed it, actually. Even if the twist felt a wee bit too..something. Wonder how many people it pissed off? And how many loved it? (I fall between the two extremes.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think I love the twist (it's certainly the last thing I was expecting…I was almost thinking that somehow his doll was going to end up being Peter Pan, which I guess, in a way, it was, heh), although it's one of those where I (a) want to see the rest of this arc play out (ugh, so frustrated it's off next week for the American Music Awards) and possibly (b) rewatch all previous Pan scenes with this new information before fully judging. But what probably impressed me most of all was the subtle joke that the man who became Peter Pan was suffering from Peter Pan Syndrome! There's something really brilliant and wickedly subversive about that.

But what probably impressed me most of all was the subtle joke that the man who became Peter Pan was suffering from Peter Pan Syndrome! There's something really brilliant and wickedly subversive about that.

Oh very much so. Considering how much our media and advertising plays into that and caters to it. I mean, the movie HOOK is all about Pan reconnecting with his inner child and being a kid again.

This subverts it. It also...subversively depicts the child version of the father being far nastier than the adult version. While you could say that the adult version loved his son or at least feared for him, the child version doesn't appear to care at all - unless it benefits him. Rarely do we see child villains on television.

And it twists...the whole adult fantasy - "I want to be Peter Pan". The father changes Neverland from a place of wonder for childhood dreams to a nightmare - by insisting on remaining there as a child, giving up all his responsibilities. And deprives both his son and his great grandson of their childhoods in different ways - in exchange for returning to childhood himself.

Very clever.

The connection to the doll - I loved. And how he gave Rumple the doll and each time Rumple tries to throw it away on the island, it ricochets back to him.

I loved the twist.

Although at this point, I can't figure out how they are going to defeat Peter Pan. The guy is always five steps ahead of them and a wee bit too clever. He has to have a weakness...

I think the weakness is the usual one that afflict characters that gain this much power-- thinking that they're invulnerable leads them to become careless, or to assume that no one else could possibly become more powerful than they are.

One of the things that I enjoy about this show are the twists-- it certainly helps avoid boredom when you don't know what's coming next. I mean, for example, I was sure that Tinkerbell was the one in the cage, but it turned out to be Wendy Darling-- a story thread literally started an entire season ago that suddenly reappears. Yet, in retrospective, it makes perfect sense, just as Peter Pan being Rumple's father makes perfect sense in retrospect.

I do think that somehow, Emma and Regina will be the ones to save the day. I give the writers credit for bringing this about slowly so that it's believable, but I think that Regina is coming to both respect and appreciate Emma rather than see her as an enemy, or someone who's only there to take Henry away from her. She'd never admit it to anyone else at this point in time-- and perhaps not even to herself, but there's the glimmer of understanding forming that Emma could be her savior, not just Storybrooke's or Henry's.

Emma clearly has magical abilities, which Regina has been trying to foster, ostensibly to save Henry, but-- Emma understands the lure of the dark side, but rejects it. Regina may finally come to believe that if Emma can do it, she could too. I believe that part of the reason, likely the primary one, that Regina rejected Tinkerbells' offer of redemption, even the possibility of having someone love her, was because Regina is convinced that once one falls as badly as she has (or Rumple, for that matter), there's no coming back, so why even try?

First we have Emma and Regina combine their magicks to save Storybrooke, which Regina told everyone was "impossible". We are now reminded of that combined power when they work together to provide the lunar eclipse that allows them all to enter Skull Island. Note that this time Regina asks Emma to help her, where before Emma offered to help Regina.

My guess is that the two of them combine their power yet a third time to save Henry and defeat Pan, likely with the "belief" of the others channeling yet more power through the two of them.

As to one mistake Pan may have made-- Henry's heart may have brought restored the full power of magic to Neverland, making Pan more powerful, it may also make every other magical being there more powerful also.

And Rumple's in the box. Who's left? Yep, exactly. Two very pissed off (magical) mothers.

Edited 2013-11-18 04:50 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree that Regina and Emma are clearly going to be the ones who ended up saving Henry, fits the pattern of the series to date.

Working together - they'll accomplish it. It's getting them to trust each other and work together that is key. I honestly don't think Baelfire or Hook will factor heavily - except possibly to enable them to do it, along with the Charmings.

Someone has to save Rumple from the box though - so that Charming can be healed. I'm actually more concerned about Rumple and Charming...weirdly enough.

And I'm thinking Masq may be right below - the shadow in the coconut is the key.

I also rather like that while others question Rumple's sincerity re: saving Henry, no one doubts that Regina is truly all about saving Henry. They may not (and probably should not) trust her in any other respect, but they implicitly trust the fact that she's there to rescue Henry... because she is.

Yep, there's no question in anyone's mind that Regina wants Henry to be safe and happy. Regina's whole bit was really last season - and her decision to sacrifice her life to save Storybrook and ensure Henry did not grow up alone without his family - earned their trust. Keep in mind the events of this season happen just five days after Regina saved Storybrook with Emma's help.

Rumple on the other hand has yet to prove himself. And the reveal that a prophecy exists that states a boy will be his undoing (it may well be ending up in the box), provides incentive for them to distrust him. Also he had his shadow hide the dagger to prevent anyone from killing him including himself. Self-preservation as Regina states rules supreme with Rumple here.

This season feels more like Rumple's arc than Regina's - she's more in the background.

OK, this only just popped into my head while I was editing some errors in my first post:

"The boy will be your undoing."

Rumple is trapped in Pandora's box. Rumple was defeated by his own father.

Is the prophecy now fulfilled?

Think-- Either Henry or Pan-- the boy who was Rumple's father-- fits the bill if you think about the wording literally.

Even if you figure on it being just Henry, Rumple is pretty much "undone" by being cast into Pandora's Box, and he did it to save Henry.

Edited 2013-11-18 05:00 (UTC)

I didn't think of that either - but it works. The boy who is Rumple's undoing is his father and the source of Rumple's undoing is his arrogance that he could trap his father in a box on his father's island, where his father has the power and control.

Also in a sense both boys are Rumple's undoing - and both are connected to him.
Or better yet all three boys. His son, his grandson, and his father. Rumple himself has never really been able to be a boy.

The parallels of Peter, Rumple's, and Baelfire's lives are striking. Henry, luckily, takes after his mother's side of the family and I think will break the "curse" of his father's lineage.

After, you know, he gets his heart back and all.

Yep, that's what occurred to me as I was writing my post...that Henry is more like Snow than Rumple. He more self-sacrificing than self-preserving. But, I do like how they are showing that self-sacrificing can be a big character flaw.
As Emma states - this is not what heroes do. Heroism is not about sacrificing your life for a cause.

Which is an interesting message. One a lot of genre series don't tend to examine or want to examine all that closely.

One of the flaws of the first season of this show was its black-and-white heroes/villians happy endings heroism thing. They got over that pretty quickly.

Yes, they fixed it fast. Thank god.

They also drug out some storylines - such as the love triangle of doom (Katherine/David/Mary Margaret).

Regina seemed very one dimensional in S1. And the pov seemed to be too heavily in Henry's, which may explain the black and white heroes/villians dynamic.
When I did my rewatch - I found S2 moving a lot faster and being a whole more interesting than S1.

This is an example of a tv series that improves with time, as opposed to diminishes.

I am going to go out on a limb (heh) here and argue that Peter Pan being Rumplestiltskin's father has a certain Occam's Razorian elegance that is what makes stories that pull it off work better on an emotional level.

There is a story about the script-writing process for The Empire Strikes Back. When the original Star Wars was written and produced, they had not yet decided that Darth Vadar was Luke Skywalker's father. When Obi Wan says, "Vadar betrayed and murdered your father", canon considered them two different people, possibly good friends in the Jedi core.

George Lucas was flailing around as he always does while trying to plot out the script. The first script was highly convoluted. They trying to bring in the first real confrontation between Luke and Darth, do all the exposition on what had happened between Anakin and Darth so the emotional trajectory of the movie could be figured out. It was falling emotionally flat.

And then one of his script writers said, "Why don't we just make Darth Vadar Lukes father, and find some way to hand-wave that line of Obi's in the first movie?"

It was a brilliant move that, thirty years later, is one of the few things you remember about those movies if you remember nothing else.

So I am hoping the show writers of OUAT do good things with this. They certainly are creative with their ideas.

The twist does definitely feel like the Star Wars twist in some ways. And it really can turn out to be quite brilliant.

I love it from a metaphorical/psychological/emotional standpoint. It's far better than having Baelfire have been Pan or Pan being a brother of Rumple's or just another villain. This does give the story a certain level of emotional resonance - and it fits the pattern or fabric - in that Cora turned out to be the Queen of Hearts in Wonderland.

I didn't know about the writing process behind Empire Strikes Back - that's fascinating. Reminds a little bit of Buffy, when the writers figured out
that Robin Wood was Nikki Wood's son - although they pull that off quite as well. Film is admittedly easier than tv, because you have more time.

I think the absurdity of the plot twist (and some people's mixed feelings about it) comes in the fact that fiction takes these short cuts and real life is nearly never as elegant. But as you say, there's a lot of emotional/metaphorical potential in this, which is what literature is all about, ultimately.

Yep, what people forget is reality can be rather boring and mundane half the time, that's why we read literature and fiction.

If we wanted "real life" we could turn off the tv set, which admittedly many do. Or switch to a show that depicts it - such as Parenthood (it comes closest). Or better yet, half a dozen reality tv shows (which prove how boring and grating reality can be.)

It's sort of like the uproar over Neal being Baelfire - that too may have felt a bit too elegant and neat to many fans. And I can understand why. It's not real. But stories that start with the words "Once Upon a Time" aren't supposed to real. It's sort of like complaining about Abstract Art or the Impressionists not being like photographs or as detailed as realism paintings.

Edited 2013-11-18 13:55 (UTC)

That's a good analogy. Art is an abstraction of the human experience, designed to highlight certain parts and downplay others. Fantasy shows all the more so, since they can step outside the lines of what is possible. This show is good at getting into the emotional landscape of parent-child dynamics and the experience of growing up (or failing to).

Agreed. Metaphors in fantasy can often get closer to emotional reactions and how we feel about things than literal depictions can. It's sort of the right brain/left brain dynamic. We often feel things in our gut, which we can't quite explain or put words to - but metaphors in fantasy can often explain them perfectly.

And using Peter Pan - a recognized metaphor to examine that father-son dynamic, is quite brilliant. Normally its Pan/Hook where we see the father-son dynamic explored, but here - it's more complex. For the father has literally regressed into Peter Pan. And if you think about it - he's also performed quite the con job on himself and everyone else. Creating a persona that is larger than life, and heroic, and every boy's and girl's fantasy - as your icon depicts brilliantly. The father couldn't handle reality - so retreated to his childhood fantasy, where he did not have a son, never had a wife, she never died, and he was never a failure.

Soooo have to rewatch the season now with this new tidbit in mind. I'm already thinking of a few throw-away lines of Pan's that mean something totally different if he is Rumple's father (like remarking about Henry's "lineage" in a previous episode).

There are also things that in retrospect make Pan an absolute sociopath in regards to Rumple, Baelfire, and Henry.

Of course, there are also a few lines, such as when Rumple confronted Pan around the bonfire when he was gathering together his original lost boys, including young Baelfire, where the writers cheated a bit and had the two refer to Rumple's father in the third person. Of course, that can be hand-waved as Pan dissociating himself from his adult persona and its responsibilities and ties.

Extra creepy.

Yep, I have to buy the S3 DVDS. OUAT of all the television series that I've seen - really works very well on DVD. Almost better on DVD. And requires lots of rewatching. Because the story changes when you rewatch it. You see new things.

Rumple's relationship with Belle and Mellah - makes a whole lot more sense now that you know he had no mother, and was raised by spinsters.

As does his relationship with Bae. I just figured out why he didn't go through the porthole with Baelfire - probably Post Traumatic Stress over going through a similar one with his own father ages ago.

And the thread of cowardice sticks - Rumple was afraid of staying in Enchanted Forest because he thought he'd lose his father there, so he has his father run away with him to another place and trusts his father to pick the place against the advice of the spinsters who gave him the bean. He's indirectly responsible for what happens to his father - and probably blamed himself for it happening. It explains why he can't quit trust his son.
From his perspective - everyone leaves him, which explains the deals, the inability to trust, and the opportunist streak.

And you're right - Pan is a sociopath. I'm not sure the father was prior to becoming Pan. But Pan as sociopath is a trope in psychology. The child who refuses to grow up and has no sense of right and wrong, everything is just a game with no dire consequences. When we are in Pan's pov - Hook is the villain, but a comical one, who he can have tormenting. But draw a few feet back and you see something different.

Just thought of another moment that is more significant in retrospect. In ep 2, the Charmings come across someone they think is Henry--dressed up in Henry's clothes but with his back to them--and it's Pan.

The resemblance of Henry to Pan (great casting by the way) suddenly makes more sense, as does Pan's accent - which is closer to Rumplestilskin's.

As does the fact that Pan knows the face of the truest believer - the truest believer has to be biologically related to him.

One continuity error of a sort is that baby Rumple and grown up Peter have Scottish accents. Adult Rumple definitely has a Scottish accent, but young Pan is more English.

You have a good ear - I was attempting to figure it out last night and gave up. Of course you can fanwank it as picking up the accents of those around him over time.

I've watched way too much Highlander not to know a Scot when I hear one.

Also, Robert Carlyle's brogue is high Scottish on the DVD extras.

Yes, Carlyle has a very thick Scottish brogue, which he waters down for the series.

For the father has literally regressed into Peter Pan. And if you think about it - he's also performed quite the con job on himself and everyone else.

In retrospect, the reveal makes Peter's self-appointed position as the righteous leader of a group of abandoned boys really, really hypocritically sick. He's their jailer. But then, we already knew that.

Oh yes...and after reading Selenak's post on the episode, something else occurred to me - the father/Pan breaks the rules by inhabiting Neverland.
He has turned it into his romantic and idealized version of childhood - where you can get whatever you want and do whatever you want merely by wishing it. This is fine in dreams, but in actuality it becomes darker.
And prior to inhabiting it, people merely visited Neverland in dreams, now he abducts them and keeps them there - as a sort of combination of jailer/dictator.

Lying to himself that they want to be there and he's helping them.

I think the key to defeating Pan has something to do with the shadow they trapped in Neal's coconut.

Boy, I wonder how conversations about this show come across to non-fans. They must sound insane.

Could be. Maybe the key to defeating him is the same as the key to leaving the island. Particularly now that we know the shadow is NOT Peter Pan's but rather the island's or part of the island. The island is an intelligent entity. (Reminds me oddly of the Dresden Files.)

Can Henry stay dead? That would be nice. The kid is at this point literally too stupid to live.

I'm not sure I liked the twist, though I had been thinking in previous weeks that the one character Pan doesn't constantly seem on the verge of making out with is Rumple, so now I very much appreciate that. Maybe the twist is as you say, too neat, or maybe after all this time we needed something a bit more epic. And now it seems like the shadow is the real power of the island.

I'm sure Emma (and Regina) will do something sacrificial to save stupid!Henry and because of the power of love and some blah blahs will be fine. I do wonder if Henry's heart will be left in Pan and that could be an excuse to put him on a redemption arc.

No, it's Disney and ABC - they aren't going to kill off the kid. Family Show.
Charming would die first. ;-)

The shadow feels like it may be an extension of the island. Interesting that it isn't Pan's shadow. I was convinced it was until this episode. But no, they made it clear - that's not Pan's shadow. Also it's now trapped inside a coconut which is in Emma's possession.

The twist works and it doesn't work at the same time. Which is interesting.
I do think it works brilliantly on a metaphorical/psychological/emotional and thematic level. And you can track it back plot wise. But...there's something a bit too neat about it. (I don't know if you've ever watched the series Scandal? But it's plot twists have a similar pulpy/daytime soap opera feel to them. That said, I adore pulpy/daytime soap plot twists. They are so emotionally satisfying - ie, the right brain adores, the left brain picks them apart.)

With any luck...this will educate Henry to be a little less guillible?
It does work in a way - Henry after all has been romanticizing heroism. But, on the other hand, Henry appears to do a 180 - he goes from hating magic and wanting to rid the world of it, to suddenly wanting to save magic. (In both cases - neither is possible. And it has zip to do with magic, but as Emma and Regina attempted to advise him - who is wielding the magic and why they are doing it. Henry has a child's black and white view - or the view that it is an external thing - magic. He puts his trust and belief in it. But not in his family or the people around him, which makes sense considering his weird childhood.)

Edited 2013-11-18 13:49 (UTC)

As far as it goes (which would be to Pan) it does fit with Once's overall viewpoint that evil is not innate, it's created. It's created through both circumstances and choices that are made. Both Rumple and Regina were victims at some point... but they also chose to become villains. So yes, evil is a result of evil and of free will choices. You can choose to do good or ill at any point, so Rumple and Regina cannot simply point to their parent. But they also have weaknesses because of things they went through. What their parents did in no way justifies what they became, but it does explain why they are the way that they are. It's motivation rather than justification. (And I do think both will eventually be redeemed, it will be up to them and will require their giving up excuses and accepting that they themselves made their choices. That said, that doesn't mean that once they weren't victims. Rumple's dad is a piece of work.

Evil does perpetuate evil (though with an assist by bad choices made for expediency, selfishness, or weakness along the way).

Agreed. I think it does a rather good job of showing that evil is neither born nor innate but created by a series of external circumstances and internal reactions and choices to them.

Regina for example is given a choice by Tinkerbell to let go of her grief, pain, and hatred over Daniel's tragic death - a tragic death that she ironically inflicts on Emma with Sheriff Graheam, albeit for different reasons. But Regina out of fear, stubbornly refuses to do so and chooses to hold on to the pain instead. This choice while to a degree is informed by her relationship with her mother, was still her own. And the reason she backed away in fear - was she didn't want to go through the same thing again with her mother or anyone else - how would this guy fare and would he fare any better. So much safer to hold onto the hate. She does appear to realize this though, which means she can change. The first step towards change is self-awareness. Not constantly pointing the finger elsewhere - which she is doing less of now.

And Rumplestilskin similarly is given a choice - this time by his son to give up magic and jump through the porthole. But ironically it is the same choice he'd given his father - to leave their land and get a better life instead of selling the bean for money. This may explain why Rumple couldn't go through the porthole Baelfire opened and abandoned his son - because of what happened the last time he opened a porthole and went somewhere with a person he loved. He was most likely afraid of ending up in Neverland again and losing everything he cared about.

Fear appears to be motivating these characters - fear of having that traumatic event reoccurring. The parents actions have installed in a way that fear but also a means of combating it - which in Regina and Rumple's case wasn't exactly a helpful one. Which is a nice commentary on fairy tales - which traditionally had been told by parents to children to instill fear of something - don't go into the woods or you could get eaten by the wicked witch, but at the same time they provide clues on how to survive the wicked witch.

I liked the twist. It was too neat, but it does work well with everything. And of course, it further complicated the question "Who is not related to Henry?" Next, we'll learn that Blue Fairy is Rumple's grandmother... (please, no)

But, yes, Peter Pan is a very effective villain. As for his downfall - too clever villains usually out-clever themselves. We'll see how this will play out. After all, Henry is a true believer who believes he is saving magic, so his heart in Peter Pan - it might not work exactly the way Peter Pan imagined it would. It is Neverland, after all.

I really loved the scene of rescue where all three Henry's parents stood shoulder to shoulder united in their love and true concern for Henry. It just might mean something, too - after all, the show faced criticism for making adopted parents look worse than biological (I didn't see it - Regina was bad because she is Evil Queen, not because she adopted Henry.)

It just might mean something, too - after all, the show faced criticism for making adopted parents look worse than biological (I didn't see it - Regina was bad because she is Evil Queen, not because she adopted Henry.)

Agreed, if anything, her treatment of Henry has always been consistently decent. Not perfect, but I wouldn't say she was abusive either. That's why Henry tends to be more forgiving towards her. His only issue with her was her lies and the fact that nothing in the town changed.

People are nutty.

After all, Henry is a true believer who believes he is saving magic, so his heart in Peter Pan - it might not work exactly the way Peter Pan imagined it would. It is Neverland, after all.

Good point. It certainly follows with the heart metaphors...remember Cora changed when she got a heart. She was able to finally feel love. Would Henry's heart have a similar effect on Pan?

And yes, I agree - this show is getting a wee bit too incestuous for words. Everyone seems to be related to each other. LOL!

I found this a very absorbing and interesting read - thanks!
Can I ask a question? You said: "one of the five things you are told not to do in creative writing courses". What are the five?
(I googled, and got to Robert Heinlein's five rules, but I'm guessing that's not it.)

Don't really remember to be honest, it was really just a throw-away line.
Sort of like - "as you learn in creative writing courses - never hit a character with a bus."

Examples of things they tell you in creative writing courses:

1. Don't kill a character with a bus (basically means make your character deaths count towards the plot and try to avoid cliches.)

2. Be wary of the reader's suspension of disbelief. EX: Even if you grandfather had three brain tumors, just have him die of one. Or don't have every main character or villain who pops up in a story be related to the main ones.

3. Don't write in the first person unless you can distance yourself from the character. Or risk turning the character into a Mary Sue/Marty Stu.

Those are off the top of my head and via my memory of taking lots of these sorts of courses.

Thanks! I really feel my lack of technical language for concepts in writing (until I came to these general parts, I'd never heard the term "unreliable narrator", for example; I knew the idea, but not the term!) and of any survey of how writing works, or what automatically would throw a story out of kilter.

Ah. You're very welcome.

Go here for a good list regarding rules of writing:

http://www.vulture.com/2013/08/read-elmore-leonards-10-rules-of-good-writing.html

These are Elmore Leonard's 10 Simple Rules of Writing. (Leonard is an acclaimed screen-writer and novelist.)

1) Never open a book with weather.
2) Avoid prologues.
3) Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue.
4) Never use an adverb to modify the verb "said” … he admonished gravely.
5) Keep your exclamation points under control. You are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose.
6)Never use the words "suddenly" or "all hell broke loose."
7) Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.
8) Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.
9) Don't go into great detail describing places and things.
10) Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.

Exclamation marks and 'suddenly' are certainly problems for me; I'll bear in mind the two or three per 100,000 words rule. :) It would be a real challenge for me to delete 'suddenly' altogether, but... it could be very interesting working my way around it.

Thanks! (Thought about deleting that exclamation mark, and decided, no, I really needed it. :) )

Hee. A trick is to cut all words that end in "ly" from your story.
Keep in mind exclamation marks are like "shouting" or all CAPS.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

OUAT: tonight's episode...which, ahem, was definitely surprising

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject