Board Thread:Character Discussion/@comment-4839682-20131003142941/@comment-23906605-20131008170125

TNOandXadric wrote: Regina did not murder Leopold simply because she didn't feel affection for him—she murdered him because she was his pretty prize second wife with no autonomy and no means of escape other than his death. The point I was making was not why  Regina killed Leopold, but why she could justify killing Leopold WHILE ALSO having affection for Snow.

Ok, so let's look at it the way you do: She wanted to get away from the King, so she kills him because that was the only way. She shows no regret whatsoever for killing him, but she still comforts the man's daughter because she most definitely still has affection for the girl. In fact, she has "contradictory feelings". But then, 20 seconds later, she sees an "opportunity" to kill Snow and she takes it, just like that. Letting go of whatever "mental duality" and giving into the hatred you claim she didn't have.

You truly don't see how that doesn't make sense?

And, please, she could have easily gotten away with having Snow killed, just as easily as she diverted blame from herself after killing Leopold. Why didn't she ask the Huntsman to simply go to Snow's room and kill her right then and there? Instead, she asked the Huntsman to take Snow into the woods, a place where no witnesses of any sort were expected to be found so nobody would know that Snow was killed by someone who appeared to be Regina's personal, hand-picked guard. Much like Scar did when he told his brand new subjects about Simba's death in Disney's "The Lion King", Regina could have easily put on a show for her brand new subjects. With tears in her eyes, she could have come up with a million drastic scenarios that would make them cry their eyes out on the most unhappy event that took poor Snow away from the arms of her doting stepmother. Regina was not yet hated by the peasants. They had not yet turned on her (another thing that is proved in the dialog with the Mirror when she says "they would turn on me"). So she could easily have convinced them that she was devastated by having lost her beloved husband and her dearest stepdaughter in such a short period of time.

Another thing… Saying that Regina suffered from "mental duality", that she was having "contradictory feelings", would be assuming she was thinking something on the likes of "Snow is a constant reminder of why I will never have true love. I hate what she did to me, so I keep having these crazy desires to do something about it. I don't want to, though, because I still have genuine affection for her", right? But, there isn't a second in that episode that even suggests that that was what Regina was going through emotionally. And saying that what you see in the text I provided does not, in any way, suggest that Regina had planned Snow's death is metaphorically hoping on a road roller and trying to squash the evidence away and literally being intransigent.

When the Mirror says "Congratulations. Your revenger is almost complete", it shows us that Regina's revenge had not yet entirely been achieved. When she responds "One down. One to go.", it shows us that she succeeded in ending the life of one of the people she despised, but that one was still alive, so she still needed to do something about that and she was going to do something about that. When the mirror asks "She has no idea, does she?", it shows that the "she" in question is Snow.

You said Regina wasn't thinking about method. You said, in these exact words: "It wasn't a "handling delicately".

Now let Regina herself invalidate what you said, using pretty much the same words:

Regina: ''We must be delicate in this next phase. Her demise must be handled with care.''

If we are going to continue this particular part of the discussion I ask you -- again -- to please, re-watch "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter". Your memories (and interpretation*) are clearly affected by your character preferences and I'd rather not carry on this part of the conversation if that continues to be the case. While talking about our interpretations and how they differ and why we interpret things the way we do is a valid exercise, doing that when important facts or lines keep "slipping your mind" (or when you simply decide to take no notice them) is not.

* -- I keep saying your interpretation is clouded by your likes/dislikes because if Regina says "I could have ended Snow White's pitiful existence right then and there, but no, let's handle it delicately", you think that she didn't plan anything because she might somehow still care for Snow. On the other hand, if Snow says "Wilma, I saved you because a woman once made me believe that there can exist a selfless connection between people", you think she is acting like a conniving b--. You see my point?

Yes, and the "someone in the triangle" that should have been the one to tell her was David, her husband. While I (and gazillion other women around the globe) see the act of a woman taking the place of the man in a private conversation that should be carried on strictly by the man in question and his wife as "overstepping boundaries", "doing the dirty work" and as something that could only be suggested by a person with antifeminist and chauvinistic ideals, you clearly don't. We've been going on with this part of the conversation for like 4 or 5 comments. Why don't we just accept that I have my opinion and you have your opinion? Then we can proceed with the other topics :) The whole "I think this", "but I think this", "no, but I think this" is just going to tire us out.

Snow White had no problem carrying on with Charming while he was engaged to be married to another woman until George threatened her into it by threatening to have Charming assassinated -- Is that so? Please, tell me what "carry on" means for you here. Because if I remember correctly, the facts went like this: Charming got engaged to Abigail; Snow and Charming had their meet-cute and after that, parted ways; They didn't meet again for a while but he couldn't stop thinking about her and neither could she; She wished there was a way to forget about him, Red told her about Rumple, she went over to Rumple's and got the potion; When she was about to drink the potion, a bird arrived with a letter from Charming; In the letter, Charming asked her to meet him before the weeding, because if she saw him and felt the same, they would run away together (therefore annulling the engagement/wedding); She went to the castle, but got caught by King George's man so he would make her give up on the idea of meeting him. So again, I must ask, what did you mean by saying "she had no problem carrying on with Charming"? You consider a letter and a visit as carrying on an affair? And the fact that she seriously thought about drinking the potion seems to me that "she did have a problem" with her own feelings.

You are under no obligation to interpret the text the way the writers do. But I maintain my point of view that cinematic work is less subjective than literary work. But I'll get to that in a moment.

Regina didn't say "everybody in this town does exactly what I want them to" meaning that she controlled them. She said that to Mr. Gold because she was feeling unhappy about the fact that everybody in Storybrooke behaved the way she wanted and she finished the thought by saying "They do it because they have to, not because they want to".

David didn't want to change post-curse. In the speech he gives in "We Are Both" it's clear that he decided that now he wanted to be both Charming and David.

About the love thing… just a general wondering, if these people find the kind of one true love shown in OUAT insulting, what are they doing watching a TV show with plot lines directly derived from fairy tales? This concept that love can overcome any sort of obstacle, that love alone can sustain a relationship and make it last forever is a substantial element in basically all the fairy tales that narrate a love story. Read the original Snow White, the original Cinderella, the original The Sleeping Beauty, for example. If they find silly, ridiculous, laughable or downright insulting they could spare themselves by not watching a TV show that brings that idea into its plots.

Snow didn't know Charming wasn't a Prince when they met, but at some point he told her, so he was not living a lie then. And in "Lost Girl" it was reveled that Grumpy and all the other dwarfs knew Charming wasn't a Prince waaay before Storybrooke. Yes, you're right about that. I'm sorry, I had forgotten about that. He wasn't in fact the one to tell Abigail. But when she confronted him about it he was upfront, wasn't he? He did not tip-toe around her feelings, he admitted he didn't want to marry her and that he loved Snow. Now let's look at David's situation in Storybrooke:

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:13px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">''David: Kathryn, I can't go to Boston with you. Kathryn: Can't? Or won't? David: I am sorry. I'm so, so sorry. I don't know what to say. Kathryn: Try the truth. David, is there something going on that I don't know about? David: No! No, something happened. I don't know what it is! But there is something that's preventing me... from connecting—and it's not fair to you to let that screw up your life. You're right, you need a fresh start. It's just not with me.''

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:13px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">While Charming felt it was better not to lie to Abigail, Kathryn gave David a chance to tell the truth and he lied to her face.

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:13px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">Why are you saying Mary Margaret's life was unfulfilling and miserable? Please, provide facts to support that. And while you're at it, what scene(s) in the pilot made you so sure that she was a lonely person? Mary Margaret led a pretty ordinary life. There was nothing in her life that made it excessively happy. But there was also nothing in it to make it relentlessly unfulfilling and miserable. She had a job she seemed to enjoy, she had a nice relationship with pretty much everyone in town, she did voluntary work… It wasn't until some time after Emma arrived in town that her life started to change a little bit. And Emma was a direct source of support for Mary Margaret pretty early on.

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:13px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">Your anecdotal logical fallacy is not a sound argument to sustain your point that Mary Margaret probably had memories of being bullied and forgot about them. The human-memories-are-fallible thing is completely different from in-a-fictional-tv-show-character's-memories-were-erased-because-of-a-curse thing.

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:13px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">"On bullies and bullying: First: Perfectly nice adults can be absolute shits as children. In-show, even if you disagree with me about adult!Snow's personality, it's been demonstrated that young!Snow was an entitled brat who yelled at a servant with very little provocation." -- Yes… and your point is…?

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:13px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">You didn't just say women need certain advantages in order to be treated equivalently to men. You said in a culture where women are not treated well, Mary Margaret needed additional status to overcome that. Which is the same thing as saying that women who are not somehow it the top parts of the social pyramid are always going to feel inferior to men. That is one of the most degrading and demeaning things I've ever heard. Just because society thinks women are not equivalent to men, it doesn't automatically take away their conviction that they have the right to claim they are equals, much like gay people. The fact that society doesn't consider them as equals does not make it necessary for them to need additional status to overcome that. Don't blame society or our culture for being misogynistic and sexist and homophobic when you clearly have let those ideas influence your thoughts on what minorities need to overcome the differences our culture establishes.

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">Rumple is not a sociopath. Regina is not a sociopath. Snow is not a sociopath. Cora was a sociopath. She, herself, took away her ability to feel by ripping her own heart.

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:16px;">

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">You're not just saying you think Rumple is a sociopath, you're saying that he most definitely is one. Therefore, you must think you are 100% correct. But tell me, I am genuinely interested now… what are you basing your certainty on?

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:16px;">

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">I said that there wouldn't be any Rumbelle shippers because if Rumple were a sociopath, he wouldn't be with Belle. He wouldn't be able to love Belle the way the TV series shows he does. Some psychiatrists/psychologists even argue on whether or not sociopaths can have such a feeling at all.

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:16px;">

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">There are many reasons as to why most psychiatrists would suspect Rumple could be a sociopath. But they would not affirm they are 100% sure until they checked the other side of the picture: The many other reasons that would make it psychologically improbable for Rumple to be one. He displays signs of sociopathic and psychopathic behavior, but that DOES NOT make him a sociopath. His behavior and actions are easily explained by events that happened in his childhood (and throughout his life), just like you say Regina's are. He was abandoned by his father and he was afraid of becoming like his father when everybody thought he would. His wife despised him and left him and their son. Everybody saw him as a coward and many people humiliated him for that. He had to kiss someone's boots in front of Bae. When he became the Dark One -- to protect his son from a horrible fate -- he got drunk with power and since then became addicted to it and depended of it. Dark magic turned him into a monster and the fact that he feels he needs magic is what keeps him a monster. After that, he lost his only family and he knew he was responsible for it; that his need for magic was responsible for it. Then, as he put it, he found a brief flicker of light amidst an ocean of darkness and then, he lost her. He believed her to be dead and again, he knew he was responsible for it; that his need for power was responsible for it. All that explains why he acts the way he does. Everything he does is either for the sake of Bae, Belle or, unfortunately, magic.

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:16px;">

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">Let's take a look at this scientific fact:

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">Christopher J. Ferguson, Ph.D. conducted a meta-analysis and discovered that 56% of the variance in ASPD can be explained through genetic influences. Prior to that, Martha Stout, Ph.D. stated that research shows that as much as 50% of the cause of sociopathy can be attributed to heritability, while the other 50% is attributed to a combination of environmental and external factors.

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">From that, we can infer that people are either born with a predisposition to be a sociopath or they suffer some trauma or experience that can elicit such behavior. Another scientific fact is that that predisposition usually manifests itself pretty early on. Studies show that most sociopaths were children with sociopathic tendencies who manifested that propensity by hurting other children (physically or emotionally) or by physically harming animals. Now, Rumple suffered some traumas in his life prior to getting directly involved with magic. But there is absolutely no evidence that he had an inclination to sociopathic behavior until he became the Dark One. In fact, he was a perfect example of a kind and loving man before killing Zoso.

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:16px;">

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">Now let's look at two observations regarding sociopaths:

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:16px;">

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">''"[…] sociopaths are noted especially for their shallowness of emotion, the hollow and transient nature of any affectionate feelings they may claim to have, a certain breathtaking callousness. They have no trace of empathy and no genuine interest in bonding emotionally with a mate." -- ''Martha Stout, Ph.D

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">"Beauty and ugliness, except in a very superficial sense, goodness, evil, love, horror, and humor have no actual meaning, no power to move him." -- Hervey Cleckley, M.D.

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">Sociopaths have no real attachment to anyone. And whatever emotion they say they have is shallow and insubstantial. That is not the case with Rumple. His relationship with Belle is indeed dysfunctional, but he tries to love her in the least selfish way that he can. His love for Bae as well as his love for Belle is profound and powerful enough for him to want to change for them. A sociopath would never try to change their ways because their object of "affection" so desires.

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">Also, while "sociopaths have no trace of empathy", Rumple shows he does (not frequently at all, but still), or else he wouldn't have thought twice before putting an arrow between Robin Hood's eyes. Plus, his scene with Belle from "Lost Girl" episode made me reconsider what I said before about his motives. I honestly think he might be there for Henry. Trying his best to make right by his son. Which proves he has a conscience -- something described as "that intervening sense of obligation based in our emotional attachments to others". I take back what I said about it just being anger towards the simple fact that his enemy took something from him.

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">So considering sociopaths have no conscience at all, another thing that lacks in them is regret. And Rumple show signs of regret (again, I reckon, not frequently at all) for some of the things he did. One of the things you said makes sense, though: the comparison between Tom Riddle's and Regina's behavior. As you perceived, sociopaths act ruthlessly because they feel entitled to act that way. They feel superior to others in some way and they feel they have the right to act on that thought. Actions like those can hardly ever be explained. Basically, sociopaths have no problem in harming others just for the sake of harming others -- which does not rule out the possibility of hurting others to achieve personal goals. Now, instead of thinking of Regina's actions, let's think of Rumple's. Every ruthless act that Rumple does is motivated by his twisted notion of his need for revenge. In all the times he has killed, injured, humiliated or turned someone into an animal, he was doing that because that someone had done something to him, thus making him think he needs to get revenge. Examples: killing Milah, killing Tamara, making Hordor kiss his boot and then killing him…

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">So please ponder this and stop calling him and Snow sociopaths.

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">The fact that the mill was doing business with the royal family didn't guarantee its success and we saw no such thing in the episode. And saying that Cora was providing a good life for herself is either a fact that could not be entirely proved, considering we only got a few minutes of her life before she found her way to get into the royal family.

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:16px;">

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">Literature and cinema are art. But they are different types of art. They may be related, but they are not the same, they are different. Thus, their analysis should be done in a different way. Otherwise, you would have to analyze a book and a film adaptation of that book in the same way. Which is something you shouldn't do.

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:16px;">

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">I won't say anything in particular about "Oz: The Great and Powerful" because I haven't watched it, so I don't want to end up putting my foot in my mouth. [Sidetone: I was disappointed at the fact that pretty much everybody thought the movie was in fact very dull. The idea sounded so promising. Oh, well...]

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:16px;">

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">And you are most definitely entitled to interpret things they way you want. But in cinema/TV show, you can't, better yet, you shouldn't ignore not only visual media but also other extremely important elements like soundtrack. Have you ever watched any film production before it's final edited edition came out? If you haven't, I honestly suggest this activity as a really nice experience to see how extremely important soundtrack/musical score is.

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:16px;">

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">Let's take Snow and Wilma's scene again. If there hadn't been any musical score in that scene I couldn't point the genuine sincerity in it any more than you could point its deceitfulness. But there was a score. And it was one with the type of melody and emotion that indicated the scene was genuinely heartfelt and sincere. You're already not taking into consideration the writer/director's intent, you're not considering the acting itself as proof that the scene was honest, you're ignoring the fact that there wasn't any scene to directly indicate or suggest that Snow was being deceitful… so on top of all that, overlooking the musical score used in the scene would be just adding another thing to the list of things you're overlooking to fit what you believe is correct.

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:16px;">

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">Bringing back Snow and Regina's scene in Leopold's funeral, you're also completely overlooking that Lana acted emotionless and indifferent when she hugged Snow to "comfort" her.

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:16px;">

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">The fact is you are being single-minded and simply because you love Regina and hate Snow. You said yourself it had been a while since you had watched "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter" and yet you keep the "she wasn't planning, she wasn't going to act in that conniving way because she had affection for Snow". Regina refuses to acknowledge, admit and apologize for everything she did to Snow and you justify that by saying she's doing that because her life sucks and Snow's doesn't. And whatever, whatever Snow does, you side-eye her. You say she's a public seeker, that she's putting on a show, that she calculates every move, that she is conniving and deceiving.

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:16px;">

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">You've been going on about how everyone's vision is grey, you've been saying Henry has very poor critical thinking skills, when actually you, too, are following the logic of a colorblind person. No matter how many logical arguments we use to try to convince them brown and green are different colors, no matter what we say to them, in the end they're just going to say "That's not true. They are the same because that's what I SEE." (Please, don't infer I'm saying colorblind people believe brown and green aren't distinct colors. I am sure they know there is a color green and a color brown. It is a mere analogy.)

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:16px;">

<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">What I'm trying to say is that this part of our discussion feels to me like a one-sided conversation. Those are always tiring and boring, so maybe we shouldn't continue with this particular part.