Board Thread:Character Discussion/@comment-4839682-20131003142941/@comment-23906605-20131006234531

TNOandXadric wrote: As for how Regina could feel affection for Snow but still murder her beloved father, there's two things: First, Regina felt no such affection for Leopold, and second, Regina's entire context for affection or love of any kind is Cora (who was abusive and cruel), Henry Sr (who stood by and let it happen without a word), and, much later, Daniel (who died because of the kind of love that Regina believed in). People learn how to love from others, and especially from parents, and for eighteen years, the only kind of love Regina saw was twisted and unhealthy, or in the one case where it was healthy, led immediately to violent murder.

Psycologically speaking, those two points you raised are utterly illogical. One does now kill someone if one simply doesn't feel affectionate towards that person -- unless they're in fact a conscience-free sociopath. Also, one does not kill someone by easily ignoring the fact that a third person (whom one claims to feel affection for) adores the person one wants to kill -- unless thet're in fact a certified conscience-free sociopath with no understanding of gulit, love or empathy. And saying that acting this way is plain manifestation of ones horrible upbringing is equally illogical. Doing that requires that we overlook more recent factors that also help to mold an adult's character. To execute a plan like Regina's, which included premeditating, one would need reasons that would surpass the roots that lead all the way back to hate.

She might have been a "confused mix" before. But at the time of Leopold's death, that ship had sailed. She clearly already hated Snow and had already been nurturing that hate for a while. How can you think otherwise? How can you still say Regina didn't fully think through the implications of what she did and how it would affect Snow after the dialog I provided? The dialog shows -- it does not imply -- that Regina despised both Snow and her father. If it's been a while, perhaps you could re-watch "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter" and "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree". You will see what Regina does, says and, more importantly, how she says and does it. Her body language and her tone in that dialog with the Mirror again, do not only imply, but show her true feelings for Snow and makes it pretty clear that it was a plan to kill them both. Plus, at that point in her life, she didn't want just revenge anymore. She wanted more power as well. She wanted to kill Leopold and Snow so she could have the Kingdom and the love and empathy of the peasants all to herself. Getting the genie to kill Leopold was in fact a great seizing of opportunity. But it doesn't mean it was a crime of opportunity. It was premeditated. When the genie realizes he was played and asks if Regina ever loved him, she says "Love you? I wanted the King dead and you killed him. You are no longer of any use to me." And the Mirror did not advise her to kill Snow. He merely said "then what you need is a huntsman" when she said she needed someone with no emotion, with no heart to kill the girl. Maybe re-watching those two episodes isn't a bad idea.

Yes, it's reasonable to assume that MM wanted David to make that change happen. And for me, that would be the only way to go. I'm not an intense feminist at all, but I still think and I'll keep thinking that if MM (or the Queen of Sheba for all I care) had gone over to tell the truth to the guy's wife, it would have been a clear overstepping on bounderies, and a demeaning and uncomfortable thing to do. Uncomfortable for the two women, that is. The man, who would not be present, would stay oblivious as to how that conversation between his two ladies went. How convenient for him that his lover is doing all the dirty work, isn't it? That just fries my brain. Plus, the way you suggested the conversation went... tellinh Kathryn she was there because David didn't have the guts to go over there and tell her himself? After pulling something like that, David would have every reason to be angry with MM for downrightly suggesting to his wife that he was a coward. This is definitely not a healthy foundation to build a new relationship on. And I imagine Kathryn's side of the conversation: "Who are you again? Why are you telling me this? Where is my husband? You honestly decided to take his place in what should have been a very private personal conversation between me and him so you could keep your sense of being a morally upstanding person? So you could tell yourself you did the right thing? You know what... Why don't you go see the Wizard? Ask him for some good sense."

As for the characters and their Storybrooke counterparts being the exact same person, whether it was merely cultural or whether the curse changed something inside them is a little beside the point. My original point was that Snow White wouldn't have agreed to take part in an affair. The points I'm trying to make now are that they are different and that they act differently. For whatever reason. And I maintain that point of view by bringing up (again) that the creators of the show and Josh Dallas said on numerous occasions that David was the opposite of Charming. Ignoring that to follow solely my interpretation that they are the same, would be the same thing as ignoring the fact that Christopher Nolan intended for the spinning top to drop in the final scene of "Inception". Also, in "Welcome to Storybrooke", Regina says "everybody in this town does exactly what I want them to." The curse didn't just take away their memories. It replaced their memories with completely new different ones, therefore making them a different person from what they were before. In "We Are Both", Charming gives the following speech:

"If you cross that [town] line, you're gonna be lost. Everyone who loves you will lose you. But there's something worse. You'll lose yourself. [...] I get that it's easier to let go of bad memories, but even bad memories are part of us. David -- Storybrooke David -- was, IS... weak. Confused. And he hurt the woman I love. I wouldn't give up being Charming just to be him. But you know what? I wouldn't make the other trade either. Because that David not only reminds me of whom I lost, but of who I want to be. My weaknesses and my strengths. David and the Prince. I am both, just like you."

That sustains the thought that even he [the character] considered David and Charming as being opposites. I don't remember seeing any moment in which Charming was weak. And there were moments in which I thought he was going to be. Like in the siren scene in "What Happened to Frederick". The siren, her (Snow) looks and her charms made it very tempting for Charming to give into his weakness. But he didn't. He showed he was not weak and he was capable of killing and getting away from the creature -- something no one had been able to do before. If it were David in that situation, I think he would have given in and died right then and there.

And true love may be a laughable concept for you who don't want any kind of romantic relationship. But you shouldn't be affirming that's also true for the rest of the world, because it isn't. It's not nice to assume things that are true for you are also true for other people. True love is something that even if most people don't believe in it, most people want it. This "telling the truth is a lot scarier than doing something physically dangerous" is also not true for everybody. I'm sure that for David, telling the truth and taking the risk of hurting himself and others emotionally would be a lot scarier than facing physical pain. But for Charming, or for any other person with high moral ideals and dislike for lies, telling the truth is always the first choice, no matter what the consequences. For most people (again, not for everybody), it is easier to stand up to our enemies than to our friends. But that doesn't mean that's what most people would choose to do. You shouldn't be generalizing so much.

I'd like to remind you that bandit Snow lived alone and on the lamb for quite some time. The fact that the peasants took her side over the Queen's doesn't mean she took that as a direct source of emotional support. People in Storybrooke liked Mary Margaret and even so you said yourself she was a lonely person. Plus, saying that Mary Margaret more than likely has memories of being unrelentingly bullied in school is outrightly making things up to sustain what you want to defend. Henry said from the beginning that people in Storybrooke has very fuzzy hazy memories regarding their pasts. That is proven when Emma asks MM how is it possible for Regina, who's not much of a people person, to be the mayor and MM says "I don't know. She's been the mayor for as long as I can remember." Another conversation that proves that is the following one from "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter":

Graham: Mary Margaret, how long have we known each other?

''MM: I don't know. A while.''

Graham: Do you remember when we met?

''MM: ... (puzzled) No.''

''Graham: Me neither. I can't remember when I met you or when I met anyone.''

What you're saying is logic, but it isn't and it hasn't been proved as something true. That is committing logical fallacy. I don't believe we have ever seen any scene in which any Storybrooke character mentioned anything about remembering their Storybrooke childhood. If they didn't remember more "recent" events such as meeting each other or electing a mayor, how could they possibly remember their school days? In addition, the only people in Storybrooke who seem likely to bully anyone are Regina and Mr. Gold. The others relish on having a nice and respectful relationship with everyone else in town.

[And a quick note on this: So women need "additional status" to overcome the fact that they are not treated well? Don't you hear how sexist and offensive that sounds?]

Yes, the peasants liked Snow, but during the period she lived on the run, she was also a very lonely person. Before she found Charming, Red, Granny and the dwarves, she didn't have love, friends, she didn't have the power that comes with being royalty and neither did she have any other main source of moral support that made her strong, as you say. And yet, Snow was fierce enough to always fight for what she believed was right and to defend her sense of justice, while MM just let everything Regina did to her go by. The two dialogs you provided just show that Snow, as a human being, can be doubtful and lose hope from time to time. They don't reassure she is the same as Mary Margaret.

I don't have a very high opinion of Henry Sr. either and he always was in fact an inactive parent, but he was thinking of her when he asked her to try and find another path to happiness that wasn't vengeance. We see that in almost all the episodes he appears. He asks her to let go of that desire for revenge and that's why I believe he suggested she should surrender.

Hook has his reasons, all right. But it all seemed a bit fast to me how he suddenly changed his mind on his plan of killing Rumple. I'd love to see the writers explore Hook's feelings a bit more. Emma and Regina want to save Henry because they love him, he's their son, no argument there. For me, Snow and Charming aren't there just for Emma or just because they believe family always has to find each other. Henry is their grandson and they both love him as well. Specially Charming, who got the chance to spend a lot of quality bonding time with him during season 2. I agree on what you said about Rumple's reason, though. Interestingly, feeling angry at losing someone instead of feeling sad is also one of the main characteristics of sociopathic behavior. That is precisely how I interpreted Rumple's feelings about losing Henry. I don't think he is a sociopath, though. If he were, Rumbelle shippers wouldn't even exist, I'm sure.

What we're doing by trying to defend our different points of view is most definitely worthwhile. But literary analysis and film (or in this case, TV series) analysis are somewhat different. To analyze a narrative/a movie, we need to take into consideration the possible message the author/director wanted to send. But in literature, our analysis kind of transcends the author's intent and there aren't many other factors (other than the narrative itself) that would influence our interpretation. In movies, however, you have a whole set of factors that contribute to how we're going to interpret a particular scene. Let's take the scene in which Snow is telling Wilma why she saved her and how she had once been saved by a kind stranger, for example. To film that scene, the director told Ginnifer to act nostalgic. To make the scene even more earnestly touching, the editing team added an emotional soundtrack to the background. To end the scene in the most emotional way possible, the director tols Lana she had to act emotional, as though Regina had believed the story Snow had just told her. All of those factors were directly intended by the writers of that episode because that was the message they were trying to send; that the scene was heartfelt and genuine. Ignoring all that would be committing yet another logical fallacy. The only point of the "what if" game is to try to overlook and invalidate the pathos and logos provided in that scene. Plus, "what if" is in no way a valid argument to prove Snow had her own personal agenda when she decided to save Wilma. Also, saying she knew her actions would win her the favor of the peasants and saying that this was calculated are two entirely different things (bare in mind there is no hard evidence to prove neither of them are true) and it is again twisting what was shown into what you interpreted. I think that if the writers intended Snow to be this manipulative deceiving chess master you want her to be, they wouldn't have combined those elements to create an emotional scene. Instead, they would have combined other elements to show how it was all a political stunt. Maybe a scene showing interaction between Snow and the supportive peasants after saving Wilma. Or even a scene showing interaction between the peasants themselves discussing their opinios regarding Snow's actions. In fact, if she were the sort of scheming person who does those things, the creators would have explored that side of her from the get-go of the show. But did any of those things happen? No.

I think the parent problem stems from the fact that all of them find it difficult to just admit they're doing something wrong when it comes to their relationship. I'm dying to see if they will at least put this out there in tonight's episode. I don't think that Snow and Charming don't always acknowledge Regina ad Henry's mother. And Emma doesn't always do that herself. In "We Are Both", Charming says "if you need to use magic to keep your son, you don't really have him." He could have just said "Henry" instead of "your son". It's not that they don't acknowledge Regina as being Henry's mother. It's just that they seem to believe Emma is "more mother" because of the blood relation. Emma, on the other hand, has on countless occasions implied and even said to Regina's face that she's not Henry's mother. Again, I'm sure Emma acknowledges Regina as Henry's mother, but she feels that she is more entitled to that label. I'm still hoping to see more scenes in which Regina confronts Emma about that. And let's all keep our fingers crossed for a more colorful moral sense for Henry.

About the "arrow to Regina's head" moment, I'm not saying Regina should have tried to reason with Snow at that precise moment. It would've been stupid if she had. If she wanted redemption even after Snow claimed she believed Regina was beyond hope, she wouldn't have had the following conversation with Rumple right after that moment:

''Regina: You were right. They [the peasants] will never love me.''

''Rumple: So sad and yet, so true. What do you want to do now, dearie?''

Regina: Punish them.

And that brings me back to my original point: Regina only wants or believes in redemption when someone gives her a reason to.

"We are not killers" was definitely not the appropriate thing to say even in that situation, much like "let us share our wisdom". As for the ridiculousness in it, "I ruined your life?" was an equally ridiculous thing to say, then. Because by saying that, Regina did what you've been saying Snow does: she tried to hide, or better yet, she ignored the countless occasions in which she has tried to destroy Snow/MM's life. So much for your argument that Regina acknowledges everything she does wrong.

Cora wasn't starving? The "I, for one, would like to able to eat this week" she says in the first two minutes of the episode begs to differ. If the mill was as successful as you say, they wouldn't be going hungry. If the mill was at all successful, they wouldn't be going hungry. Not being royalty does not automatically mean that one's life is crappy. But having a drunk deadbeat father who doesn't even provide food for the house does. So she wasn't doing pretty well for herself, which is probably why she wanted power. I didn't say Rumple created those desires insire Cora. I said magic did. That's how magic seems to work. It seems that if you use it for good, it intensifies the good in you. If you use it for bad or for power... oh well, if you're not careful, it turns you into Rumple, Cora or Regina.

I want to see what Regina will choose to do this season. She's gonna need her magic until she gets Henry back. I want to she what she's going to do with it after she has him again.

About the "yes, blame me -- again", I actually hope to see Snow say that to Emma. It wouldn't be quite as interesting to see Snow lash out at Regina as it would to see her say to her own daughter something like "would you just stop blaming us for everything?". The way I see it, as long as Emma keeps resenting them for every little thing that happened in the past -- things that are unfixable -- they will never be able to focus on the many other fixable aspects of their relationship. And that would be sad.

Not admitting they ruined each other's lives and not apologizing for it are two completely different things. Snow has done both. Regina has done none. Like you said, Snow answered "yes" when Charming asked her if she had ruined Regina's life. And she tried to apologize to Regina more than once. Off the top of my head, I can remember two of those occasions. Chronologically, the first time was when Regina took her to Daniel's tomb. When Snow heard the truth, she said "I'm sorry", which I'll admit was nowhere near what I would consider a heartfelt apology. However, the other moment in which she decides to apologize is incredibily emotional. When the Huntsman is hunting her in the woods, she stops to write a letter to Regina, which says:

"Dearest Stepmother,

''by the time you read this, I will be dead. I understand that you will never have love in your life because of me, so it's only fitting that I'll be denied the same joy as well. For the sake of the Kingdom, I hope my death satisfies your need for revenge, allowing you to rule my father's subjects as they deserve. With compassion and a gentle hand. I know what you think you're doing is vengeance; I prefer to think of it as sacrifice for the good of all. With that in mind, I welcome the end. I want you to take my last message to heart. I'm sorry and I forgive you."''

That is admitting and feeling sorry for it. As for Regina, when Snow says "I'm tired of you ruining my life", she simply responds with the previously mentioned ridiculous "I ruined your life?". When Snow says "you took my father! Haven't we both suffered enough?" (suggesting they should stop this cat-and-mouse chase), Regina says "No." Hence, not admitting and not feeling sorry for any of it.

I would like to see a scene involving more tears and raw emotions between the two of them, though. If Snow is not saying "yes, blame me -- again" to Emma, I, too, will expect it to be to Regina. Or Regina to Snow.

The fact that Regina loves her mother doesn't mean she didn't blame or hate Cora for killing Daniel or that she didn't resent the way she was raised. Coincidently, developmental psychology and behavioral psychology are things I have been studying in some of my classes for some time. Which is why I don't agree her bad childhood should justify her horrific acts, considering she is not a sociopath and she does have a conscience bound to a sense of morality. This is also why I felt indignant when you qualified Snow as being a sociopath (and on top of that, said she was more likely to be one than Regina). But anyways... of course Regina's bad childhood explains what she does. But no respectable psychologist I know hammers the abuse point for too long. Once it is detected as cause to improper or uncommon behavior, the next step is try and turn that situation around and not keep with the "the kid is just doing that because he was abused, because that's what he learned."